Community noticeboard/Archive 12

__NOINDEX__

Customizing sidebar of, adding chat to, adding border to, and adding infoboxes to wikis
How do I customize the sidebar on a wiki, how do I add chat to a wiki, how do I add a border to an infobox, and how do I keep that infobox on the right and have text wrap around it, and how do I change a wiki name and subdomain?
 * 1) The sidebar can be customised by editing MediaWiki:Sidebar on your wiki. 2) Not sure what you mean by chat, but there are chat extensions available in Special:ManageWiki/extensions (you can use Ctrl+F "chat" to find them). 3) Infoboxes are quite tricky so I would not be able to help in that regard (cc ). 4) the wiki name can be changed in Special:ManageWiki, the subdomain can only be changed by sysadmins and must be requested on Phabricator. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 05:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

CoCC election nominations
Hi everyone, in case perhaps it was missed or not noticed I would like to remind the community that nominations for the Code of Conduct Commission are currently taking place here and it would be nice to at least have five users that are nominated for the position. If you are interested in the CoCC and think you could help enforcing the CoCC feel free to nominate yourself, or alternatively if you know someone you think would be good for the position nominate them! Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 05:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nominations closed on July 21st 2020. So additional candidates strictly can’t nominate themselves anymore based on the precedence set out over the past 3 years. John (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I did not notice that. In that case, should the vote for the candidates not be opened? And also, since the number of nominees is inferior to the number of commissioners, what would be the procedure to eventually fill up the 5th remaining spot (assuming that all the other four are elected that is). Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 06:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The vote should be opened and no process exists for such a case. It was determined at the last election that the issue should be addressed in an RfC but it was never addressed. John (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, it should have probably been addressed in the other RfC regarding the CoCC. Since you began the election, will you open the vote or should I do it? Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 06:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was talking to about it earlier and he was saying any steward could probably officially start the vote, but thought maybe John might want to? We were thinking of maybe giving it until tomorrow or Saturday, and then maybe gently nudging John into opening it? But if you want to open it, sure, that seems fine, too. :) Dmehus (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Do I have to make an RfC for this?
I wanted to suggest some extensions (comments, flow, blogs, voteny and pollny, socialprofile), so I thought I can make an RfC, but I thought you can't make an RfC for a topic like that. InspecterAbdel (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For extensions, you don't need to do an RfC for that. There's Extensions on Meta and, from there, there should be a link to the Phabricator feature request form for requesting new extensions or configuration changes to existing extensions. Hope this helps. Dmehus (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just noting that all the extensions you mention are already available and can be enabled via Special:ManageWiki/extensions. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 04:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think meant to enable those extensions here on meta. I may be wrong though.  20:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * I meant add these extensions here on meta InspecterAbdel (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Universal Omega. Looks like you were right. In that case, consider this strong support towards adding Flow, though it should be only enabled after a brief community discussion on the talk page or noticeboard in Talk: namespace and upon request/on-demand in one's own user talk: namespace. Consider this support to either "voteny" or "pollny," if they can be used without SocialProfile, which I'd be either weakly opposed to or weakly supportive of (would only support if they can be enabled on-demand in own's userspace and if it is not made the default userspace page). I am not familiar with the other two, so will abstain there. Dmehus (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say due to the extensions changing quite a bit a discussion is definitely necessary and possibly a local RfC could be chosen if you'd wish. I don't see what the purpose of the polling extensions on Meta would be, however. If you would want them for voting for different users in Requests for Permissions, that is not the way we do it around here as people should comment on why they are voting, not simply cast a vote. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 16:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's fair; if we were just wanting to enable Flow on Meta, then probably a short 5-7 community discussion on community noticeboard is all that would likely needed, based on my Discord conversations with you. With regard to the others, yes, I agree, we'd probably want to have either (a) a 21-30 day community discussion or (b) a full 30 day local RfC, eh? As to the polling extension, I've personally not used it, but could see it being particularly useful for these very community discussions. It is context-specific with community discussions as to whether one needs to !vote with a rationale or simply !vote. If they are voting in favour of a clearly defined proposal that is well articulated by the proposer, then it's strictly just a nosecount. Dmehus (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The content model of Module documents is Scribunto
