For the record, I'm against this change. If there's truly an issue, a trusted contributor with a WMF cloak can bangops just as easily. But by whitelisting other networks, it becomes trivial to social engineer enough to begin creating spam. And I know a couple of our bad actors would love that.

In T247900#5977505, @Matthewrbowker wrote:

For the record, I'm against this change. If there's truly an issue, a trusted contributor with a WMF cloak can bangops just as easily. But by whitelisting other networks, it becomes trivial to social engineer enough to begin creating spam. And I know a couple of our bad actors would love that.

Why can't a trusted contributor without a wiki cloak be given the same rights as one with one?

Are you proposing a username based whitelist, or additional group cloaks to be whitelisted?

In T247900#5977532, @Peachey88 wrote:

Are you proposing a username based whitelist, or additional group cloaks to be whitelisted?

I would propose at least additional cloaks

Please list what you are proposing, instead of people randomly guessing your intentions.

In T247900#5977543, @Peachey88 wrote:

Please list what you are proposing, instead of people randomly guessing your intentions.

there should be either more cloaks added, or some sort of whitelist feature

In T247900#5977515, @Zppix wrote:

In T247900#5977505, @Matthewrbowker wrote:

For the record, I'm against this change. If there's truly an issue, a trusted contributor with a WMF cloak can bangops just as easily. But by whitelisting other networks, it becomes trivial to social engineer enough to begin creating spam. And I know a couple of our bad actors would love that.

Why can't a trusted contributor without a wiki cloak be given the same rights as one with one?

Wiki contributors are vetted using OAth, requiring 250 edits, three months service, and no active blocks. I consider that pretty low bar, certainly not something would preclude someone who is hanging in our channels actively to achieve.

And if not, someone with a cloak can bangops. Or go to #wikimedia-ops and ask for help.

In T247900#5977547, @Matthewrbowker wrote:

In T247900#5977515, @Zppix wrote:

In T247900#5977505, @Matthewrbowker wrote:

For the record, I'm against this change. If there's truly an issue, a trusted contributor with a WMF cloak can bangops just as easily. But by whitelisting other networks, it becomes trivial to social engineer enough to begin creating spam. And I know a couple of our bad actors would love that.

Why can't a trusted contributor without a wiki cloak be given the same rights as one with one?

Wiki contributors are vetted using OAth, requiring 250 edits, three months service, and no active blocks. I consider that pretty low bar, certainly not something would preclude someone who is hanging in our channels actively to achieve.

And if not, someone with a cloak can bangops. Or go to #wikimedia-ops and ask for help.

What about for example for users like myself, who meet those criteria for a cloak, but have a cloak with a different project?

In T247900#5977553, @Zppix wrote:

In T247900#5977547, @Matthewrbowker wrote:

In T247900#5977515, @Zppix wrote:

In T247900#5977505, @Matthewrbowker wrote:

For the record, I'm against this change. If there's truly an issue, a trusted contributor with a WMF cloak can bangops just as easily. But by whitelisting other networks, it becomes trivial to social engineer enough to begin creating spam. And I know a couple of our bad actors would love that.

Why can't a trusted contributor without a wiki cloak be given the same rights as one with one?

Wiki contributors are vetted using OAth, requiring 250 edits, three months service, and no active blocks. I consider that pretty low bar, certainly not something would preclude someone who is hanging in our channels actively to achieve.

And if not, someone with a cloak can bangops. Or go to #wikimedia-ops and ask for help.

What about for example for users like myself, who meet those criteria for a cloak, but have a cloak with a different project?

That is your choice. But I don't think your choice should have the chanops spend time maintaining a special whitelist of usernames (that's lots of time!) or projects (open to abuse, see above).

Volunteer GC comment: Don't most ops just stalk the phrase "!ops" anyway? Maybe I'm just old skool. :)

Apparently many do, or so we found out when wikibugs copied your comment into the channel, !_ops included :)