The other solution doesn't work either if "Symbols" is not selected in a previous edit. Considering the docs, could this be a regression with the editor rather than a problem with the script?

As far as I understand, the docs say it should work. I'll try the other solution from that section as well.

This should be solved now: https://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3AToolbar.js&diff=17752944&oldid=17689874

In T423676#11842022, @Jdlrobson-WMF wrote:

Okay we reverted the change.

I want to file a Bugzilla upstream patch against Mozilla before I close this out for completeness.

Also, can you reproduce it using ?useparsoid=0 vs ?useparsoid=1 outside of the migration tool? Just to try to see if this is a bug specific to the migration tool.

Yes:
?useparsoid=0

In the example I gave, the error was thrown for image names without the namespace, so for non-files.

I am wondering whether we should add back the edits that are reverts here.

I wonder if the fact that revisions are reverted based on the same model you're evaluating might skew the results.

@cchen can you explain how does the 0.8178 threshold on rowiki matches against the 1.7% error rate @ 0.95 on rowiki reported in [[T374698#11614851]]? Did you use a different definition of false positive?

Unless of course we formally offer it as a different editor!

May I ask why you prefer syntax highlighting for code, but not for wikitext?

In T418352#11671687, @MusikAnimal wrote:

But then what do we do with the CodeMirror sub-preferences for the individual features? Do they also get separated for wikitext and non-wikitext, or should they be shared? I suppose separate, too. I know for me at least, I like line wrapping in the mainspace and no line wrapping everywhere else.

@Albacore60 can you provide more details on how do you copy? What page are you on? Do you copy the address from the address bar or from a hyperlink in the page?

In T374698#11614466, @Tchanders wrote:

Are we removing bgwiki from the analysis, or would it be helpful to compare some data from August?

@Tchanders PSS9 hasn't run since August 2025.- I believe you'll need to choose a week when the local bot run in order to do the comparison.

In T374698#11601081, @Tchanders wrote:

I'm not sure how long calling the API will take (will need to fetch all the revision IDs for a month, then call the LiftWing API for revert risk scores for each one).

@Mvolz I followed your suggestion and created a new task. Perhaps you can help me to assign it to the correct team?

This also happens for access date, see: https://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Justi%C8%9Bie_capturat%C4%83&diff=prev&oldid=17303163

In T376845#11132545, @Jdlrobson-WMF wrote:

in short articles with big infoboxes, where the graphs end up on the left of the infobox in desktop view.

Thanks for the example. I assume in this resolution we'd want the chart to become full width? Not sure right now if this is a template issue or the chart itself. (Note getting the responsive behaviour right here is the main challenge)

In T397086#10940120, @bvibber wrote:

Note that the generic 'sans-serif' is used at present, so may vary significantly based on browser, operating system etc.

Right. I think it's in the spirit of the request to rephrase the last requirement as "abusefilter editors should have all the rights from the lines above". If you confirm that doesn't raises more issues, I can go with that to the community.

@Dragoniez, I think we're going into too much detail here and it becomes confusing. I'm pretty sure that all the users from the community that would actually understand such details are already cc'd.

Thank you! At this stage this is irrelevant for rowiki, so we can go with "No" for question number 3.

I agree with you on the first two: yes and no.

Per the discussion here, the community would like the following config:

• anons and non-autoconfirmed users cannot see anything
• autoconfirmed users can see public filters
• extendedconfirmed users can also see public filter logs (but without details)
• patrollers and admins can see filters, logs and details
• admins can see private filters and their logs
• abusefilter editors can have full control

@seanleong-WMDE yes, it's usually instant for me, see for instance this change today: rowiki, wikidata. I suspect it is somehow related to the user, but I don't have any proof.

That is a pity! Thanks all for your help, it was worth a shot. :) Maybe you'll find more active communities which would be interested in experimenting with this.

In T407978#11298546, @DLynch wrote:

It'd be fine to change it, but since it's been the way it is for over a decade it'd probably be good to make sure there's actually community consensus to do so.

I'm not sure how to write a reliable test for this, any suggestions are welcome.

It's an oversight, working on it.

I can confirm the issue with sources exist in Romanian as well

In T214998#11165163, @TheDJ wrote:

This should make that easier and not harder, so that should be nice.

In T376845#11129252, @Jdlrobson-WMF wrote:

I think it would be helpful if people could share example URLs to charts which are working around this or would benefit from this (particularly where the axis become unreadable on mobile devices). Having more test cases will be helpful for ultimately getting this addressed.

Awsome news, looking forward to the moment we can use Automoderator on rowiki as well.

I'm tagging @MusikAnimal since he is marked as the contact person for this task.

@Xqt , why did you choose to implement this directly in Page instead of ItemPage with a wrapper on top in Page? Is it OK if I move it?

Function already existing in class Page

@Dimitrie569 translation fixes are done at translatewiki.net - a volunteer-based translation service. For this, see: https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Special:SearchTranslations?query=Adaud%C4%83&language=ro .

For Romanian, I suggest reaching out to User:Klaul who lead this research project on NPOV: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Grounding_NPOV_pillar_in_post-censored_information_ecology

Hi. Responding to T388215#10655076, I can help review the model in Romanian.

In Romanian we have:

• WP:EJV - peacock words, value judgments
• WP:FE - weasel words (peocock are included here)

@Pablo your wikidata query for "All MEPS from Wikidata" misses the cases where no start time is present - around 350 MEPs [1] [2]. This also affects recent legislatures, with only 630 MEPs out of 705 MEPs [3] (actually more, as some don't finish their mandate and the Brexit replacements) present in tab "MEPS (2019-2024)". There are no red links on enwiki [3], so this must be a data issue.

Awesome news, thank you very much!

I took a look at recent log entries and could not find another issue like this. I propose we close the issue since it seems just a glitch in the matrix.

Right, it's been a while since I translated locally, I had forgotten we could do that. :) Created https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Ipinfo-widget-special-ipinfo-link and closing the issue. Thanks for the help!

Thanks, I updated the translation! Is it possible to import the translations manually or we have to wait for the next automatic import?

It's yet another place where people would check for IP info (it was the first click I made when looking at the initial on-wiki report). If possible, I'd like to confirm that the IPv4/v6 identification works correctly there as well. I don't have an example that it doesn't, just want to make sure (e.g. with a test).

@mszabo will this CR also fix the display at https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:IPInfo/~2024-14596 ?

Thanks for the quick responses, I guess we can close the task then! Just one question: is this documented somewhere on-wiki for future users?

A very early empirical look at how PatrocleBot works (using multilingual model) shows no changes in revert numbers.

I understand you don't want to give and take the right when a preference is changed, but maybe then rename the right to "eligible for vieweing IPs"?

All the users meet these requirements. However:

This was caused by T378336

In T369610#10228321, @gerritbot wrote:

Change #1080250 had a related patch set uploaded (by STran; author: STran):

[operations/mediawiki-config@master] Give the `abusefilter-maintainer` group protected vars access

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1080250

Done, fixed, thank you!

In T356102#10144392, @diego wrote:

We will need a different model for new article evaluation. I'll be happy to work on such model, but until now, we haven't received requests about this.

I see an opportunity to use this endpoint for evaluating new pages. Any thoughts @achou or @diego ?