I found that, in rs.miraheze.org, the content model of Module documents ( or  ) is currently Scribunto instead of wikitext, which makes it abnormal to create module documents unless I use Special:ChangeContentModel to change it. --SolidBlock (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this occurring on just that wiki, or on all wikis? If the former, you should be able to change this in . If the latter, this is likely a global configuration issue, and should be changed globally with a Phabricator request. If no one else notices this thread by tomorrow morning, I will investigate further, and submit a Phabricator ticket if required. Dmehus (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's former of latter. But I failed to change that via ManageWiki, because I can only change the content model of whole namespace. --SolidBlock (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's helpful, thanks. We may need to file an upstream Phabricator ticket, then, with Wikimedia's Phabricator. I'll follow up here tomorrow. Dmehus (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The default content model for Module is Scribunto InspecterAbdel (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I found that it's occurring on almost all wikis, including meta, 10b10t, 343151, 8848 wiki and so on——I just randomly tested some and found that they are all Scribuntos. --SolidBlock (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Add interwiki prefix on botswiki
Hi, please add the prefix botsphab to the interwiki table on botswiki with forwarding turned on, and have it point to https://phab.bots.miraheze.wiki. Thanks. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 19:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Lets try it > botsphab:T31.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not know how to make and use a Phabricator account
How!? InspecterAbdel (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You simply go to Miraheze Phabricator, and click on the option to "create an account" using your MediaWiki login. This should take you to the Miraheze wiki where you will either (a) already be signed in or (b) asked to sign on, and ask your permission, using OAuth, to add your MediaWiki login as an authorized sign-in authority on Miraheze Phabricator. Hope this helps. Dmehus (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I have a question about the sidebar
Some wikis have a "share" in their sidebar, which lets you share the wiki via Twitter, Email, Facebook, and 178 more. But when I search the sidebar, there isn't any Wikitext for it. Does anyone know how to add it? Oh, and if you want to know what it looks like, here are two examples. InspecterAbdel (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I also had the same question. CircleyDoesExtracter  ( Circley Talk  |  Global   |  Email the Cloud ) 20:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you mean transcluding your own wiki's MediaWiki sidebar page across wikis? Or, do you mean just adding certain links on wikis you use? If the latter, this is typically done by creating your  file as a subpage of your own Meta userpage, and then adding various user scripts you use, which either (a) override the existing, wiki-specific-set links or (b) add to existing links. This will only effect your Miraheze wiki sidebar experience, and will have no bearing on what others see. Hope this helps. Dmehus (talk) 02:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But I liked it for everyone, and that "share" in sidebar is really cool. I don't think it helps for me. CircleyDoesExtracter  ( Circley Talk  |  Global   |  Email the Cloud ) 20:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Using infobox and navbox templates
Hi, I've used MediaWiki before and have actually just migrated my own wiki here from another site to get more control over editing access. I am, however, running into issues with the infobox and navbox templates, which seem not to be copying over at all like what they are on Wikipedia (or wikis I've formerly had these same pages on. For example: https://tla.miraheze.org/wiki/The_Leftist_Assembly (most other pages on TLAwiki have both an infobox and navbox with the same issue).

I've copied the template straight from Miraheze, so I can't figure out why it isn't working. Can anybody help? Lawrencedepe (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that the display is different because CSS etc. is different from Wikipedia. You also need to copy the CSS for classes such as 　and   to get the same display. --そらたこ (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused - how would I go about doing that? I'm not the most skilled person in this area, but I think I have a decent enough understanding that I can get it with a bit of help and direction. :) Lawrencedepe (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. I apologize for the lack of explanation. If you want your wiki to look the same as Wikipedia, you have to copy CSS sources from Wikipedia's MediaWiki:common.css to your's MediaWiki:common.css. If you just want to be the same as Wikipedia, you can just copy the entire Wikipedia CSS code. In this case, the unnecessary parts are included, so you need to customize if you want to copy only the necessary parts. The   and   that start with   or   are the parts that specify the CSS class. The part from   to   following   specifies the style. You should copy only the code related to   and   and other necessary parts. --そらたこ (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that fixed it! Lawrencedepe (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Problem on the Atrocious YouTubers Wiki
I'm having a problem on the Atrocious YouTubers Wiki. For whatever reason, I can't make pages or post comments, because it's restricted to autoconfirmed users, bureaucrats, confirmed users and administrators. I have no idea how to become a confirmed user. I'd like someone to contact the wiki's admins so they can get things sorted out. CriticalMaster95 (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Moved from Administrators' noticeboard thread Dmehus (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Typically, autoconfirmed is granted, on most wikis, to users with at least ten edits and once their account has been attached for at least four days. YMMV from wiki to wiki, of course, but you could try performing a few small cleanup-type edits on the wiki, to see if you are autopromoted. If that fails, you can go to Special:ListUsers/sysop on that wiki, and e-mail or message any administrator to manually grant you one or more user group rights. Hope this helps. Dmehus (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks for the information. ;) CriticalMaster95 (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem...happy to help. :-) Dmehus (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Delete a lot of pages
