[Imc-web] IMC-Web Digest, Vol 79, Issue 5

Thu Aug 12 21:31:36 CDT 2010

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.

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:00 PM, <imc-web-request at lists.chambana.net>wrote:

> Send IMC-Web mailing list submissions to
>        imc-web at lists.chambana.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc-web
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        imc-web-request at lists.chambana.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        imc-web-owner at lists.chambana.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of IMC-Web digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: comment hidden from thread
>
> http://ucimc.org/content/july-29-help-us-demonstrate-against-persecution-undocumented-immigrants
>      ? (Mike Lehman)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:51:45 -0500
> From: Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net>
> To: Josh King <josh at chambana.net>
> Cc: imc-web at lists.chambana.net
> Subject: Re: [Imc-web] comment hidden from thread
>
> http://ucimc.org/content/july-29-help-us-demonstrate-against-persecution-undocumented-immigrants
>        ?
> Message-ID: <4C62E331.80109 at earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Josh,
> The "policy" as it was when handed to Web is somewhere on:
> http://archive.ucimc.org/
> Not working right now. I can find it easily once it's back up, IIRC.
>
> Essentially, what exists was from when Steering dealt with editing on
> the website. Sometime around 2003-2004, Steering got tired of dealing
> with this and devolved it to those interested in the subject, so at that
> point Web was considered essentially like the Public i, Video, etc, were
> and how RFU was planned to be: it was up to Web to promulgate an
> editorial policy and apply it.
>
> There was some documentation of changes made for several years after
> that, mostly on email, but by 2005, I was pretty much it. We briefly and
> inconclusively started 3 or 4 times on a complete rewrite between 2003
> and 2007, with the last results as noted previously. In the end, it's
> been mostly me as far as policy editing is concerned, although a number
> of people have the same access, but concentrate on editorial work.
>
> What is exercised currently as far as policy edituing is concerned
> focuses on what Web was handed to deal with by Steering: a persistent
> troll.
>
> Note very carefully that I use the singular in referring to the problem.
> For the most part, disagreeable posts tend to be limited, with that
> exception. Other problems are pretty much clearcut and far more rare.
> This is based on the history of  dealing with this issue on a frequent
> basis -- repeatedly. Some things never change and having one very
> irritated commenter who specializes in attacking the IMC and users of
> the website is one.
>
> There is another common characteristic of these attacks that was one of
> the specific concerns of Steering, and more generally in Indymedia in
> various forms. That is specific, personal attacks on known Indymedia
> journalists. Brian tends to be the one currently who finds this at
> present, but there is a lengthy list of others who've also faced this.
>  From personal observation, many of those attacked no longer post under
> their screen names or do so only rarely now.  This takes a toll on users
> of the website.
>
> FWIW, at the time of the fire, this happened to me as part of this
> pattern of behavior, although it was periodically a target in the past.
> Whatever the cause of the fire, presuming one wants to arrive  at
> something more specific than "arson," there is some pretty extensive
> documentation on the interest of someone in using those circumstances
> for intimidation. No one had to set the fire to do that, just take
> advantage of the opportunity presented. I bring this up not to say, oh
> well poor me or that what I describe is purely a coincidence -- it very
> well could be they aren't connected by anything other than that either
> could be intimidation, but we can be certain that one of them was -- but
> to illustrate some of the background on the situation. For every Brad
> Will, as tragic as that was, I'm sure he'd agree that there are a 1,000
> Indymedia journalists who face lesser intimidation in various forms.
>
> And as far as any blog is concerned, it should be within the realm of
> easy application to already supported UC IMC server applications -- or
> whatever the tech-speak is on this. I'm only marginally interested in
> that, but I think if others are interested it would be a good addition
> to solve at least one issue. We can simply ask the troll to take his BS
> to chat and not have to worry too much about the issue on the actual IMC
> news and its discussion side of things any more. IMO, any way.
> Mike Lehman
>
> On 8/11/2010 11:38 AM, Josh King wrote:
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > This was pretty much what I expected. I would very much like to carry
> > this conversation forward, given both that the website is one area where
> > I would like to see more development and activity and since I will be
> > operating remotely it is an area of the IMC in which I can still
> > actively participate easily. Do we have a copy of that 2003 policy that
> > we can use as a starting point to get the discussion going?
> >
> > There are some ideas I've been musing over with regards to the eventual
> > overhaul of the website, specifically about enhancements to make it
> > easier for editors to find and discuss abuses, streamlining of the
> > newsfeed, and possibly a collection of IMC active member blogs, either
> > hosted through the site itself, separate sites hosted through
