[Imc-uk-network] Fwd: [imc-northern] request for the rest of thecollective to take a moderation decision]

[theinnercityhippy at riseup.net]

hi.

The uk moderation guidelines state serveral things. First amongst them is
that language that discriminatory or offensive will result in a post being
hidden. In the original article, it ends with a directed attack on someone
who was subsequently identified to the uk by a mir moderator as being a
member of northern imc for reasons i can only imagine. There is still no
explanation how this person was privy to this knowledge having not been at
the meeting nor was it in the public domain before this point. I would
like an explanation of this in a public arena such as this list, along
with an explanation as to why this was considered appropriate.

The wording of the guideline in question includes the following:

'personal attack...please make your point without resorting to personal
abuse'

as has been put up as an addition on the article.

Here are some selections from the 80 constructive and well thought out
comments on the thread:

'he comes across as a cynical liar and i find it hard now not to think of
him just as a pompous twerp at best'

'you're a clique of technie-nerds'

'you include at least one bloke who's currently at the centre of a lot of
trouble who lives in a house bigger than my housing coop' (note-if this is
a reference to myself, it would require this coop to be smaller than the
18ft van that i live in so i would suggest it is most likely inaccurate at
best)

'people aren't speculating about the common place are they, they are
speculating about YOU!'

and so on...

It's also interesting to note that the attacks on northern imc are usually
preceded with a comment titled or containing the words 'hint hint', which
then go on to give detailed references to items on our mailing list.
Clearly the work of someone for whom it is usual practise to punctuate
their points in such a way and a guided attempt to steer the comments to
fit their own agenda.

Since this would clearly not be someone from imc uk who is doing this, as
that would go against the basis of solidarity between activists to abuse a
shared news resource for the movement in this way, i would request that
those who regularly use the filtering tools of mir to catch such clearly
pro-state trolls pay more attention in this case.

Shame on those moderators who see their own agendas as more important than
using the indymedia uk site for what it is meant for - a news resource not
a playground. How many more will leave before you realise this, and who
will be left?

Jimdog




> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi Mike
>
> Mike D wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I sent an email to the imc-northern list yesterday which is of
>> interest to the imc-uk collective and uk network so I am reproducing
>> it below. I have not been able to provide a link to this email on the
>> imc-northern list as I received an email stating that it is 'awaiting
>> moderator approval' although I am actually am a subscriber of the imc-
>> northern list and should not require moderation on this open list.
>
> To explain: the list is set up so that new subscribers have their
> moderation bit set, and it's unset after the first (non-spam) message is
> checked by a moderator. Your message has now been forwarded to the list
> and your moderation bit reset. Sorry for the delay.
>
>> I see a real conflict of interest when the
>> person at the centre of this controversy is heavily involved in an imc
>> which has just made the decision to hide an article drawing attention
>> to this controversy, whilst Indymedia UK have not found anything in
>> this article which breaches editorial guidelines.
>
> I saw the conflict of interest too. That's why I asked other members of
> the collective to decide how to deal with it.
>
>> I agree it is reasonable to question the authenticity of comments, but
>> this really is quite unprecedented in that there are no rebuttals.
>
> I've spoken today to two friends who were at the meeting, who have very
> different politics to me. Both independently told me the same thing -
> there's no point in posting rebuttals to comments on indymedia UK
> because it's not taken seriously as a news source.
>
>> All imc
>> uk have done is left up an article about an issue which has clearly
>> struck a strong chord with the activist community in Leeds.
>
> Or maybe one activist who wants to say the same thing over & over again?
> Who knows?
>
>>> 40 activists turning out to a meeting out of fear of a group being
>>> excluded from their local social centre is an astonishing show of
>>> solidarity, activists on Indymedia UK certainly consider this to be
>>> news worthy. Most protests reported don't get 40 people! A carbon copy
>>> of this news item was posted on Indymedia UK here and it has generated
>>> nearly 40 comments so far of which there are no rebuttals of the
>>> article:-
>
> Like I said, don't expect people who care about the truth to be making
> posts.
>
>>> I wish you all the best with your new imc collective, and hopefully
>>> you can work through these problems you are experiencing and create a
>>> more harmonious relationship between imc northern and imc uk in the
>>> future.
>
> Thanks! I hope so too.
>
> Mark
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFK16rn3b8v4BN9hRQRApndAJ9xh61ow1qvr7ouTFRgtfjewK3BiQCgz2qJ
> DcXOFwnecqLBNlzTA5I5V2A=
> =22Nj
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> __
> Imc-uk-network mailing list
> Imc-uk-network at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-network
> Also other list of similar interest Indymedia United Kollektives process:
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-process
>