yup.

I'm glad UK IMC is still here too and I don't care about IP address filtering

So long as you trust all the admins..

Personally I do care about IP filtering. Yes, I do tend to post under my own name and don't often hide behind anonymity. However there are some articles I have contributed where, if not anonymous, would land me in the shit. You see one of the reasons that indymedia has not had as many seizes is that the capacity to log IPs has been said to not be there. Regardless of holding them in memory or not, as a list exists outside of RAM btw with respects to some IPs, its the principal that matters. Most of us are intelligent enough to distil state actor's posts from the genuine ones.

Hi I'm zkt I'm moding t'night
Your all safe, but hey c'mon behave keep a civil tongue, ffs

Yeah, calling someone a cunt is a bit out of order but given my free-speech bent I would prefer that comment to be there, along with my reply to it. But ho hum each to their own I guess.

We'll I don't want this to turn into a I love/hate jimdog thread, I don't think that's what the poster intended.
Tell me if I'm wrong.

Thanks for the support.

IMC Global Process looks dead, like a ghost town......

Tumbleweed ..........

Tumble weed indeed! Great article written in 2010 about indymedia dying, bang on IMO. On topic, I do want to see an Indymedia UK site with the URL and all. The issue has always been who should have control of it and under what decision making processes should it be maintained. IMO that question is bound up with WHO runs the site and the distribution of power differentials amongst them i.e. the super-user debate on the lists.

I'm glad we still have an indymedia and that the attempt to shut it down has so far failed.

I'm glad it's still here. Long may it last.

hmmmm I view the 'attempt' to shut down IMC UK not as an attempt to shut down the site but rather to challenge some of those maintaining it. If those in question left the indymedia project I imagine that the UK site would remain as it is. Personally I don't think anyone should be in the position of a super user for more than a year and that such privileged positions should be rotated. IMO that is the anarchist way, power differentials rotated and constantly so; that's the basis of non-hierarchical organisation.

I think talk of a 'global authority' is a bit strong. Indymedia UK was always part of a global network call Indymedia (sometimes called the Independent Media Collective, or IMC).

This is not some authoritarian organisation, but one that media activists in the UK willingly signed up to - and now seem to be fighting for membership thereof.

 http://www.indymedia.org/ (the 'about' page is about the IMC network, and there's a link on that page to FAQ)

Hope it stays here at this URL, open publishing, and after this storm has passed people can put energy into making it even better. Bollocks to some different name. Good luck with it all.

@ James Kirkcaldy, it needs the people who are currently doing the admin, otherwise it was temporarily canned, and would have been permanently. Depending on what is decided on global IMC lists, it may still get binned. That you think differently means you've not read much of the recent storm - not that I can blame you!

I have been following this issue the last month and finally i want to
share my points of view:

 freethepeeps@riseup.net(e)k dio:
> [EN]
>
> Dear global Indymedia
>
> The Mayday collective, which is one party in the 'forking' Indymedia uk
> dispute took direct action to stop the Indymedia uk newswire from being
> shut down or moved outside of the Indymedia network on May 1st.
>
> We took these steps because our concerns about the site were being ignored
> and it seemed that the other prong of the fork was using affiliation as a
> form of hierarchy and a weapon against us.

I understand that you feel that, but i think you should understand too
that for far IMC's not involved in your internal discussions, we tend to
trust (a bit or much) more to afiliated IMC's like us. Because they are
part of the web of trust we have been weaving for years. Althought, it
is clear that non-afiliated subgroups are clearly nearer than absolutely
foreign groups. I don't know if you agree with me, but i hope you
understand that the both sides of this unpleasant dispute don't begin
from the same point of credibility. At least not in my personal opinion,
i'm sorry.

>
> We are activists who have a long-standing relationship with Indymedia uk -
> we have reported our actions there, we have moderated the newswires, we
> have written features, and we have always believed that the open
> publishing newswire was an important resource that should continue.
>
> The other prong known as BeTheMedia (IMCs London, Nottingham, Bristol and
> Northern England) have long wanted to replace the newswire with an
> aggregated site. We think that the aggregated site could be a good thing
> but that it should run alongside the open publishing newswire and should
> not be used to relegate open publishing to a sub domain, nor should the
> open newswire be closed to be replaced by the aggregator.
>
> This is one of a number of differences that have emerged between our two
> groups, and the tension has risen over the last few years. We have
> repeatedly been told that there is a consensus to replace the open
> publishing newswire with the aggregator and we have been insistent that
> there cannot be a consensus because we have not agreed to this.
>
> We think that open publishing is at the core of the Indymedia ethos [POU
> 4] and we do not want to see a functioning and busy national newswire
> damaged. We have always believed that the open publishing newswire should
> remain at its present URL.
>
> However, in order to end the deadlock within the Indymedia uk network, we
> agreed to a fork. We are clear that we agreed to move a copy of the
> newswire to an Indymedia domain and reluctantly we agreed to rename it.
> It was integral to the agreement that we would go through new imc in order
> to do so and only later became apparent that BeTheMedia had not understood
> the agreement in this way.

