This doesn't happen when I visit the wiki. Closing as resolved.

Unfortunately due to some external circumstances I do not have the time to finish this task at the moment, I will pick it up again when I have time if nobody else claims it in the meantime. The work in progress commits I made are linked in the original post if someone wants to continue working based on what I had done

https://github.com/miraheze/ManageWiki/pull/398

I now have a working patch for this, just need to finish a few things then will submit a PR for SRE to review...

"Add API for editing namespaces and groups" yeah, I'm not doing that. Whoever wants to have a crack at this, feel free to claim.

PR: https://github.com/miraheze/mw-config/pull/5216

In T10527#217212, @Owen wrote:

So indeed, but when you think about the ramifications here - T&S matters are vastly more sensitive than wiki content policy ones. So if T&S subjects can be told - why can't content policy subjects be told? T&S matters can't be public - but content policy ones definitely can be in a form in the sense everyone can know. I mean Stewards do also currently fairly commonly say "wiki x is under investigation" - so why not doing it by default rather?

In T10527#217207, @BrandonWM wrote:

The subjects of investigations are aware they are involved in an investigation

Yes, but as far as I am aware, the rest of the Miraheze community isn't. Per a recent discussion, it cannot be confirmed/denied if someone is the subject of an investigation.

The subjects of investigations are aware they are involved in an investigation

Yes, but as far as I am aware, the rest of the Miraheze community isn't. Per a recent discussion, it cannot be confirmed/denied if someone is the subject of an investigation.

If someone actively hides evidence, that would be an aggravating factor in any investigations conducted. If revdelling content is enough to hide it from Stewards in an investigation, I would rather focus on how ineffective that investigation is, than focus on whether someone wishes to hide something.

Point taken, but my argument from before stands, that the Miraheze community doesn't currently have access to a list of investigations that are being conducted. The user in question may know, but everyone else doesn't.

current status quo by Trust and Safety is to not reveal subjects of investigations until after the investigations have been concluded.

I would not support full transparency of flagged wikis under investigation. I am a supporter of making investigations that have been concluded publicly viewable (and all PII stated in the investigation, if any, can be redacted somehow), but making current investigations would not be good. Instead of fixing their behavior, they could attempt to revdel anything that shows CP violations, and then bring it back after. Of course, legal issues are their own thing and should not be publicly viewable under any circumstances (as is currently with Trust and Safety).

Point taken, but the counter-argument would be that if users are aware that they are under investigation, that gives them an opportunity to cease the inappropriate behavior before the investigation is completed and action ends up needing to be taken. Unfortunately some people don't take warnings seriously, and will only change their behavior if they know that more serious consequences are imminent (of course genuine bad actors won't change at all regardless, but I'd like to assume those people are outliers). An exception could be made for potential legal issues, but IMO investigations into, for example, content policy violations that don't have legal ramifications don't need to be concealed.

In T10527#217177, @AmandaCath wrote:

I would support this idea, but would be opposed to making the table only viewable to stewards/sysadmins/CVT. I am a staunch supporter of transparency, and IMO anything that doesn't reveal private information just by viewing it should be publicly viewable, even if no action can be taken by an unprivileged user.

As others have said, while a warning about accidentally deleting these groups (especially 'crat) would be nice, outright restricting these actions, not so much, mostly per John.

I would support this idea, but would be opposed to making the table only viewable to stewards/sysadmins/CVT. I am a staunch supporter of transparency, and IMO anything that doesn't reveal private information just by viewing it should be publicly viewable, even if no action can be taken by an unprivileged user.

Configuring $wgCleanSignatures via ManageWiki should soon be possible through this very formal PR.

PR: https://github.com/miraheze/mw-config/pull/5187

Oh okay.

It hasn't been added yet.

Where is it? I can't find it.

Got it. Could you clarify what you mean by "re-addable if so"?

I would like to set it to false please.

Yeah, we don't really work like that. We're all volunteers here, and being rude certainly doesn't accelerate anything. As for $wgCleanSignatures, please be specific. Would you like it set to true or false?

Well then try and get ManageWiki to make it compatible. Also, I need $wgCleanSignatures added. That's the only value I need. Thank you.

$wgRestrictionLevels will not be added due to incompatibility with ManageWiki. If you need values added, please indicate which.