Requests for Comment/Alternatives For Current Loginwiki

    From Miraheze Meta, Miraheze's central coordination wiki
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
    This RfC is closed as follows:
    Proposal 1 (original): Request was withdrawn, in accordance to Requests for Comment Policy#Withdrawal as the request had no support and various opposes.
    Proposal 1 ('real'): Fails as it has strong opposition towards it and no support at all.
    Proposal 2: While this proposal does have 2 more support votes than opposes, the support votes are rather weak (not saying the oppose votes are super strong either but they at least argue more than the support votes). Being that proposal 2 does not define specifics of how such a wiki would be setup such as the database name of this wiki, initial administrators, policies, etc., and along with the rather weak support arguments, this proposal is closed as unsuccessful/unenforceable. Even if closed as successful, this vague proposal would require yet another RfC to straighten out specifics. This closure however does not preclude any potential future RfCs establishing such a wiki but any such future RfC should be drafted first in order to get wide community review and input. Any future RfCs establishing a wiki and moving the GlobalUserPage host wiki should preferably get wide community engagement and a support ratio over 66%.
    Proposal 3: Request was withdrawn, in accordance to Requests for Comment Policy#Withdrawal as the request had no support and various opposes.
    Proposal 4: While this proposal is successful, being that loginwiki is an SRE controlled wiki and that an Engineering Manager for SRE has stated that SRE will decline to hand over the wiki to community control, the proposal is declared moot and unenforceable. --Agent Isai Talk to me! 17:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


    I’ve created this RfC following input from other users about the current state of loginwiki. Some users have expressed a desire to not have global user pages based off Login, because of the name and externality from Meta. As such, I’ve created an RfC to address these concerns and see what can be done to either a) improve loginwiki‘s name or b) remove it entirely and/or re-assign its focus.

    Proposal 1: Combine Login With Meta[edit | edit source]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
     Request withdrawn. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 20:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

    This proposal would be to combine loginwiki and metawiki, which would result in all new checkusers and logins being registered to Meta. Instead of having an account on Login automatically, it would change the default wiki to Meta. Global user pages would also be shifted to Meta, and as such override current local Meta user pages. When combined, loginwiki would then be deleted. This would implement what is currently used at the Wikipedia Foundation, where Meta-Wiki is the hub.

    Support[edit | edit source]

    1. Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support The WMF’s system works well, I don’t see why it can’t be like that for Miraheze. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 14:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
      What is being proposed here isn't exactly like the WMF system. While the WMF may use GUP on Meta, they do have a loginwiki for logins. The proposal above proposes that loginwiki is deleted. Reception123 (talk) (C) 19:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

    Abstain[edit | edit source]

    Oppose[edit | edit source]

    1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This does not make any sense from a technical standpoint. Wikimedia also has a loginwiki (login.wikimedia.org) so we do it the same way. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 14:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Even apart from a global user pages, loginwiki is used for technical purposes related to login. — Chrs (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    3. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose I really don't see a good enough rationale to justify this. Either way, merging them would be quite complex and time consuming for the SRE team and we've also always had this setup because that's how Wikimedia does it and to my knowledge they're the only other wiki farm that uses CentralAuth. The GUP on Meta debate is separate IMO and shouldn't have been merged with the other proposal. Reception123 (talk) (C) 15:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
      ​ No, Wikimedia uses Meta for global user pages, with editing on loginwiki being strictly locked and having almost no extensions. That's why it's always been a problem since day one for the editing doors on loginwiki to be wide open and loads of extensions for use on userpages. Wikimedia has never had global user pages on loginwiki. Naleksuh (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
      @Naleksuh: I know, I didn't say that. My issue is that this proposal wants to completely remove loginwiki, not that it wants to move GUP to Meta. There's two parts to this proposal (instead of there being two proposals) and I strongly oppose the part that says we should remove loginwiki, I didn't make any comments about the GUP part. Reception123 (talk) (C) 19:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    4. Symbol full oppose vote.svg Strongest oppose I'm sorry, but I think this idea is TERRIBLE! If we were to remove it entirely, that would screw up Miraheze. I'm sorry BrandonWM, but this idea is absolutely trash, and would most likely fall flat on its face. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per MacFan and DMM. --Routhwick (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

    Comments[edit | edit source]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

    Proposal 1 Real : Combine Login With Meta, but really[edit | edit source]

    This was based on BrandonWM's misunderstanding that loginwiki is only for global user pages, missing the point of the central login wiki. This proposes moving global user pages to Meta, and just keeping login wiki for logins.