So you finally agreed to fork, stop the existing newswire and one side
of the fork, Mayday, create your own newswire in a new site. Ok. As far
as I have understood, both sides of the fork agree that you already
forked. So i see right that IndyUK stop the existing newswire and the
side that is going to keep inside Indymedia, Mayday, set its new site
with a newswire. That's what you agreed and i don't see any problem with
that.

The only problem is that you still haven't finished the new-process? I
recommend you to be more patient. Understand that almost all the people
here (exluding obiously the first nodes), has passed the same process as
you. It is something extremely important, because it is the only tool we
have to ensure that the POU are being kept and that we can trust each
other. It isn't just a matter of domains!

In my personal point of view, you haven't show too much respect to the
few rules that Indymedia has set to itself. It seems that you are
waiting that someone is going to say that you are an special case and
that you can skip the process that more than a hundred groups (and who
knows how much activists) around the world has had to follow before
becoming an Indymedia node.

If your application is blocked (i didn't read that thread), i think you
should make all the efforts trying to unblock that. Crear any existing
doubt. Show how you can ensure the fulfillment of the POU. Etc. And if
you still don't achieve that, start an independent site as more than one
here has done and continue publishing and doing a good communication
work for your community. Demostrate that your main goal is service to
the social movements, not to get certain domain or gain the control of a
group against an important part of its members. I see this the only way
to disolve my doubts and the ones that surely more than one has here.

>
> The other side, who wished to run their aggregator, would also use a
> different domain. They indicated in the meeting that they were considering
> using a non-Indymedia domain, and they have set up at
> www.bethemedia.org.uk. In fact their current site has no open publishing
> function and those that wish to publish are directed to different sites.
>
> The existing newswire was to be archived, and a splash page was to be set
> up at the www.indymedia.org.uk url, directing users to both sites. The
> Indymedia uk network would then dissolve and be replaced by the two
> groups, defined in the minutes as a.indymedia.org and b.indymedia.org.
>
> It was also part of the agreement that neither group would be able to call
> itself uk. We hoped that by conceding the name and url that both groups
> would be able to move forward as autonomous Indymedia collectives within
> the global community.
>
> It took us a while to find a name, but eventually we settled for Mayday to
> mark the fact that the fork was scheduled to happen on May 1st. We also
> believed it was a name that activists would remember and relate to.
>
> We put in our application to new imc in February and received no response.
> Eventually we asked behindthemask from Nottingham to help us out and he
> agreed to be our liaison. He proposed us, and we were blocked on April
> 19th by bart from Linksunten, who appeared to have adopted BeTheMedia's
> narrative. The issues he raised are at the centre of the internal dispute
> which led to the arrangement to split, and we were concerned that his
> jargon was so loaded that we had no hope of ever satisfying his questions.
> We also know that he has very strong feelings about Mir, the CMS that we
> use.

I'm not going to comment this serious insinuations because this is not
the place. I just want to say that accusations need to be acompanied
with proofs or evidences of any kind. If not, in my experience it is
better to don't throw them, because the mess tends to grow and the time
to fix the mess too.

