On 1/24/06, Sam Fentress (Asbestos) <asbestos999(a)gmail.com> wrote:
There is nothing that we could discuss that we would need to ban others
from listening to and contributing to. Policy? Nowhere is it written or even
suggested that admins only make policy. Blocking decisions? This is always
open on the wiki and admin decisions are always transparent and open to
accountability. How to use admin buttons? Use a talk page, write an email,
or go to #wikipedia. People we don't like? Edit wars we'd like assistance
on? Notable polls we want our friends voting in? If people need to discuss
any of these things, there are plenty of other venues.
This isn't a trivial matter. Outside of email
lists, this is the first
time (as far as I'm aware) that we have any forum designed specifically to
hide from the rest of the community, to discuss things in secret, to set one
group over and above another.
I'm not against an admin-oriented channel: just against a hidden,
exclusive, admin-only channel.
Sam
Since no one else has mentioned this, I just thought I'd throw the question
out again: Is there anything that we, as administrators, need to discuss
that we'd need to ban others from listening to and contributing to?
If not, then I don't care about the odd benefit of being able to have "a
quiet word with a group of trusted editors": the idea of a secret, exclusive
channel needs to be thrown out. You can still have your quiet word on a
moderated, on-topic, non-exclusive admin channel.
Sam
--
Asbestos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asbestos