In T371738#10223009, @Krinkle wrote:

@VPuffetMichel Thanks, that makes sense. If this is outlined somewhere on-wiki or in a parent task, that might be worth linking to from the task description.

@Krinkle: great spot and agreed.

Per what @MNeisler and I discussed offline, Megan is going to take an initial pass at synthesizing the discussion from yesterday's meeting into a proposal that we'll share with WE 1.2 hypothesis owners before finalizing.

Improvement targets:

• Mobile web: 10% relative increase (y-o-y)
  • Note: naturally, we expect CA to increase by 6.5% y-o-y, per T370726
• Mobile apps: 25% relative increase (y-o-y)

In T371769#10215115, @DLynch wrote:

From a meeting: we're not going to do anything to proactively fix this right now. Instead we're going to just run the fixup maintenance script and purge the cache after our migration script, since we know that fixed the previous broken board.

Note for our future-selves: "run the fixup maintenance script" is documented as requirement "3." in T371738:

In T371738#10212241, @Pppery wrote:

General notes:

Thank you for sharing this feedback, @Pppery. Some follow-up questions in-line below...

• At least from my experience on MediaWiki.org there are a non-trivial number of Flow boards with zero topics and an empty or no header. It's probably better to delete those outright rather than moving them to subpages.

Can you say a bit more here? What – if any – consequences/complications can you see resulting from archiving empty boards?

Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_with_wikipuffery

In T376306#10198895, @Esanders wrote:

It would be technically possible, yes. We could annotate the paste with the source (if detected).

Excellent; we'll decide whether we want to tailor the Check message based on paste source as part of T359107. See "Open questions" #4."

In T371737#10201031, @ppelberg wrote:

I've updated the task to include data from interventions @HNordeenWMF shared offline.

@SNowick_WMF, if the links are handy, might you be able up to share links to the analyses y'all completed for the following interventions so that I can document them in the task description and close out this task?

• Image recommendations (iOS + Android)
• Introduction of the native editor (iOS)

I've updated the task to include data from interventions @HNordeenWMF shared offline.

@putnik: thank you for making us aware of the consesus the ru.wiki reached and filing this ticket!

Draft language for Tech/News cc @Quiddity + @Trizek-WMF:

When people attempt to generate a link to or citation for a blocked domain, [[mw:Edit check|Edit Check]] will now log these attempts in [[Special:Log/spamblacklist]] [[Special:Log/abusefilterblockeddomainhit]].[1]

In T376306#10197664, @Esanders wrote:

Google Docs

<... id="docs-internal-guid-[GUID]">

(as well an the extra data entry under application/x-vnd.google-docs-document-slice-clip+wrapped)

Libre Office:

<meta name="generator" content="LibreOffice 7.3.7.2 (Linux)"/>

Word 365:
Nothing explicit, but contains some odd attributes, such as data-contrast and CSS classes TextRun and NormalTextRun

---

It seems we should be able to identify most popular document editors, but would need to keep an eye over time to see if HTML changes.

Nice! @edanders, earlier this week, we talked about the prospect of using this information (were it to be available) to decide when/if to suppress the Paste Check (T359107).

Notes from what @MNeisler and I talked about offline today...

1. The main thing we need to do the kind of analysis this ticket is asking for is knowing:
   • Counting the edits a policy we're interested in introducing a Check for is relevant to
   • Calculating the rate at which said edits are reverted or produce some other moderation/corrective action
2. A few ways we can think of doing the "counting" described above:
   • Look at policy-related tags that are explicitly appended to edits
   • Look at how often a policy-related template is used (read: transcluded onto user talk pages)
   • Write custom logic to categorize edits that are relevant to a particular policy. //This is an approach we took with the Reference Check. See Edit_check/Tags

Per what @MNeisler and I talked about offline, we think a discussion with David, Marielle, Megan, and me is a good next step to resolve the discrepancy between what Megan discovered in T374624#10158451 and what Marielle discovered in T372438#10191087.

Per what @MNeisler and I discussed offline today, work on this ticket is complete for now.