>
> We asked BeTheMedia for more time to sort the new imc problem out, but
> they were insistent that we would have to go with the deadline and fork
> without having achieved the affiliation they had said they would support.
>
> We blocked. They refused to recognise our blocks. They insisted we could
> set up on a temporary domain while we sorted the problem. We were adamant
> that it was not acceptable to disrupt the site in this way and that we had
> not agreed to move it outside of the Indymedia network and did not agree
> to do so now. They then threatened to block us from ever becoming an
> Indymedia unless we proceeded with the fork.
>
> We do not feel that affiliation should be used as a tool in the dispute,
> and we do not believe that new imc should ever have allowed itself to
> become embroiled in the dispute. We are concerned that our partner site in
> Sheffield is also having difficulties with its application.
>
> We understood that the new imc process would be a supportive one where our
> collective would be guided through the steps we needed to take to make a
> successful application. This has not been our experience. Rather we have
> found ourselves in another conflict situation with someone who was
> challenging rather than supportive, partial, and eventually openly hostile
> towards us, accusing us of 'betrayal' and 'spying'.
>
> At the 11th hour Scotland, which is an affiliated IMC, attempted to rescue
> the situation by making a three week block. This too was ignored and in
> the early hours of May 1st a splash page was put up on the front page of
> indymedia.org.uk by people from BeTheMedia announcing that open publishing
> would "close soon". An email was issued by London announcing that
> BeTheMedia had made the changes to the UK Indymedia site that were
> required for the fork.
>
> They said that they had not yet stopped open publishing as Oxford which is
> a neutral party in the dispute was still hosted on the site. They gave a
> week maximum for this to be sorted out which would not have been long
> enough to get through new imc. They requested immediate closure of uk
> lists.
>  http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-process/2011-April/0430-n7.html
>
> We were shocked that they had proceeded in the face of dissent, with a
> defective and challenged consensus and against our will. We struggle to
> see how that is consistent with POU 6.
>
> In spite of our efforts, the other side had refused to listen to our
> concerns, one of which was to protect the open publishing newswire.
>
> We were able to repoint the DNS to a copy of the site on a server that
> BeTheMedia had no control over and after much agonising and fearful of
> what would happen to the newswire and site if we did nothing, we decided
> that we would take this serious and unprecedented step as a Direct Action
> in the spirit described by Martin Luther King:
>
> "Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a
> tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is
> forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it
> can no longer be ignored."

It is funny for me to read the last two sentences. I don't know if you
really think what you have writen or you are just joking to all the
people at Bethemedia and other people that it seems you let without
control of the shared resources. In any case, this smells to tech power
hierarchy to me :-(

>
> We believe this action was necessary and that within the Indymedia
> network, which has reported direct action for years, it would be something
> that other IMCistas could understand and relate to.
>
> We are now faced with threats of blocks, exclusion from the network and
> the fires of hell. We do not believe this response is proportionate, nor
> do we believe that it is within the spirit of Indymedia or the POU.
>
> We ask that you help us to protect the open publishing newswire and that
> you think through whether it is just and reasonable that the site be moved
> from its home to another URL, and especially that it be moved to a
> non-Indymedia domain. We hold with Tim Berners-Lee, that "Cool URLs don't
> change".

This quote has conviced me! (but not about what Mayday wants, but about
what Bethemedia was worried about)

This is my personal ultra-short lecture of the facts:

Indymedia UK has been forked. As far as i know, Bethemedia has done all
you agreed in december. Mayday has tryed to "get an indymedia domain"
but as he found problems, finally he stole the one he wanted from the
begining. Now Mayday wants to convince the whole Indymedia network that
the best decision is to don't waste the cool IndyUK URL and let Mayday
use it althought its new-imc application is blocked. And that because
the real Indymedia members (Bethemedia) actually are against Indymedia!

>
> We ask that you help us protect the uk's national open publishing newswire
> until a way forward is found which both prongs of the fork can live with.
> We are not asking you to become parties in the dispute because there are
> years of anguish and unhappiness to consider and understand before you
> could come to a meaningful decision about who is wrong and who is right,
> if indeed one side is all in the wrong and the other is all in the right.

The IMC that had the newswire you mention has forked, so that open
publishing site (indymedia.org.uk) is the past (or should already be).
One side of the fork wanted to continue with the open publishing system
(in a new newswire, not the archived one), but for some reasons, he
doesn't put the new newswire working. For some reasons, this group has
reverted the spash page, blocked the mailing lists deletion, take
possesion of the server, the domain and even the contents of the site
(not archiving them). It is doing all the opposite agreed with the
Indymedia nodes at UK and is breaking the rules of the network it is
suposed he wants to be part of. He has kicked out the other side by
force and wants the aproval of Indymedia to continue being part of our
web of trust after this kind of coup d'etat.

Anyone more see the situation as me?

>
> Instead we ask that as a global community you ensure that the terms of the
> POU are adhered to, and that attempts at expulsion are resisted. We
> believe that both collectives can succeed in building resources that are
> of value in the struggle for a better world. We ask that the site is
> protected until such time as we are able to achieve affiliation and we ask
> that this be done fairly and speedily.
>
> We ask that you are not shocked by our direct action, but that you embrace
> it as an opportunity to examine the state of the network and to see how we
> can improve matters to ensure that the POU inform its culture and actions.
> We do understand that some may condemn us for our actions and we concede
> that it may have been possible to avert this situation by appealing to the
> global network for support at an earlier stage. However, we did what we
> did in good faith and in desperation, and we are now keen to find a
> satisfactory resolution for all.
>
> We understand that a proposal to take control of the domain and point it
> at the archived uk indymedia site has already passed global process by
> virtue of no blocks being raised. We will not be complying with this
> demand in the current circumstances.

