Apertus is under OSI-compatible licence (Apache 2.0), multilingual and training process should be reproducible. It should be also reasonable good.

@Tacsipacsi One solution could be also that level and unapprove are mutually exclusive as parameters and user could not define them at same time.

Thank you very much !

I triaged this high as this is still going on and impacts to multiple tools.

It seems that toolsdb is generally down. Here is ticket for montage db connection [https://github.com/hatnote/montage/issues/353#issuecomment-3488646411 timeouting].

In T408995#11333670, @Tacsipacsi wrote:

When using binary flagging, the level is already automatically set to zero when unapproving. So why not extend this and avoid conflicting parameter values by simply dropping one of the parameters? Another solution would be no longer accepting level=0, but that’d leave the question what the difference between level=1&unapprove= and level=2&unapprove= is. (Nothing.)

In T408995#11333487, @Tacsipacsi wrote:

that stabilize doesn’t take exactly these levels, as it also accepts none, which is not in the array; if you want to get the exact values accepted by an API module, you can use data.api.ParamInfo in Pywikibot (and the underlying API endpoint elsewhere):

>>> import pywikibot
>>> pi = pywikibot.data.api.ParamInfo(pywikibot.Site('wikipedia:fi'))
>>> params = {p['name']: p for p in pi['stabilize']['parameters']}
>>> params['autoreview']
{'index': 2, 'name': 'autoreview', 'type': ['none', 'sysop'], 'default': 'none'}

However, if you still think the raw value of the configuration variable is useful, it can be included.

Following wikis are running FlaggedRevs extension without Wikiwho. I think that WikiWho data could be used in pending reviewing so it could be nice to have these enabled at some point.

Thank you! Also, follow-up question: how much disk space does one language version take? (for example enwiki, dewiki, huwiki) Note: I don't really need this information but would like to get some understanding of the sizes.

@MusikAnimal is there documentation on how wikiwho imports are done and would it help if someone would preprocess data locally for adding them? (I suppose that processing dumps take some time)

In T408726#11325245, @Tacsipacsi wrote:

6. _apisite.flagconfig()
   • Shows information about review flag configuration.
   • API: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs#action=flagconfig

I think this API endpoint should be deprecated:

In T57081#11325259, @Tacsipacsi wrote:

In T57081#11324752, @Zache wrote:

The ticket T57081 is place where you can comment about Pywikibot part.

T57081: Implement support for Flagged Revisions in Pywikibot is the present task. You mean T408726: Add FlaggedRevs support to Pywikibot (Outreachy 31), don’t you?

Just FYI, I am planning that we are adding the FlaggedRevs support to Pywikibot and using it as API instead of coding these directly to PendingChangesBot. Please comment about the functions and places where they would be added. The ticket T57081 is place where you can comment about Pywikibot part.

Question: Is there in mainline FlaggedRevs currently a possibility in protection-like configurations to make some edits pending afterwards, or will the stabilization affect only future edits in protection mode?

@Tacsipacsi : I think that DeferredChanges branch never got mainlined and all the related code are for version before T277883 so they branches are deprecated as well. So it is unlikely that it would be implemented any more and it would be ok to close the ticket.

@taavi Adding Superset support to Pywikibot was pretty one of the first use cases for Superset when it published the replica access, and the point of it is that it doesn't require a Toolforge account as because managing the new Toolforge accounts doesn't scale. For example, there are security reasons not to create Toolforge accounts for random workshop participants or, in our current case, for Outreachy contribution period volunteers, if nothing else. Using OAuth login and HTTP API will scale to that usecase.

@Xqt Is the pywikibot/site/_apisite.py correct place for adding flaggedrevs review() and stabilize() functons?

Pull request successfully merged and closed in github

Pull request successfully merged and closed in github

In T408286#11311161, @Xqt wrote:

@Zache: I have checked the cookie files. I think BotPassword accounts may not work for web or OAuth logins because they do not receive a central OAuth session (centralauth_Session). Can you (or someone) confirm?

successfully merged and closed in github

• https://github.com/Wikimedia-Suomi/PendingChangesBot-ng/pull/27

• https://github.com/Wikimedia-Suomi/PendingChangesBot-ng/pull/29

Succesfully merged and closed in github

Succesfully merged and closed in github

Succesfully merged and closed in github

We moved most Outreachy tasks to using PendingChangesBot-ng/issues to reduce duplicate work on tickets. So, most, if not all, microtasks are in GitHub, and I think that I could start to close these. However, there are still tickets which I will keep on Phabricator as they are related to other projects which are using Phab. Most notably, Pywikibot + Gerrit, which will require Phab tickets.

@Xqt If you have time i would you like to write step-by-step guide how you got the Oauth working? ( I am trying to figure out what i am doing differently )

Yes, it is afaik same. Do you have any idea if it would be possible to get the Oauth/Botpassword working for third part oauth logins?

Yeah, i still think that you should do much clearer explanation about the feature what you would need and how it should work so other people understand what you would like to accomplish. Currently you wont get any useful answers because people wont understand you.

I think the main problem with this task is that people (at least I have) have a hard time following what the end result is and what @Gryllida is trying to accomplish. What I was able to understand from the message was that this sounds like a problem that could be solved with DynamicPageList and templates already. DPL is installed on Wikinews and widely used.

Open ticket on github and make pull request to it. I will keep this ticket open if somebody else would like to take answer to it and take alternative paths.

Thanks for notifying, found your email and sent invitation

Thank you. In practical point of view the LLM:s are bad because it is slow and unrealiable and result was somewhat worse than i expected. In any case would you like to implement proposal B:s first phase?

@matej_suchanek It would at least require mentioning that the meaning of start and end is switched depending on the reverse = True / False value, as you cannot know this based on the documentation and it needs to be learned by trial and error.

In T407052#11266310, @Nirmeetkamble wrote:

@Zache Please let me know if any change required

@Xqt , @matej_suchanek , I was thinking to propose some PendingChangesBot (T405726) needed features to be implemented directly to Pywikibot (T57081). Namely doing FlaggedRevs review API support to Pywikibot. This documentation update ticket would for seeing if my documentation is good enough and also generally seeing how it goes. Would you check that this particular task is OK and comment on if the doing gerrit requests as part of Outreachy contribution period is ok? (we try not to flood anything with too many review requests)

Thank you for notifying!

@System625 : based on the username and name in Phabricator still not through in gmail. Based on last Outreachy round there is delay on when it delivers the messages for some reason what only google know.

I added new github ticket as followup task. I think that biggest problem would be the false positive handling as some of these indicators are used in normal text also. For example "==" is used in math.

• https://github.com/Wikimedia-Suomi/PendingChangesBot-ng/issues/48

I can write also followup task for broken wikicode test

Thanks, now it got through and invite was successful :)

In T405726#11263197, @Ag-Derrick wrote:

Hello Every one My name is Agaba Derrick I'm new, I request to be added to the slack channel I kindly sent an email and I haven't been added

The current guide expects that one creates a new clean directory for each pull request. It technically is not needed and the user could do everything in the same directory, but as you would anyway may need to clean up the database as there may be migrations, it is easier to track these when the whole thing is in separate directories.

Also test doesn't need to be anything fancy, it is enough that just counts number of error css class counts in the rendered html code. However, it would be good idea to store the result to local db so if the test is runned again for some reason it can use the cached result for that revision.

Yes, changes. It is totally possible that the error was already in older version so we are interested only when there is new errors.