[imc-uk-moderation] Hidden abusive comments, was: Re: Query about promotion.

Wed Apr 9 12:25:43 PDT 2008

Hi

On Wed 09-Apr-2008 at 10:48:47AM -0700,
guidoreports at riseup.net wrote:
> >
> > On Thu 03-Apr-2008 at 11:02:37AM -0700,
> > guidoreports at riseup.net wrote:
> > >
> > > But why have the replies to abusive nutter DH been
> > > hidden and by whom?
> >
> > I hid some abusive comments, are you defending such
> > things as the comment where "Doh!" said that Chris C
> > and Chris B from Indybay are "loathsome scumbags"? [1]
> > How can this *not* count as breach of the new personal
> > attack guidline?
> 
> Because the comments did not refer to ChrisC or ChrisB. 

Yes it does, it doesn't name them but it makes direct
reference to the radio show that they are on: 

  For the rest of you, be under no illusions that these
  loathsome scumbags intend to hijack Indymedia for their
  own ends. If you want the evidence just click the link
  below and have a long hard listen:

   http://www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2008/03//393372.mp3

> It seems to me that he or she was making a general point
> about the Truth movements plans for Indymedia.

Well this whole accusation about the "Truth movements
plans for Indymedia" are absurd but in any case since when
is calling any users of the site "loathsome scumbags"
acceptable?

For which other activist community would outreach and
encouragment for people to post reports of their protests
be called an "hijack Indymedia for their own ends" -- this
is simply ridiculous. 

Don't you remember saying this?

  It is also my opinion that if the "truthers" take their
  "struggle" beyond the realms of cyberspace and hold
  meetings, demos or direct actions; then what they are
  doing IS news and suitable for this site no matter how
  full of shit I happen to think they are. The recent demo
  in Parliament Square that appeared on the newswire with
  pictures makes a good example.

  http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-July/0710-gw.html

> I also notice that your original reason for hiding the
> comments was that they were abusive rather than personal
> attacks:
> 
> chris hide - abusive: "parasite mates"
> 
> chris hide - abusive "loathsome scumbags"

Yes, "abusive" is shorthand for the new guideline that
perhaps you are not aware of:

- Personal attack: Articles and/or comments that contain
  *abusive* language against other activists or site
  users.  Please make your point without resorting to
  personal *abuse*.

  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/editorial.html

> Meanwhile its absolutely fine for your truther mate 'dh'
> to make comments like:
>
> "Fuck you traditional leftists with your half-baked
> social theories" without being considered abusive by
> you? Since when was parasite,loathsome or scumbag less
> abusive than "Fuck you"?

No I don't think that is acceptable, I have hidden
comments from "messey" for attacking you in that thread.

> I also notice that since I last looked at the article
> (the day it fell off the front page) that several
> 'personal attacks' have appeared in the comments
> directed at me. It seems that I am a "gatekeeper", that
> I am posting under multiple names and that I am also
> behind a blog called "truthwatch". I am more than happy
> for them to stay there as any derogatory remarks from
> these tossers are recieved as the highest of
> compliments.

I'd be happy to see lots more comments on that thread
hidden, I don't think any abusive is acceptable, it's a
shame that no other admin seems to want get involved with
this, so it's been left to me to do all the moderation of
this thread (well ana did promote one comment but nobody
has hidden stuff apart from me). 

Of course you are not behind the "truthwatch" blog which
has had it's articles spammed onto the newswire and
hidden, in fact I very much doubt that any activist or
lefty is behind it as it does really odd things like refer
to me as a Indymedia "spokesMAN"...

> They also spammed my riseup inbox with various assorted
> hate mail the most hilarious of which announced that I
> was clearly an american zionist?!

Who are "they"? This clearly has nothing to do with me.

> But going back to my original point I don't think you
> are doing yourself any favours by operating double
> standards in favour of your truther chums when
> moderating.

That is not true, there are several comments attacking me
directly that I haven't hidden because I don't think it
would be right for me to do so and and I also think it's
quite telling that no other Indymedia admin saw fit to
hide them either, I guess this is an example of the
"majority consesus" [1] that you represent? for example:

  ------------

  Truth Action - Wow. I'm speechless

  Thanks for the link Doh, never listened to that before..
  what an eye opener. That Truth Action show is almost
  comical. It's like an Alex Jones mini-me. Just a pity I
  had to use Indymedia bandwidth to listen, which it's
  clearly not worthy of.

  You are correct they do want to hijack Indymedia and to
  hear it said is the only reason worth giving the show the
  time of day.

  "If you want peace then you have to get real about 9/11
  spread the truth of 9/11." Demands the self righteous
  host of this evangelica style propaganda "show".

  At least he admits they have to lie within the first 10
  minutes. That was a small bit of truth, ironic. The
  twisted fact they are acting on behalf of the victims and
  those sick from 9/11 directly take away from those real
  people in need of medical care.

  Action on the 11th day of every month huh? Thanks for
  telling me which day I can play being an activist for the
  month. Would you like me to stop people in the street,
  video and upload it to YouTube aswell?