I don't understand why you are not going to comply anything that you
agreed with the whole IndyUK (Bethemedia and the others).

>
> Our collective is meeting face-to-face on May 22nd and we hope to be able
> to add more after this.
>
> We apologise for the lengthy email. We hope you will visit the site at
> www.indymedia.org.uk and see it for yourselves.
>
> The Mayday Collective

I hope you understand this message in english :-)

Txopi
(member of Indymedia Euskal Herria for 8 years but speaking independtly,
just as an Indymedia member)

The BTM lot have got the sort of site they want now, so why are they still apparently trying to shut down indymedia? Makes you wonder if theres not a hidden agenda. Who profits from the destruction of indymedia?

It's not fundamentally the issue of who runs the site of even the URL (though I prefer it to stay with this one), but of OPEN publishing and the OPEN NEWSWIRE. Yes the latter gets abused by cops, fascists and morons, but we can usually detect those on sight and I don't mind filtering to keep state agents out, even if only partially. This is not the same as IP logging.

There has been intolerable elitism in all these arguments going on over our heads without us, the activists who use the site, having any say, and generally being treated like serfs who don't count. I was hearing rumours about "a big split in Indymedia" for around a year but could not for the life of me find out what the issues were or the arguments being advanced. Was it just factionalism or personality clashes? Nobody knew. We were all in the dark -all of us outside the exclusive magic circles, that its.

Thanks to are due to SCHNews for finally opening the can of worms to public view. I recognise that some IMC people wanted to do this much earlier. They deserve credit for integrity and a sense of accountability and responsibility to the wider community. Those who blocked them deserve the shame and excoriation now being generally heaped on them. Will they even respond to these remarks? Probably not. Us riff-raff who make comments on the newswire are, apparently, beneath them. Our opinions certainly are.

THANKS TO THOSE NOW RUNNING THIS SITE. PLEASE KEEP IT GOING!

If there's anyone who wants to see it dumped in skip called "archive", I haven't met them.

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

As an aside, this whole farce calls into question the formalised style of concensus decision making, and the use of blocking. We need to find more constructive ways forward when people are in terminal disagreement. I think that means not having such an elaborate structure that people can't easily, and relatively quickly, decide to go their separate ways and follow their own paths autonomously. Having the arguments in obscure enclaves without a sense of wider accountability doesn't help, either.

I don't know all the Northern IMC - which has always IMO had questionable legitimacy - but I know some and at least 2 of those I know have never even been activists and appeared as if from nowhere. One of them has been causing friction since he first appeared and is widely regarded locally as a police spy. Just because someone can write code and set up a website does not mean they should be trusted.

> If your application is blocked (i didn't read that thread), i think you
> should make all the efforts trying to unblock that

Back in 2001/2002 New IMC was very different to how it is now, your process through it appears to have been quite straight forwards (the Bart you had helping you isn't the same Bart that has been opposing Mayday Indymedia:

 http://archives.lists.indymedia.org/new-imc/2001-November/001326.html
 http://archives.lists.indymedia.org/new-imc/2001-November/001333.html
 http://archives.lists.indymedia.org/new-imc/2001-November/001336.html
 http://archives.lists.indymedia.org/new-imc/2001-November/001337.html
 http://archives.lists.indymedia.org/new-imc/2001-December/001395.html
 http://archives.lists.indymedia.org/new-imc/2001-December/001407.html
 http://archives.lists.indymedia.org/new-imc/2002-January/001443.html
 http://archives.lists.indymedia.org/new-imc/2002-January/001514.html
 http://archives.lists.indymedia.org/new-imc/2002-January/001516.html
 http://archives.lists.indymedia.org/new-imc/2002-February/001561.html

Compare and contrast:

 https://docs.indymedia.org/Local/ImcMaydayNewImc#Mayday_Indymedia_New_IMC_App_AN1

If there is no 'global authority' who will impose the sanctions proposed by Bristol:

"we also propose that all members of the Mayday group have their admin privileges, membership of key lists such as tech-lists, listwork, control of documents servers, indymedia server root accounts and the like be revoked pending resolution of the situation"

 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2011-May/0503-ar.html

Which have the support of Germany:

"if concerns about the way mayday and its individuals use tech-power remain, privileged access to indymedia resources as described in [1] should be revoked for those individuals pending resolution of the situation.

