Assigning this to me to articulate what we converged on as a team during today's team meeting.

Meta: we're renaming this Check "Paste Check" from "CopyVio check" per suggestion @Trizek-WMF made offline.

In T368179#9914803, @DLynch wrote:

... perhaps a sensible fallback would be to hook it into the context for the link, since that'll still be showing once you leave the inspector...

(this needs scoping from me)

Notes

Loose ideas from what @nayoub and I talked about offline just now...

• Edit Checks require you to make an explicit choice, even if that choice is to decline the invitation to alter the change(s) you've begun making. As a result, Edit Checks can stand in the way of you and what you're attempting to do. E.g. publish an edit.
• Suggested Edits are invitations/offerings. They are never required and always meant to land at the intersection of the below. As a result, Edit Suggestions cannot stand in the way of you and what you're attempting to do. They could; however, move you to do something you hadn't previously considering doing.
  • 1) You, the person encountering the Suggestion, are motivated by and interested in
  • 2) Wikipedia, the project, is an agreement would be a useful contribution

@nayoub to revise error message. great spot.

In T362379#9913315, @Sj wrote:

Why are the details about the problems sites report so vague? 😅

@Sj can you say a bit more what you mean by "vague" in this context? What might you expect us to be able to know about the problems that you've not seen documented?

@Sj could you please take a pass at filling in the task description's Background section with the connection you see between this idea and the issues we're investigating in T362379?

Per today's meeting, we're going to close this task.

Next up: I'm assigning this over to you to orchestrate the Web and DST Teams determining the issues we identified (read: "Step 4."). From there, I think we move on to"Step 5.": determining who is best positioned to address these issues.

In T365079#9913764, @MNeisler wrote:

we'd value knowing of the edits newcomers publish >100 bytes, how those edits are distributed by byte size.

@ppelberg I've updated the dashboard to include a tab ("Edits by newcomers (over 100 bytes)" with charts showing the distribution of edits by newcomers that are over 100 bytes in size.

This is *precisely* the information we were seeking and the format we were seeking to access it using. Wonderful work, @MNeisler!

Per offline discussion, we are scheduling the en.wiki deployment for next Wednesday, 26 June 2024 assuming @Trizek-WMF is able to post announcements about said deployment that volunteers at en.wiki are likely to see before EOD Monday, 24 June 2024.

Per what @nayoub and I discussed offline today, the main next step is converging on the resolution workflow. Said another way: defining what questions, and subsequence actions, Edit Check will prompt people to engage with prior to the system considering a Check "addressed."

Per what we discussed during today's offline meeting, we're going to address the issue @EAkinloose identified in T359182#9861415 in T367794.

Moving to Ready to be worked on for Editing Engineering to verify this is working as expected.

@ppelberg to publish this on the yet-to-be created mw:Editing/Greenhouse (or explorations) and mw:Edit check/Ideas

Update: 14 June

We've updated the task description to include the Strategy and State section that's meant to help us all understand:

1. The strategy that is guiding the action we're taking to address this issue
2. The state of the "actions" mentioned in "1." (above)