I have a bunch of pages I would like to delete. I can list then all (from Special:Allpages) or give you a regex for all the possible titles. There all in the project namespace, but it is not the entire project namespace. Any suggestions? --Aquatiki (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How many do you have? It's possible, using the HotCat gadget or just by copying and pasting the name of a single-purpose category, to tag them all in a certain category, and then use Special:Nuke to mass delete. If it's in the hundreds or thousands of pages, there's a request form on Phabricator you can use to submit your request, but you will need to either (a) list all the pages you want deleted (if not all in one category or if they do not share a common feature, like a common prefix) or (b) list the common feature(s) they all share so system administrators can clearly getting a listing for their deletion page script to do the deletion. Dmehus (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Special:Nuke uses a weird syntax I don't understand.  The pages are all definitely "taggable", in regex Pro\/\d+\/\d+ and Pss\:\d+\/\d+ in the Project namespace.  Can I get them all that way? --Aquatiki (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's the way to go about it. How many pages is it? It sounds like requesting on Phabricator is the way to go, but you will need to list all the pages either (a) in a Phabricator ticket or (b) a *.txt file that you can upload to the Phabricator ticket. Alternatively, if they all start with the same prefix, or are all in a certain namespace or category, you can specify it that way. Let me know if that helps. Dmehus (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Mass deleting pages
On Crappy Games Wiki, there's a lot of pages with a "@comment" in the title, which are FANDOM leftovers. Is there anyway I can delete them all at once? --DeciduousWater534 (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you want all the "@comment" pages deleted? If so, system administrators can set up a deletion page script to mass delete those pages. All you need to do is open a Phabricator ticket (under Maniphest --> Create task ---> MediaWiki project ---> Maintenance workboard). If you haven't registered a Phabricator account yet, just go to Miraheze Phabricator, click on the MediaWiki login, and then it should take you back to this Meta wiki to authorize your Phabricator account access using OAuth. Let me know if any issues. If you have difficulty creating the task, I can do it for you and tag your Phabricator account, once you confirm (by way of a reply here) that you want all pages prefixed by "@comment" in all namespaces deleted. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I created a task. I was hoping that I could delete them all myself, but I was only able to delete recently edited ones. Thanks. --DeciduousWater534 (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If they're not comingled with other pages in a single namespace, you could use Special:Nuke pretty easily, but otherwise, your only alternative would be to manually tag every page with a special purpose category, and then nuke all pages in that category. Using the SQL LIKE command is something I haven't fully understood, so the Phabricator task is your best bet in this case. Dmehus (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Hiding the section edit links for anonymous users
I would like to hide the section edit links for anonymous users, but I'm not quite sure how to do that. According to this page it can be done by configuring a wiki's localsettings.php file, but upon further investigation that's only accessible from a wiki's server files, not the wiki itself. Also, while I want logged-in users to have the option of having section editing be visible, is there an option in preferences for users to turn it off for themselves if they choose to? CoolieCoolster (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, you can just protect pages to "Allow only logged in users". It should work too.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , please let us know if protecting the pages, or specific namespaces, to logged-in users will serve your needs. If not, and you want anonymous users to edit pages, but not sections of pages, it may be possible to file a Phabricator task, but without knowing which setting in localsettings.php needs to be changed, it's not clear if this can be changed on a wiki-specific basis (possible) or if there's only one setting that would be changed on all wikis (probably not possible). Dmehus (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I want to leave the option open for anonymous users to edit certain pages, so I don't want to disable anonymous editing entirely, just make the reading experience a bit more streamlined. The MediaWiki page I read mentioned that adding $wgDefaultUserOptions ['editsection'] = false; to the local settings file would hide the section edit links. Can I request that this change be made on Phabricator? Also, is there any option in preferences for users to re-enable the section edit links if they wish to? Thanks, CoolieCoolster (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll have to check with a sysadmin to see if this can be disabled on a wiki-specific basis. To your second question, it may be possible for users to hide the "edit section" links via their local common.js or common.css file, but this is just a guess on possibilities. I haven't investigated if this is possible. For now, you could just use  magic word, but this will hide it from all users. Not ideal for what you're wanting, but may be an acceptable