[1]  http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2011-May/0503-ar.html "

 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2011-May/0505-ns.html

If there is no 'global authority' who will conduct the investigation called for by London, and who pass judgement on these alledged crimes and to whom will evidence be produced (if such evidence exists):

"These actions mean that we currently can not trust Chris. We believe he has abused his technical powers for political ends. We are concerned that he has access to 'sarai', the indymedia listserver - and that, therefore, there is potential to access private list archives of other UK collectives. We do not know what other infrastructure he has access to beyond those listed above, but believe he should not occupy any positions of trust within the Indymedia community.

As a reiteration, at this point we request emergency measures. They are to last until the global network has had time to investigate events and make a decision on how to proceed."

 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2011-May/0506-5t.html

There is also the sanctions proposed by IMC linksunten:

"We also support the withdrawal of all privileges concerning Indymedia
infrastructure and all Indymedia resources for all members of the Mayday
collective. This comprises root access and admin privileges on Indymedia
servers, membership of global working groups, control of infrastructure and
the like.

Regarding the question asked by listwork [5] we think the Indymedia UK mailing
lists should be deactivated since the former UK network has ceased to exist.

There have been doubts [6] about the commitment of Mayday and Sheffield
collectives to POU6 [7] (consensus decision making). After the recent
developments these doubts have unfortunately been confirmed. Therefore we don't
think those collectives should become affiliated IMCs.

We would like to point out that one member of the Mayday collective has root
access to (at least) the listwork server. We don't trust this person as he has
abused his powers as a tech volunteer. We think this person should lose root
access for all global Indymedia servers and especially to the listwork server
as we are worried that he might use the sensitive data he has access to as a
weapon against other Indymedia volunteers.

Therefore, we propose:

1) root and admin access of the listwork member in question to all global
Indymedia servers are suspended immediately and all global listwork passwords
are changed to prevent abuse until a decision has been taken
2) root and admin accounts of the listwork member in question to all global
Indymedia servers are deleted and the listwork member quits the listwork
working group with a deadline of two weeks time"

 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2011-May/0506-uz.html

And finally those from Northern Indymedia:

"A proposal that control of the DNS entry for the domain indymedia.org.uk
be handed to the stewardship of the global DNS working group made by IMC
Germany has passed the deadline for consensus on this list.

...

* That should the deadline pass without the domain being handed over,
all further access to global indymedia resources including mailing
lists, irc, docs.indymedia.org and DNS is denied to the group currently
holding the domain (the mayday collective) until this handover has taken
place"

 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2011-May/0508-hq.html

If there is no 'global authority' then how can there be an investigation and how can the proposed sanctions be imposed?

Thanks for responding. I think I know who you mean....

If people are concerned about infiltrators, particularly the deep undercover ones, I could expand upon the recently written security primer to show how certain techniques can be used to identify 'potentials'; that's only if people genuinely want that type of analytical resource. It interesting to note that such techniques are based upon those that were the concern of a another newswire post located here;

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/05/478791.html

It would take a while to put together but I am willing if there is a genuine need. It is, of course, a double edged sword.

Looks like PC 303 is all over this thread. Don't panic - if you want to know what's really going on have a look at some of the Indymedia websites in the UK, see for yourself if they do open publishing or not.

Go along to a meeting and find out whether the volunteers there are working in our interests, theirs, or someone else's.

That's where the accountability is, among other places.

If there's not a group near you see if you can start one. Maybe your neighbouring IMC will come over and give a hand, if you ask them - have a look at their help pages.

Don't believe the hype, it's just pixels on a screen. Go meet the humans.

I can not see the global network functioning anymore
with most local imc avoiding to participate at the global level and nowadays
global imc seems to be less about allocating resources, which aren't there
anymore, than passing some kind of dogmatic politics test.

The dispute about imc uk is just the start, I believe, and the most elegant
solution might be to get out of global indymedia before its getting really dirty.

As people probably know the Mayday collective have pulled a copy of the imc uk
database onto a new server and then the techie pointed the domain
indymedia.org.uk to it. Global indymedia has no control over this domain, but
imc london demanded sanctions against the techie, denying him access to the
servers and imc northern (england) sanctions against everybody in the
collective (dunno who they exactly count to it) with denying anybody in the
mayday collective any access to global indymedia resources.