    Support[edit | edit source]

    Abstain[edit | edit source]

    Oppose[edit | edit source]

    1. If they are going to be moved, they should be moved really. By now, most of the damage is done as the database is tarnished. I could see resetting the database as 2 provides, but not just deleting and doing nothing else (no login wiki then) and not just doing nothing (no purpose in any of this, then) Naleksuh (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This literally misses the point of the loginwiki's functions. Isn't it supposed to serve as a global wiki? --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Bukkit[cetacean needed] 21:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A solution in search of a problem, to be sure, but also global user pages are a global function, so I'd have concerns about locally elected Meta administrators being able to use a local mop and bucket with global effects, essentially. Dmehus (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
      @Dmehus: In my own personal view of this RfC, this looks like an attempt to shutdown the loginwiki, showing a bit of incompetency on the nominator's part. I'm not saying that the nominator is an incompetent fool, but the way this RfC is currently conveying makes it out like it's a problem, when really, it's there for global purposes. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    5. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose. This is out of scope. Cigaryno (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

    Proposal 2: Create A Global UserPage-Focused Wiki[edit | edit source]

    This proposal would be to create an entirely new, global user page-focused wiki. That wiki would be solely for GUP editing. As such, loginwiki would become a no-editing environment, and would be used for operations (checkuser, renames, etc.).

    Support[edit | edit source]

    1. Symbol partial support vote.svg Weak support I’d be fine with this. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 14:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    2. When I suggested this, I wanted to reset the database for loginwiki as by now the damage is done, with loginwiki's user page assets being transferred to a wiki specifically for hosting global user pages (probably globaluserpagewiki or similar). Naleksuh (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    3. Symbol support vote.svg Support as nominator. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 19:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    4. Symbol support vote.svg Support loginwiki is a SRE-controlled technical wiki. Ideally it shouldn't be used for any community functions, including global user pages. Universal Omega (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    5. Symbol support vote.svg Support loginwiki is there for technical reasons, so it doesn’t make sense that it would be used for non-login related things. -- Bukkit[cetacean needed] 22:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    6. Symbol support vote.svg Support This is an alternative to other proposals asking to remove loginwiki, and also solve this issues currently. Cheers, Matttest (talk | contribs) 13:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

    Abstain[edit | edit source]

    1. Symbol neutral vote.svg Abstain No vote on this because I’ve already supported #1 and opposed #3. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 14:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

    Oppose[edit | edit source]

    1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per my oppose in Proposal 1. Reception123 (talk) (C) 15:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    2. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose This is strictly a bad idea, I'm afraid. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
      Do you have any explanation as of why? I could just say "This is strictly a good idea, I'm afraid." Naleksuh (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
      @Naleksuh: You clearly didn't read my reason below or above, did you? I'll paraphrase it for you, so you won't resort to incompetent behavior or any nonsensical comebacks against my reasons for opposing this utterly ridiculous RfC that will go nowhere. First off, if we were to entirely merge the loginwiki with metawiki, that would possibly cause issues for everyone, and would probably screw up this wiki farm. And secondly, what BrandonWM has proposed here is very problematic, especially since the loginwiki is meant to stay right where it is for global reasons. I'm not about to regurgitate my 2nd reason from my first reason. So, there you go. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
      loginwiki is staying, it’s just proposing a new wiki so that loginwiki keeps it’s intended scope of SUL, and not host non-login related actions. -- Bukkit[cetacean needed] 22:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
      @Bukkit: Exactly why I think this RfC poses a threat to the future of the loginwiki. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    3. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose per Reception123 --小美粉粉 (Talk) (Contribs) (Sandbox) (My Wiki) (Global Contribs) 1004065811 bytes of data NOTE: Do not {{ping}} me! 00:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I would've strongly opposed Proposal 1, and while I suppose this is the not a terrible option, this feels like a solution in search of a problem. Put another way, we already have a Loginwiki that includes the ability to create global user pages. There are no "thou must not use a login wiki for any other purpose than central user login coordination" rules in the CentralAuth extension or MediaWiki software. Dmehus (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

    Comments[edit | edit source]

    • What are the technical or community problems with the way the current arrangement works? Ie, what does the global login page feature do to subvert the operation of loginwiki? We already have satellite wiki bloat and we really don't need to add more one-trick wikis if the need is not clear in the first place. The only rationale I have seen is pointing to Wikimedia convention, which we draw upon but do not depend upon, and the fact it's SRE operated, in which case perhaps we can simply work with SRE to streamline how it works so the minor operational confusion that exists now can be fixed. --Raidarr (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

    Proposal 3: Keep Login Same And Rename[edit | edit source]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
     Request withdrawn. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 20:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

    This proposal would be to rename loginwiki entirely to userwiki or accesswiki. There isn’t much to this proposal except to rename.

