It basically looks like Mike exercises censorship authority on the IMC website without oversight, accountability, or written policy. Mike constantly harps on this so-called "troll" as his excuse for shutting anybody up he dislikes. Mike is tired. He should resign and find a new project. Bring in some new blood with a new vision.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:00 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:imc-web-request@lists.chambana.net">imc-web-request@lists.chambana.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Send IMC-Web mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:imc-web@lists.chambana.net">imc-web@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc-web" target="_blank">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc-web</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:imc-web-request@lists.chambana.net">imc-web-request@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:imc-web-owner@lists.chambana.net">imc-web-owner@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of IMC-Web digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: comment hidden from thread<br>
<a href="http://ucimc.org/content/july-29-help-us-demonstrate-against-persecution-undocumented-immigrants" target="_blank">http://ucimc.org/content/july-29-help-us-demonstrate-against-persecution-undocumented-immigrants</a><br>
? (Mike Lehman)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:51:45 -0500<br>
From: Mike Lehman <<a href="mailto:rebelmike@earthlink.net">rebelmike@earthlink.net</a>><br>
To: Josh King <<a href="mailto:josh@chambana.net">josh@chambana.net</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:imc-web@lists.chambana.net">imc-web@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Imc-web] comment hidden from thread<br>
<a href="http://ucimc.org/content/july-29-help-us-demonstrate-against-persecution-undocumented-immigrants" target="_blank">http://ucimc.org/content/july-29-help-us-demonstrate-against-persecution-undocumented-immigrants</a><br>
?<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:4C62E331.80109@earthlink.net">4C62E331.80109@earthlink.net</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed<br>
<br>
Josh,<br>
The "policy" as it was when handed to Web is somewhere on:<br>
<a href="http://archive.ucimc.org/" target="_blank">http://archive.ucimc.org/</a><br>
Not working right now. I can find it easily once it's back up, IIRC.<br>
<br>
Essentially, what exists was from when Steering dealt with editing on<br>
the website. Sometime around 2003-2004, Steering got tired of dealing<br>
with this and devolved it to those interested in the subject, so at that<br>
point Web was considered essentially like the Public i, Video, etc, were<br>
and how RFU was planned to be: it was up to Web to promulgate an<br>
editorial policy and apply it.<br>
<br>
There was some documentation of changes made for several years after<br>
that, mostly on email, but by 2005, I was pretty much it. We briefly and<br>
inconclusively started 3 or 4 times on a complete rewrite between 2003<br>
and 2007, with the last results as noted previously. In the end, it's<br>
been mostly me as far as policy editing is concerned, although a number<br>
of people have the same access, but concentrate on editorial work.<br>
<br>
What is exercised currently as far as policy edituing is concerned<br>
focuses on what Web was handed to deal with by Steering: a persistent troll.<br>
<br>
Note very carefully that I use the singular in referring to the problem.<br>
For the most part, disagreeable posts tend to be limited, with that<br>
exception. Other problems are pretty much clearcut and far more rare.<br>
This is based on the history of dealing with this issue on a frequent<br>
basis -- repeatedly. Some things never change and having one very<br>
irritated commenter who specializes in attacking the IMC and users of<br>
the website is one.<br>
<br>
There is another common characteristic of these attacks that was one of<br>
the specific concerns of Steering, and more generally in Indymedia in<br>
various forms. That is specific, personal attacks on known Indymedia<br>
journalists. Brian tends to be the one currently who finds this at<br>
present, but there is a lengthy list of others who've also faced this.<br>
From personal observation, many of those attacked no longer post under<br>
their screen names or do so only rarely now. This takes a toll on users<br>
of the website.<br>
<br>
FWIW, at the time of the fire, this happened to me as part of this<br>
pattern of behavior, although it was periodically a target in the past.<br>
Whatever the cause of the fire, presuming one wants to arrive at<br>
something more specific than "arson," there is some pretty extensive<br>
documentation on the interest of someone in using those circumstances<br>
for intimidation. No one had to set the fire to do that, just take<br>
advantage of the opportunity presented. I bring this up not to say, oh<br>
well poor me or that what I describe is purely a coincidence -- it very<br>
well could be they aren't connected by anything other than that either<br>
could be intimidation, but we can be certain that one of them was -- but<br>
to illustrate some of the background on the situation. For every Brad<br>
Will, as tragic as that was, I'm sure he'd agree that there are a 1,000<br>
Indymedia journalists who face lesser intimidation in various forms.<br>
<br>
And as far as any blog is concerned, it should be within the realm of<br>
easy application to already supported UC IMC server applications -- or<br>
whatever the tech-speak is on this. I'm only marginally interested in<br>
that, but I think if others are interested it would be a good addition<br>
to solve at least one issue. We can simply ask the troll to take his BS<br>
to chat and not have to worry too much about the issue on the actual IMC<br>
news and its discussion side of things any more. IMO, any way.<br>
Mike Lehman<br>
<br>
On 8/11/2010 11:38 AM, Josh King wrote:<br>
> Hi Mike,<br>
><br>
> This was pretty much what I expected. I would very much like to carry<br>
> this conversation forward, given both that the website is one area where<br>
> I would like to see more development and activity and since I will be<br>
> operating remotely it is an area of the IMC in which I can still<br>
> actively participate easily. Do we have a copy of that 2003 policy that<br>
> we can use as a starting point to get the discussion going?<br>
><br>
> There are some ideas I've been musing over with regards to the eventual<br>
> overhaul of the website, specifically about enhancements to make it<br>
> easier for editors to find and discuss abuses, streamlining of the<br>
> newsfeed, and possibly a collection of IMC active member blogs, either<br>
> hosted through the site itself, separate sites hosted through<br>