I have problems with both the proposals. The techie especially has been
working hard since 2003 for indymedia putting a whole lot of time, money,
energy and resources into the project, especially during times of crisis. I
believe denying him server access is a revenge act more than the stated
"inability to trust" as neither imc london or imc northern nor any other
indymedia site -even imc uk original website - have been changed in any way.
Secondly this is only going to harm the indymedia project as a whole and in
particular the people who have now got more workload to do as they have to
take over the work from him additionally.
Thirdly, I believe blackmailing somebody into submission is never a good way
to solve a dispute, but should be in particular discouraged in what I believed
to be progressive, anti-capitalist and alternative politics.
It also seems to me that anybody who is declaring sympathy or membership or
support for the mayday collective is also endangered to get sanctioned in a
way, therefore creating even fear to voice any supportive opinion within the
network.
Fifth I do believe that Imc Birmingham, Imc Sheffield and the Mayday
collective with their websites have been valid indymedia projects in all but
name only, with Sheffield existing since 2003 and Birmingham at least since
about 2005, longer in existance than imc northern and imc linksunten who seem
to be now the main dogmatic blockers. Both imc sheffield and imc birmingham
collectives believed so much in imc uk project that they never bothered to go through
the imc global approval process. To exclude them from imc-process decision-making process
and block their approval by new-imc is in my opinion open discrimination.

It is to avoid the spiteful and malevolent attention of the kind you refer to that has caused many people NOT to challenge the shits at northern imc. Besides, where were we supposed to have our say, up until now the whole issue was verboten on indymedia? The stuff in those Sheffield indymedia archives speaks for itself but there's a lot more.

You obviously don't understand how the indymedia network works.

No global decision-making process can shut a site down.

What they can do is take away shared global resources like the domain address or mailing lists - but those can easily be replaced and the site would continue. They could also decide that the rest of the indymedia network won't link to your site anymore.

At a global level indymedia has a set of "Principles of Unity" which describe what we have in common, ie the basic indymedia ethos. If a site wasn't following that basic ethos, it might make sense for the rest of the global network to stop co-operating with them, don't you think? (I'm talking about a general case here, not Mayday in particular).

The bottom line is, radical media collectives are autonomous, but the global network can decide which media collectives to co-operate with and which it doesn't want to co-operate with. They CAN'T shut you down. They CAN withdraw their support. It's pretty common sense if you ask me.

Sunday 8th May...

IMC Northern send the following letter to the global Indymedia community

 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2011-May/0508-hq.html

To ask that those who stole the Indymedia UK site be banned from further participation in the global network until they have handed it back

Monday 9th May...

Lots of comments start appearing under self-congratulatory propaganda articles denouncing IMC Northern and its members and attempting to cause unsettlement in the activist community there.

Coincidence? It's pretty sad that not only have the mayday collective stolen the UK site and are posting large numbers of articles and comments congratulating themselves for having made themselves pariahs within the global radical tech community, but that they are using that medium to sow distrust and black propaganda against the groups who have been opposing them. Until sunday all of this was directed towards London and Bristol because they had already spoken up on the global lists, now it is the turn of IMC Northern.

It's also sad that the mayday collective don't realise they are talking to an empty room. Most people just want to get on with their activism and though it is regrettable that they have made the UK Newswire unusable for those who rely on anonymity (now that nobody but them can see when they are logging IP addresses), there are plenty of other outlets for their news. All that this is doing is making a laughing stock of radical DIY media and pushing more people to use facebook/twitter etc to organise. Nobody here wins, what is not needed is for the mayday collective to ensure that they take everyone else down with them.

I'm a long time reader and user of the site and I have been reading up on the mailing lists to see what is behind all of this. To be honest, whilst neither 'side' in the dispute has acted perfectly, I can see by reading the lists exactly why nobody could bring themselves to work with the mayday collective anymore. The type of comments above are very typical of the bullying gang mentality they have adopted over the last few years when somebody dares to speak up against them. There is plenty of evidence of this in the archive, most recently when somebody complained about what they perceived to be a sexist email written by one of the mayday collective and were leapt upon like a pack of wolves for daring to challenge it.

Quite frankly, I couldn't care less anymore if the domain name is given back or not, since the name of UK Indymedia has been so thoroughly tarnished by the actions of this group that I doubt it will ever recover outside of the very small inner circle. Also, anything that happens on that score that means that the mayday collective would have to remain within Indymedia would be the worst case scenario for DIY media worldwide. You simply cannot work with people that toxic.

