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

Nice, thanks!

Implemented in https://github.com/miraheze/WikiDiscover/pull/97. Will be available on Miraheze when the extension is deployed.

"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.

Something I'll add is that this is now available in WikiForge's setup, so we may be able to take from there. Might be easier than creating from scratch ourselves (see https://github.com/WikiForge/WikiForgeMagic/pull/7), licenses permitting of course.

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.

Looking at the current canned responses, it seems like some of them also jam several potential reasons for why something was approved or declined, even if not all of those reasons apply (e.g. "your requested subdomain is either invalid, is too generic, conveys a Miraheze affiliation, or suggests the wiki is an English language or multilingual wiki when it is not")

@Agent_Isai To clarify, is the intention to allow all users (not just CVT) to see which wikis have been flagged? If it was a ManageWiki checkmark, it would be publicly viewable, regardless of ability to check/uncheck.

I've begun working on something that's very preliminary but basically, it uses a page similar to Special:DeletedWikis that holds the reason why a wiki was flagged + who flagged it and I also added a "Flag this wiki?" checkmark in ManageWiki which supports a drop-down to select a reason but honestly, something akin to RequestWikiQueue would be best instead of a DeletedWikis-esque page.