    Support[edit | edit source]

    Abstain[edit | edit source]

    1. Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral This isn’t hard to do, but no sure if we really want to do it. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 14:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

    Oppose[edit | edit source]

    1. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Seems like it won’t do much, if I’m being fully honest. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 14:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No good rationale for this. — Chrs (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The wiki is mainly used for technical reasons but additionally gives users the possibility to use GUP. There might be users who find that confusing or annoying but I haven't heard of such complaints personally and feel like naming doesn't do much. Reception123 (talk) (C) 15:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    4. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Do I really need to explain why? Do I? I think it should be obvious why I opposed. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

    Comments[edit | edit source]

    1. This is absolutely absurd to get rid of the loginwiki. I'm concerned about this type of move, because many users go to the loginwiki to make GlobalUser pages. 9 times out of 10, this will likely backfire in the long-run. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
      @DarkMatterMan4500: literally the entire point. They shouldn’t be on loginwiki for GUP. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 19:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
      @BrandonWM: Ah, but that's the problem. We're not going to try copying Wikimedia's loginwiki whatsoever. I think it's fine just the way it is. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
      @DarkMatterMan4500: It would create all kinds of security issues. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 20:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

    Proposal 4 Have local bureaucrats and sysops on login wiki to keep things tidy[edit | edit source]

    This proposal is basically elect local admins and bureaucrats to keep things tidy. Could also be that we just allow meta admins to have rights on login wiki as well as have elections. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 20:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

    Support[edit | edit source]

    1. Symbol partial support vote.svg Weak support I wouldn't mind this at all, as long as it is consistent. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    2. Symbol full support vote.svg Strongest support as proposer. This seems like the best and easiest option. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 20:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    3. Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support @MacFan4000: generally has a good ear on things and if he thinks this is the best path, I’m inclined to support him. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 20:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    4. Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support I do like this idea. Universal Omega (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    5. Symbol partial support vote.svg Weak support I would rather we simply leave things as they are, but if we're going to make a change then this one is the least objectionable to me. Sario528 (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

    Abstain[edit | edit source]

    Oppose[edit | edit source]

    1. This doesn't solve the issues with login wiki. It doesn't solve the name being misleading, or the misuse of a login wiki. In fact, this would only make things worse as things into login dig further. Instead, let's focus on moving global user pages out and have sysops/crats there. Then, there won't be a need for sysops as it's readonly. That said, I might support Stewards having permanent CheckUser on loginwiki, rather than adding and removing constantly (Wikimedia does this) Naleksuh (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Naleksuh --小美粉粉 (Talk) (Contribs) (Sandbox) (My Wiki) (Global Contribs) 1004065811 bytes of data NOTE: Do not {{ping}} me! 04:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

    Comments[edit | edit source]

    • loginwiki is a SRE-managed wiki and local rights will not be given out to turn this into a community wiki - it is for technical purposes only and won’t be handed over by SRE to the community so this proposal is moot even if it passes as no local rights will be issued on the basis of this proposal. (Comment made in capacity of an EM for SRE.) John (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
      @John: I mean, what good would this do if we removed the loginwiki from this platform? That's like resorting to destroying the values of the Wikimedia Foundation all because someone wanted to change one little thing about the wiki(s). --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

    Questions/Comments[edit | edit source]

    1. Apparently, the mindset of the nominator is like "Fuck the loginwiki, let's get rid of it, so it can magically make the other users happy." I'm sorry BrandonWM, but I don't think it works like that. We need the loginwiki for purposes like CheckUser data, amongst other things that I can't immediately list from the back of my own head. It would just screw up Miraheze as a whole. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
      No one suggested removing it. Naleksuh (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
      @Naleksuh: This suggests that you didn't read Proposal 1. It explicitly says "When combined, loginwiki would then be deleted." Reception123 (talk) (C) 19:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
      What????? I thought they meant deleted and recreated. Also, that is NOT what is currently used on Wikimedia. https://login.wikimedia.org Naleksuh (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
      I will add that I intended to put recreate but must’ve forgotten to add that. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 19:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
      This RfC is doomed for failure anyhow. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section
    Retrieved from "https://meta.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_Comment/Alternatives_For_Current_Loginwiki&oldid=260617"