This will be the last I post to Indymedia. I'm voting with my feet and going to look for other sources of radical news that aren't so loaded with all this baggage. There's a world of blogs and websites out there producing some amazing quality, first hand media and I will be looking to compile a list of those to check through instead.

Would the last person to leave please turn off the IP logging...

global indymedia could take away uk.indymedia.org but not indymedia.org.uk

But would they want to? as UK IMC newswire is functioning just fine. Sheffield guys are quite trust worthy.

But who perpertrated the traven outrage? Is rackspace safe? was it BTM? (who deny it) or was it the cops/FBI? or has one too many editors been given the admin password?

Its BTM who needs to go through the IMC process.

Could the Portland USA guys tell us when their real world meeting is?

@ Sad to watch -

You don't know who's posting stories, that's just your prejudice coming through.
You are publishing the same kind of nasty stories (you called it black propaganda) that you are accusing others of, including the IP tracking guff and blaming the people who wanted it made public years ago and have thanked SchNews since in public. Pot kettle black.
From the style in which you've written this comment and the content, I think (& I don't know either) that you've posted before on another similar thread with pretty much the same lessons for us including the "this is the last time I'm going to visit IMC"!
There's been bad behaviour all round I think, but to say it's Mayday who've bullied and are toxic and that everyone else hasn't is just completely turning around the reality of the emails on IMC lists I've read.

@sad to watch

If you are a genuine poster then its like you have swallowed a false narrative created in some elite PR company in London made up by some neo-liberal spin merchant jerk. If you're wondering how I know then it's quite easy. None of your assertions are supported evidentially, my advice before swallowing pre prepared propaganda is to check the sources and references or just do basic evidence based fact checking and reflect that in your posts..
oh I forgot you're not ever coming back, you've thrown your rattle out of your pram haven't you.

I don't know about London, Notts, Bristol, or anywhere else apart from Northern. There have been legitimate concerns about some of those involved for a long time and those concerns have been expressed before - both on indymedia and in the 'real world'. Check the facts and there is only one conclusion.

 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2011-May/0512-bu.html

"Athens IMC collective has experienced similar problems and conflicts in
the past so we feel the necessity to express our solidarity to the
fellow activists that have been excluded from UK imc and condemn the
hijacking of latter.

Consequently,

we propose that the control of the domain indymedia.org.uk be handed
over to the global IMC DNS working group and the technical privilleges
of members of Mayday collective on the Indymedia infrastructure are
withdrawed."

Look, if you have evidence to back up your claims please submit it. Given the Mark Kennedy affair and subsequent disclosures that there are other undercover operatives, it is understandable that people are rightly suspicious. But I think using such suspicion in the debate over indymedia UK is diversionary.

In conversation with some member's of Mayday I expressed that the emotional side of me thought there had been a state agent within indymedia uk for some time, but that such a thought could be nothing more than my mind wanting a simple narrative to piece together this mess. The alternative? That this mess is a huge failure in communication and unity by groups that should know better.

I think it is time to propose to the indymedia network globally that super-user positions are rotated and shared amongst activists. If we are going to claim to be as non-hierarchical as possible and live up to anarchist ideals then I don't see any other possible alternative.

Bearing in mind that the state were prepared to put at least two cops into the Clown Army it'd be surprising if they hadn't targetted Indymedia. That wouldn't preclude them also taking advantage of some crazy idiot with a grudge and in need of their help over his misconduct at work - someone they could use to spy for them and cause division - first at the Common Place then Indymedia. Someone who has no critique of the state, no radical politics, who works with and is supportive of the police, who is a proven liar and a well-known shit-stirrer. Sure you know who I mean James and (nationally) I doubt he's the only dodgy fucker.

And so the anarchists realise that their ideals (which work ok in theory), are completely useless in the real world.

If you can't run this site according to anarchist ideals then whats the point bleating on about how great it all is. because it sure dont look like it from here

I am extremely worried that this thread is being used to speculate about people who might be undercover cops. If you have any evidence by all means lay it out and accuse. If you don't - kindly shut the fuck up until you have.

Have a little respect for the lives you might be damaging by throwing around false accusations.

"kindly shut the fuck up until you have."

Careful with going down that road. The same justification could be used to tell anyone to shut the fuck up with anything that they simply disagreed with.

Anarchist principals allow everyone to have a voice and the right to it without any intimidating comments such as yours.

So this is a site where unsupported accusations are "free speech" and comments about the wisdom (or otherwise) of that are "intimidation"?

You guys in disinfo bunker 303 really need to get your stories straight.