> > Chambana.net, or blogs hosted on other services. Such a 'planet'-style
> > blog feed could possibly fill the purpose of the blog you mention
> > without splitting our resources (to be clear, the individual posts would
> > be aggregated through the site, not just links to individual blogs).
> >
> > On 08/11/2010 06:21 PM, Mike Lehman wrote:
> >
> >> Stuart and Josh,
> >> The hidden comments were made by the long-time troll. I got fed up with
> >> his well-documented racism. It always starts innocently enough by being
> >> just his irritating and repetitive obsession with others obeying the
> >> law, then grows into more blatant crap. I'm fed up with him.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, it's good that others are finally using the website
> >> to make comments and making it something more than Brian's stories that
> >> said troll will then be the only reply.
> >>
> >> To read the hidden posts, you need only be logged in on the website,
> >> then click where it says Hidden Posts on the page with the original
> >> article. They're all there.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, a reply would simply be feeding this particular
> >> troll. He is truly uninterested in the substance of any reply, simply
> >> using it as a diving board for his soliloquy about the "evil" that
> >> Indymedia website users encourage. Why that doesn't apply to him as an
> >> obsessed IMC-abuser is, of course, unclear. In any case, since Stuart is
> >> advocating for people who might have technically broken some law,
> >> whatever the injustice of the rest of the story, there will never be any
> >> substantive discussion with him.
> >>
> >> As for documentation, I've got a series of documents that I gathered
> >> together from the last time we began this discussion, in 2007 just
> >> before the arson of my house (related? Who knows?) and other info
> >> collected since then. This was when the civilian Police Oversight Board
> >> discussion was instense and Wendy thought we should run the IMC's
> >> website like the late IP, then compromised the respect for anonymity
> >> required of editors, then left. The discussion petered out at that
> >> point, although it was handed to Web to deal with.
> >>
> >> Essentially, given the lack of interest by others and the fact that
> >> editing for abusive postings on the website have largely fallen to me
> >> over the last 5 years, things have ended up in my lap and I've dealt
> >> with them on the basis of prior art and example.
> >>
> >> So, any policy discussion needs to begin on the basis of carrying
> >> through with the significant revisions made to the policy since the last
> >> time it was codified (like in 2003?) as well as any changes that people
> >> would want to make. There is no single document that documents our
> >> policy at this point and would be available to simply post. If people
> >> want to start this discussion again, I'd be glad to help get the
> >> discussion started provided we intend to carry it through to completion
> >> if it's begun again.
> >>
> >> BTW, I would argue that the neatest solution to the conflicting
> >> interests inherent in operating the IMC website with a functional
> >> editorial policy that truly encourages those without a voice in the
> >> dominant media would be to establish a blog (and, no, the IMC website is
> >> NOT a blog) as an associated venture. That way the trolls have a place
> >> where virtually anything goes, people who want to engage such posters
> >> can do so freely, and the IMC website itself can continue serving
> >> marginalized media users without pandering to those who object to our
> >> very existence.
> >> Mike Lehman
> >>
> >> On 8/11/2010 4:16 AM, Josh King wrote:
> >>
> >>> There seem to be a number of comments hidden on that post, but none of
> >>> them seem to have editorial reasons attached. Is there any reason not
> to
> >>> unhide the comment that Stuart mentions?
> >>>
> >>> Hey Mike, I'd like to post the site editorial policy on the wiki.
> Sorry,
> >>> I know this has been asked about a million times, but can you point me
> >>> in the direction of any documentation of it?
> >>>
> >>> On 08/11/2010 10:59 AM, Stuart Levy wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Hi.  There was starting to be an immigration discussion in the thread
> >>>>
> http://ucimc.org/content/july-29-help-us-demonstrate-against-persecution-undocumented-immigrants
> >>>> I'd written a note (titled "If we admitted ten percent..."),
> >>>> and an anonymous person had replied to it, some time Sunday 8/8.
> >>>> I'd like to reply to his reply, but can't find it now.  Was it hidden?
> >>>> Though I disagree with what he said, it seemed on-topic, etc.
> >>>> If the poster himself withdrew it, that's fine, but if it was hidden
> >>>> by an editor for some reason, I (as the originator of the thread)
> >>>> would rather see it return to the living.
> >>>>
> >>>> cheers
> >>>>
> >>>>     Stuart
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> IMC-Web mailing list
> >>>> IMC-Web at lists.chambana.net
> >>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc-web
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> IMC-Web mailing list
> >>> IMC-Web at lists.chambana.net
> >>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc-web
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> IMC-Web mailing list
> >> IMC-Web at lists.chambana.net
> >> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc-web
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> IMC-Web mailing list
> IMC-Web at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc-web
>
>
> End of IMC-Web Digest, Vol 79, Issue 5
> **************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/imc-web/attachments/20100812/8232df79/attachment.html>