I don't think it's easily possible.

In T274061#6809079, @Aklapper wrote:

See https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Preventing_access#Restrict_viewing_of_certain_specific_pages

Which is very clear on advising against per page view restrictions.

then we will need, apparently, the old extension for oversight rights

Could you elaborate, please?

then we will need, apparently, the old extension for oversight rights

Could you elaborate, please?

I mean we need oversighters usergroup rights to be changed so they could suppress revision or a page and could not view or unhide the suppressed. Also bureaucrats should have a right to appoint oversighters.

@Aklapper — if what I am talking about above is impossible, then another way would be to remove the administrator's rights deletedhistory, deletedtext, undelete and browsearchive.

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Oversight

The extension isn't coming back.

In T274061#6809123, @Carn wrote:

@Aklapper — if what I am talking about above is impossible, then another way would be to remove the administrator's rights deletedhistory, deletedtext, undelete and browsearchive.

Surely you just remove their admin rights completely?

If they shouldn't have access to these things on the already private wiki, you're seemingly doing it wrong and should be removing their access completely

In T274061#6809127, @Reedy wrote:

Surely you just remove their admin rights completely?

We need to have some mechanism so if one arbiter put something in a private wiki that should not be there — he would have an option to hide it. At the moment, we may find ourselves in a situation when it will be highly necessary. Please do not reject our request, but try to help us achieve this goal.

We also need admins (or some other role) to have a "block" right to independently ensure rotation every six months.

In T274061#6809132, @Urbanecm wrote:

All three proposed solutions can't be implemented on Wikimedia servers for technical and security reasons.

It is really impossible to create an additional role that will allow us to delete pages and ban users and prevent restoring pages (undelete)?

Best regards, Dmitry

In T274061#6809132, @Urbanecm wrote:

All three proposed solutions can't be implemented on Wikimedia servers for technical and security reasons.

If the arbitrators recused from a case may never see what was in the page, then you need to figure a way how to just don't put it on-wiki at all.

One of the ways is to deliberate a case via email, and put a short summary of the case on-wiki. Or, just trust fellow arbcom members to not look at content they're not privileged to.

If you have any questions about what MediaWiki can and cannot do, please let me know.

I think need additional user group same 'closer' on Ru.Wikipedia - you can see here https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Listgrouprights&uselang=en - for group need rights 'delete', 'block' only.

In T274061#6809960, @Carn wrote:

In T274061#6809127, @Reedy wrote:

Surely you just remove their admin rights completely?

We need to have some mechanism so if one arbiter put something in a private wiki that should not be there — he would have an option to hide it. At the moment, we may find ourselves in a situation when it will be highly necessary. Please do not reject our request, but try to help us achieve this goal.

We also need admins (or some other role) to have a "block" right to independently ensure rotation every six months.

In T274061#6809132, @Urbanecm wrote:

All three proposed solutions can't be implemented on Wikimedia servers for technical and security reasons.

It is really impossible to create an additional role that will allow us to delete pages and ban users and prevent restoring pages (undelete)?

Best regards, Dmitry

It is definitely possible to create a custom group. I was refering to the three solutions proposed in the task description. Custom user group is not mentioned there.

A closer-like group is definitely possible, from technical/site security standpoint.

However, i'm still unsure how that solves any issue. Could you elaborate more on what you're trying to solve, so we can actually propose some solutions, please?

@Urbanecm - thanks for answering!

The fact is that our ArbCom-30 turned out to be, apparently, more technically savvy than several previous panels, therefore, it would be good for us to resolve the problems that emerged in the transfer of cases between the two convocations of arbitrators.

New arbitrators already entered into office, leaving us just a couple of cases on which we need to finish work. One of the new arbitrators is a party to the case that we have not yet closed and it is still active (I hope we will close this case within a month and this issue will be resolved). So far, this problem has been resolved in such a way that the new arbitrators will prepare draft decisions on cases in Google Docs for a while.

There may be different problems: (1) some of the published materials can be used by an arbitrator with a conflict of interest or (2) some of the published in private arbwiki materials should be removed according to WP:REAL (we didn’t put such materials on the private wiki beforehand, but anything happens), in this case it would be correct to ask the right to oversight to one of the arbitrators and hide the problematic materials, we don't need it now, the maximum that is now required of us is to leave reference material on how to do this for new arbitrators in the future.

Case (1) is more common and will be resolved, apparently, indeed, by using other platforms for similar cases, however, situations may arise, especially when transferring cases (as happened this time), that it would be desirable for the old arbitrators to take one case materials with them (copy the materials they are working on in Google Docs and delete them on the private wiki) and let new colleagues use the site freely. In such a situation, at least until the end of the work on the case, its parties should not see the materials, i.e. we should be able to delete the materials, and then colleagues should be able to restore the materials after the case is closed. All this should be logged.

Thus, by default we need to give new members not administrator and bureaucrat rights, as we were going to do, but bureaucrat rights and "closer +" - in fact, an administrator without the right to view deleted edits. This group can have rights (100% needed are bold):

• Block a user from sending email (blockemail)
• Block other users from editing (block)
• Create new user accounts (createaccount)
• Delete pages (delete)
• Enable two-factor authentication (oathauth-enable)
• Have one's own edits automatically marked as "checked" (autoreview)
• Mass delete pages (nuke)
• Merge the history of pages (mergehistory)
• Move category pages (move-categorypages)
• Move pages with stable versions (movestable)
• Move pages with their subpages (move-subpages)
• Move pages (move)
• Move root user pages (move-rootuserpages)
• Not create redirects from source pages when moving pages (suppressredirect)
• Override the spoofing checks (override-antispoof)
• Override the title or username blacklist (tboverride)
• Perform CAPTCHA-triggering actions without having to go through the CAPTCHA (skipcaptcha)
• Quickly rollback the edits of the last user who edited a particular page (rollback)
• Send a message to multiple users at once (massmessage)
• Use higher limits in API queries (apihighlimits)

Also, bureaucrats should have a right to add this group "Closer".

If this is possible and sounds reasonable, then I will have to consult with my colleagues about what they want the Russian name of this group, and, perhaps, there will be other comments. When we have decided on all this - will we need to create a new request on this matter, or will it be possible to reopen this one by changing the start message?

@RhinosF1 @Reedy — I apologize for disturbing you and thank you for your attention.

Tell me please, does the right "undelete" make it possible to view the remote content without logging this action? If not, and with this right you can restore (what the record will be about), view, and then delete (which there will also be a record about), then we are quite satisfied to leave such a right.

Also, in order not to produce unnecessary entities, it would be good, I think, to give all these rights to a group of bureaucrats - in our wiki, they are already configured so that they can give bureaucrat's flag themselves.

Have a great weekend everyone!

There is a view deleted content right that might be more what you are after if you don't want it to be restorable.

Viewing deleted content isn't logged but restoring it would be.