A quick look at the hidden comments (as compared to the unhidden insults) tells the whole free speech story.

So this is a site where unsupported accusations are "free speech" and comments about the wisdom (or otherwise) of that are "intimidation"?

You guys in disinfo bunker 303 really need to get your stories straight.



Line 1 sounds like a complaint about the idea that unsupported accusations should be allowed because they are free speech

Line 2 is an unsupported accusation

I think you are the one that needs to get your story straight.
Which side of the fence are you: for unsupported accusations, or against them?

lol! WPC404 is owned!

From the editorial guidelines:

"Comments: Everybody can add their own comments at the end of each article. Comments are subject to the guidelines for hiding. They can be used to:

* State an opinion about any given posting.
* Add information.
* Correct inaccurate or malicious information.
* Rectify misinformation."

To answer Dave the Rave's question, point 2 first:

Perhaps you're unaware that Indy Uk comments is a popular haunt for state operatives to while away the hours sowing division and distrust?

 http://www.fitwatch.org.uk/2011/01/22/state-infiltration-and-attempted-disruption-of-activist-websites/

Maybe you think they still haven't figured out how to hide their IP addresses and are scared to come here?

Point 1: well, see above. Good useful comments stand on their own merits, provide information, offer a point of view and show respect for other humans. Soppy nonsense about "intimidation" (by who, by what method? Anonymous internet user stunned into traumatised silence by plain speaking commentator? - not) is free speech in the same way that diaorrhea is freedom of movement.

From the editorial guidelines / comments......
It is a well known fact the moderators rarely follow the guidelines. They often hide comments that don't toe the party line and let through posts that clearly don't follow the guidelines.

>> Perhaps you're unaware that Indy Uk comments is a popular haunt for state operatives to while away the hours sowing division and distrust?
Maybe you think they still haven't figured out how to hide their IP addresses and are scared to come here?

So? What you are leading to is that all state operatives must be censored, and therefore anyone you think is a state operative is hidden. Presumably your 'filter' for if/if-not a state operative is based upon a "I think..." mentality. Ie.... your personal opinion.

>> Point 1: well, see above. Good useful comments stand on their own merits, provide information, offer a point of view and show respect for other humans. Soppy nonsense about "intimidation" (by who, by what method? Anonymous internet user stunned into traumatised silence by plain speaking commentator? - not) is free speech in the same way that diaorrhea is freedom of movement.

In your opinion. "global research's" articles and comments have little merit, information or respect, yet they seem to pass the "moderation test".

>> by who, by what method?
By a previous poster telling people that if they do XYZ then they can fuck off (or else).
I'm not sure what part of the world you come from, but when a stranger comes up to me in the street and tells me to fuck off to my face, then I feel intimidated.
Anyway, who put him in charge of telling user's of the site to fuck off? What right does he have and what authority? If anyone is breaking the editorial guidelines, it is this poster because they are being abusive to other users who are going about their lawful business and following the rules of the site.

My comment to those shit stirrers who are idly speculating about 'who's the cop' to 'shut the fuck up' should offend them. If you don't understand why then think about how you'd feel if people on a well-read internet site started accusing you of being a cop and I hope you'll change your minds.

This isn't a free speech site and never has been. Most anarchists recognise that there are certain types of speech that limit the freedom of others - like race hate or the orders of a master. Spreading destructive rumours about people is something that our enemies can use to damage us and we need to recognise that and prevent it. My language is blunt because there is simply no reason to engage in idle chat about 'some bloke my mate down the pub thought might be a cop because once he bought us all a round' type bollocks.

I must congratulate you on your excellent parody of a state agent posting disruptively on an activist website. You have shown us the sort of things to look out for. Can you act as well as you write a script?

There is definitely a feeling state inference at this level. Many agent provocateur will cause disruption by accusing others of being state agents, but am surprised stroppyoldgit could be one, unless it is someone pretending to be him. no one is who they seem

btm have their own site that they can control.

why are they still trying to shut down indymedia?

Who will gain from the destruction of indymedia and why?

there is clearly a hidden agenda going on that we do not know about

Because they want to put an archive on the domain name with a splash page to direct traffic to their site, you can see their plan for indymedia.org.uk here:

 http://archive.indymedia.org.uk/

I guess they don't think they will get much traffic unless they can get this site archived, as who would want to go to a site where you don't have an open newswire and you can't post comments?

The truth is,
that’s wrong.
There is no more

I appreciate you sharing this article.Thanks Again. Really Cool. edcebdedbfgd