> Chambana.net, or blogs hosted on other services. Such a 'planet'-style<br>
> blog feed could possibly fill the purpose of the blog you mention<br>
> without splitting our resources (to be clear, the individual posts would<br>
> be aggregated through the site, not just links to individual blogs).<br>
><br>
> On 08/11/2010 06:21 PM, Mike Lehman wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Stuart and Josh,<br>
>> The hidden comments were made by the long-time troll. I got fed up with<br>
>> his well-documented racism. It always starts innocently enough by being<br>
>> just his irritating and repetitive obsession with others obeying the<br>
>> law, then grows into more blatant crap. I'm fed up with him.<br>
>><br>
>> On the other hand, it's good that others are finally using the website<br>
>> to make comments and making it something more than Brian's stories that<br>
>> said troll will then be the only reply.<br>
>><br>
>> To read the hidden posts, you need only be logged in on the website,<br>
>> then click where it says Hidden Posts on the page with the original<br>
>> article. They're all there.<br>
>><br>
>> On the other hand, a reply would simply be feeding this particular<br>
>> troll. He is truly uninterested in the substance of any reply, simply<br>
>> using it as a diving board for his soliloquy about the "evil" that<br>
>> Indymedia website users encourage. Why that doesn't apply to him as an<br>
>> obsessed IMC-abuser is, of course, unclear. In any case, since Stuart is<br>
>> advocating for people who might have technically broken some law,<br>
>> whatever the injustice of the rest of the story, there will never be any<br>
>> substantive discussion with him.<br>
>><br>
>> As for documentation, I've got a series of documents that I gathered<br>
>> together from the last time we began this discussion, in 2007 just<br>
>> before the arson of my house (related? Who knows?) and other info<br>
>> collected since then. This was when the civilian Police Oversight Board<br>
>> discussion was instense and Wendy thought we should run the IMC's<br>
>> website like the late IP, then compromised the respect for anonymity<br>
>> required of editors, then left. The discussion petered out at that<br>
>> point, although it was handed to Web to deal with.<br>
>><br>
>> Essentially, given the lack of interest by others and the fact that<br>
>> editing for abusive postings on the website have largely fallen to me<br>
>> over the last 5 years, things have ended up in my lap and I've dealt<br>
>> with them on the basis of prior art and example.<br>
>><br>
>> So, any policy discussion needs to begin on the basis of carrying<br>
>> through with the significant revisions made to the policy since the last<br>
>> time it was codified (like in 2003?) as well as any changes that people<br>
>> would want to make. There is no single document that documents our<br>
>> policy at this point and would be available to simply post. If people<br>
>> want to start this discussion again, I'd be glad to help get the<br>
>> discussion started provided we intend to carry it through to completion<br>
>> if it's begun again.<br>
>><br>
>> BTW, I would argue that the neatest solution to the conflicting<br>
>> interests inherent in operating the IMC website with a functional<br>
>> editorial policy that truly encourages those without a voice in the<br>
>> dominant media would be to establish a blog (and, no, the IMC website is<br>
>> NOT a blog) as an associated venture. That way the trolls have a place<br>
>> where virtually anything goes, people who want to engage such posters<br>
>> can do so freely, and the IMC website itself can continue serving<br>
>> marginalized media users without pandering to those who object to our<br>
>> very existence.<br>
>> Mike Lehman<br>
>><br>
>> On 8/11/2010 4:16 AM, Josh King wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> There seem to be a number of comments hidden on that post, but none of<br>
>>> them seem to have editorial reasons attached. Is there any reason not to<br>
>>> unhide the comment that Stuart mentions?<br>
>>><br>
>>> Hey Mike, I'd like to post the site editorial policy on the wiki. Sorry,<br>
>>> I know this has been asked about a million times, but can you point me<br>
>>> in the direction of any documentation of it?<br>
>>><br>
>>> On 08/11/2010 10:59 AM, Stuart Levy wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>> Hi. There was starting to be an immigration discussion in the thread<br>
>>>> <a href="http://ucimc.org/content/july-29-help-us-demonstrate-against-persecution-undocumented-immigrants" target="_blank">http://ucimc.org/content/july-29-help-us-demonstrate-against-persecution-undocumented-immigrants</a><br>
>>>> I'd written a note (titled "If we admitted ten percent..."),<br>
>>>> and an anonymous person had replied to it, some time Sunday 8/8.<br>
>>>> I'd like to reply to his reply, but can't find it now. Was it hidden?<br>
>>>> Though I disagree with what he said, it seemed on-topic, etc.<br>
>>>> If the poster himself withdrew it, that's fine, but if it was hidden<br>
>>>> by an editor for some reason, I (as the originator of the thread)<br>
>>>> would rather see it return to the living.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> cheers<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Stuart<br>
>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>> IMC-Web mailing list<br>
>>>> <a href="mailto:IMC-Web@lists.chambana.net">IMC-Web@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
>>>> <a href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc-web" target="_blank">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc-web</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> IMC-Web mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:IMC-Web@lists.chambana.net">IMC-Web@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
>>> <a href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc-web" target="_blank">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc-web</a><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> IMC-Web mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:IMC-Web@lists.chambana.net">IMC-Web@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
>> <a href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc-web" target="_blank">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc-web</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
IMC-Web mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:IMC-Web@lists.chambana.net">IMC-Web@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc-web" target="_blank">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc-web</a><br>
<br>
<br>
End of IMC-Web Digest, Vol 79, Issue 5<br>
**************************************<br>
</blockquote></div><br>