workaround? Dmehus (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * After further research I found that modification of section links via php files hasn't been an option since MediaWiki 1.23, which replaced it with CSS file edits, which I just did to the site-wide CSS file on my wiki. Since this disables it for all users however, is there a way for users to override this if they wish to have section edit links by editing their own user CSS file? CoolieCoolster (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but maybe? I really don't know here, but will try to find out something for you in the next day or two. Ping me if you find out anything through your own research. Why do you want to disable it site-wide, rather than just use one of the magic words on specific pages? Dmehus (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I find that the edit links are especially noticeable with the MediaWiki theme that I'm using, so I only want them to show if the user is an editor that wants to use them, since otherwise most people aren't interested in editing and just want to look up information. I saw that there is the alternative in user preferences of enabling right-click to edit sections, but after a quick lookup of CSS formatting, I figured out that I can counteract the .mw-editsection { display:none!important; } in the main CSS file with .mw-editsection { display:contents!important; } in my (and any user who chooses to) CSS file. A bit clunky, but it works! Thanks for the responses! CoolieCoolster (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably, I think that it is possible to display it only to login users by using Common.css and Group-user.css together. After hiding the section edit link to all users, can't it be displayed again only to login users? --そらたこ (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's only me for now so I'll just leave it like it is for now. Since there's the "right click to edit section" option in preferences, if any of my wiki's users want to I'll suggest either that or the other option to them. Thanks, CoolieCoolster (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Question about Private Wiki User Access Levels
Hallo. Complete new Miraheze user here. Yesterday I created my first (private) wiki and today confirmed that simply having a Miraheze username did not allow the owner of that username to access a subsidiary page. I then created a new username and added that username to the group "member", expecting that once done the owner of that username would then be able to read the subsidiary page. This was true, but I then discovered that he could also edit that page. Could a more experienced user please advise what I have done wrong ? My ultimate aim is to have (at least) three levels of access : (1) none (usernames that are not a member of any group); (2) read-only (usernames that are members of "member"); and (3) read-write (usenames that are members of more powerful groups than "member").
 * Yeah, the  group is for private wikis, so that you can manually add members to that group to have read and/or edit access to your private wiki. It sounds like you want it to be a member only wiki, so you have two options, discussed in turn below:
 * Modify your  group permissions to remove the   and any related permissions; or,
 * Protect the pages, or namespaces, to a higher level group (i.e.,  or  ).
 * Both of these are done in Special:ManageWiki on your wiki. Also, you may notice anyone that visits your wiki will be attached to your wiki, but unless they're in the  group, they won't be able to read your wiki, so there's no need to block non-members (some users have wondered about this in the past).
 * Separately, I have also moved your topic to the bottom of this page, added a relevant section header (feel free to change, if you wish), and removed the  tags around your signature, adding unsigned in lieu of a signature, as this page doesn't use Flow/StructuredDiscussions, so requires a signature. Dmehus (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Dmehus. No idea why it appeared at the top of the page if it was not meant to, but thank you for moving it to the correct place.  As regards the signature, I typed the required four tildes, so unclear why that did not appear as intended.  If you can tell me the format of a signature, I will endeavour to replace unsigned  with whatever my correct signature should be.
 * Adding a further four tildes here in the hopes that this time they will have the desired effect.
 * Hmmm, clearly they didn't. But a further problem — trying to access Special:ManageWiki, I am asked for the database name :  how do I find that out ?  And what should I do to add my signature when four tildes do not work ?
 * Worked around that (the URL behaves differently depending on the current URL) but having checked the access rights for "member", there is only one : "Read".  "Edit" (and all variants thereof) appear only under "Unassigned rights".  So still perplexed.
 * Regarding the signature, it's because you are wrapping the  in the nowiki tags. Nevertheless, it wasn't a problem, as I fixed it for you again. Regarding adding a topic, you probably used the "edit" tab instead of "add topic," which is fine, except you will have to scroll down to the bottom of the page to add it. Regarding your problem, sorry, I should've linked to the ManageWiki page on your wiki, Special:ManageWiki (like that). From there, you just select the   group and modify its permissions. Note that   is for the permissions of all users, including non-registered/IP users. Hope this helps. Dmehus (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again, many thanks Dmehus. Tomorrow I will look further at Special:ManageWiki, but the group "member" really has only read access, so I remain perplexed.  As to "wrapping the   in the nowiki tags", I would have no idea how to do this !  All I do is type four tildes on a new line and they come out as ... four tildes.  Very odd indeed.
 * Worked around that (the URL behaves differently depending on the current URL) but having checked the access rights for "member", there is only one : "Read".  "Edit" (and all variants thereof) appear only under "Unassigned rights".  So still perplexed.