  Great. I can now sleep at night knowing I'm saving the
  world 1 day a month.

  The quote from one of the 'activists "9/11 stops wars"
  might ring true in the minds of some British truthers at
  least, judging from the Make War History campaign they
  are trying to build. Shame none of the rest of us feel
  the same.

  Our very own truther, ChrisC (Truth Action moderator),
  calls in as a spokesman for Indymedia UK, sad to see his
  delusions are getting the better of him, hmm wonder why
  he hasn't posted a comment here yet, maybe he just feels
  a bit shy when his movement is publicly discredited. I
  wouldn't exactly call him Mr Personality, "it's.. it's..
  uh.. it's...um.. it's..um.." Bless him.

  You can now see ChrisC screaming Indymedia is
  disinformation on a truth forum near you soon.

  Encouraging "9/11 truth activists" to flood our newswire
  is totally out of order.

  dh.. keep going, you're making my job easier.

  So to dh, Andy, ChrisC and the rest of you truthers
  haven't you learnt anything over the years? We are having
  the same debate year after year and still you refuse to
  respect the Indymedia editorial or the people who
  contribute each day. A handful here accept your
  conspiracy theories but the vast majority do not. Why
  target Indymedia UK when there's hundreds of other sites
  out there willing to promote you? Take the hint.

  WTF!? 

  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/395207.html?c=all#c192547

  ------------

  chrisC is an Indymedia moderator??

  What! I don't believe it, I've seen some of his posts
  and if he is an Indymedia moderator we are going down
  hill fast.

  Please tell me it isn't true.

  You're joking right? 

  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/395207.html?c=all#c192641

  ------------

  Truthers in the Indy house

  Yes it is true, there is an evangelical truther within
  the core of the uk indymedia network and there have
  been numerous times when other admins have sought to
  hide some reposted non news 911 fantasy only to have it
  defended by the person. This internal conflict extends
  itself beyond the lists and into network meetings and
  other elements of indymedia work. However, on the
  whole, indymedia admins do manage to maintain the
  newswire as a news service.

  mirror 

  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/395207.html?c=all#c192659

  ------------

  Truthers are just a fanclub

  I think we can all agree (apart from the obvious
  truthers) that the truth movement is little more than a
  fanclub.

  Chrisc is just a cheerleader.

  I think we all agree 

  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/395207.html?c=all#c192710

  ------------

I expect that all the above comments are actually from the
"truthwatch" troll.

> Accusations about you pushing your own agenda start
> ringing true.

What on earth does that mean? I could say that it appears
to me that you are pushing your own agenda and where would
that get us? Since when it it a bad thing if somone puts
forwards a political argument for something they believe
in? 

> I am more than happy to discuss this with you in person
> if you want? I will be in your neck of the woods in the
> next two weeks as I have to have a meeting with the folk
> that I travelled to Kashmir with in 2005.

Fine, I know these SWP'ers, suggest a evening and a pub --
I should be able to do any evening from 9pm onwards....

But to be honest I can't see us getting that far, we
didn't last time... You recently said that you would
"happily see a partial or total ban on this stuff similar
to that put in place by NY IMC" [2] and I don't think that
is the answer at all.

It also appears to be a contradictory stance to take on
this issue, because, for example, David Rovics said "the
CIA funded and armed Al-Qaeda and the Taleban" and this is
something that been covered on Indymedia in articles by
people like Nafeez Ahmed [3] and Peter Dale-Scott [4] but
presumably these are exactly the kind of articles that you
would like to see banned -- articles that back up David
Rovics' assertion, which you agree with...?

Also, I'm suprised that nobody has picked you up on this:

On Fri 04-Apr-2008 at 06:34:12AM -0700,
guidoreports at riseup.net wrote:
>
> Hopefully we will get the opportunity to examine this
> subject at the next network meeting. Though to be honest
> I was speaking to some folks at the Sumac last monday
> and what they had to say about the last meeting and the
> behaviour of some, did not fill me with hope.....

Yes, it looks like it might not fall off the agenda at
the next meeting but I really have no idea what
"behaviour of some" you are refering to here -- do you
care to elaborate on this accusation?

Chris

[1] "With regard to the truthers I have every right to
    make them feel unwelcome on IMC UK as that is the
    majority consesus as well as my personal opinion.
    They are also very open about their intention to abuse
    our open publishing facility for their own purposes.
    Indymedia is here for everyone who oposes the
    corporate media line not just a tiny group of paranoid
    fuckwits to press their agenda. Don't take my word for
    it. Check out the link to 'Truth Radio' posted above
    if you want to hear it from the horses mouth."

    http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/395207.html?c=all#c192717

[2] http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-moderation/2008-April/0404-ii.html

[3] Ties With Terror: Western-Al-Qaeda Relations in the
    Post-Cold War Period
    Nafeez Ahmed
    http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/04/368971.html

[4] How the FBI protected Al Qaedaâ\200\231s 9/11
    Hijacking Trainer
    Peter Dale-Scott
    http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/10/353027.html