 * Regarding the signature, it's because you are wrapping the  in the nowiki tags. Nevertheless, it wasn't a problem, as I fixed it for you again. Regarding adding a topic, you probably used the "edit" tab instead of "add topic," which is fine, except you will have to scroll down to the bottom of the page to add it. Regarding your problem, sorry, I should've linked to the ManageWiki page on your wiki, Special:ManageWiki (like that). From there, you just select the   group and modify its permissions. Note that   is for the permissions of all users, including non-registered/IP users. Hope this helps. Dmehus (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again, many thanks Dmehus. Tomorrow I will look further at Special:ManageWiki, but the group "member" really has only read access, so I remain perplexed.  As to "wrapping the   in the nowiki tags", I would have no idea how to do this !  All I do is type four tildes on a new line and they come out as ... four tildes.  Very odd indeed.

Local CU, OS and ArbC
I think that having CU and OS tools restricted to stewards is not good for users who create a wiki here just because they cannot afford a server, which is around probably 20000 USD. These tools should also be allowed on wikis which demonstrate activity and contributions. Also, some wikis may be based on an organization, not a private entity. They should have the ability to resolve some of legal issues before Miraheze is influenced. I think these should only be allowed on a wiki with more than 50 contributors and at least 20 articles. They are granted by the ArbCom, and the ArbCom is granted by vote scrutineers following a community discussion specified by any wiki. They must meet some requirements set by individual wikis and sign the Privacy document, and have OAuth enabled. I am an OAuth application developer. ThesenatorO5-2 (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I think that wikis should be self-governing and adhere to the global policy, and that is why I proposed this. ThesenatorO5-2 (talk) at 10:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Stewards would grant local CU+OS, that policy will be made clear soon, following a community vote. No ArbCom is needed. We will make the criteria clear and yes all must sign an NDA. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  09:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why you say no ArbC is needed? Edit: Maybe we can set up a higher limit of 200 contributors and 100 articles to qualify for ArbC.ThesenatorO5-2 (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Because I don't see much for it to do. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  11:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is really no need for an ArbCom right now, the community is simply not large enough, and there are barely enough volunteers as it is. And also, a server is nowhere near 20000 dollars, maybe that was a hyperbole? Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 12:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * With some differences, we already have the Code of Conduct Commission, which serves as the ultimate community elected body for mediating Code of Conduct disputes between users and serving as an appeals body for the community- or steward-imposed sanctions. It's very similar to Arbitration Committee on English Wikipedia except that it is a truly global quasi-judicial elected community body, but it does have a lot of similarities in its approach and methods. As to local CheckUser, I still struggle to see why we would need a local CheckUser right; Oversight maybe, but would still require signing a non-disclosure agreement as it would be able to see edits or log actions suppressed by a steward. As well, it would need, included within the terms of revocation, a stipulation that if a local wiki  unsuppressed an entry suppressed by a steward or system administrator (in the course of enforcing the ToU), it can be revoked summarily by either group (as applicable), possibly accompanied by some sort of community discussion related to that user's actions. Dmehus (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, regarding the above-quoted cost of a server, that's an arguably ridiculous number. You could run a small wiki on a cloud-based VPS for about $5 USD per month, which would give you the CU and OS access you apparently need. Dmehus (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

With Miraheze, an account is created by simply accessing the wiki while logged in, so I would like to have the permissions discussed this time be managed collectively with meta.--松•Matsu (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point, especially with regard to why we should not have a local CheckUser. Even with local Oversight, while I at least potentially see a use case, there are a number of logistical hurdles or obstacles over which we'd have to overcome. Local CheckUser, though, for the reason you've articulated, and the reasons expressed by others should really be avoided. I quite like the way it's currently restricted to a limited number of very trusted users, and coordinated through Meta for transparency purposes. Dmehus (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, since a CU access can have serious complications, and because of the COC commission in place, local ArbComs are not needed, though I am thinking of placing a high size limit for local arbitration committees. Local check users should be avoided if there are no policies regarding local CU usage, but per what Dmehus said, local OS can see revisions hidden by an ST or SA, which requires an NDA. After all, this is pretty hard to fully resolve. CU and Arb are not required in my wiki since my wiki is pretty small. I just need an OS access which I have requested at the steward's noticeboard. I am also thinking of local locks which can be imposed by bureaucrats preventing the user from logging in on a specific wiki. but I will start a new topic for it. ThesenatorO5-2 (talk) - 02:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, we can set up some global policy that basically says that users with the right(s) of granting or using local CU and OS must enable 2FA and local OS should not restore revisions which are hidden by a SA or ST. [ ThesenatorO5-2 (talk) | 08:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC) ]