Indymedia Dublin Meeting

by Miriam Mon Sep 18, 2006 22:26

I agree with you Pat that it is institutional as opposed to conscious/ deliberate...but...there are specific examples of sexism and what you seem to me (and mabye I am wrong) to want to do is to acknowledge the fact of sexism without the aggressive hassle involved in pointing to the proof of it , within/among this very defensive editgorial group. And you know what, I dont blame you - it is really more trouble than its seems to be worth at the moment :-)

Regards from one ex-communicated believer to another!!!!

by Put Up Mon Sep 18, 2006 16:08

You say you were sent off list emails which were rude. If so there's no way I can look at them on the editorial list. You should either publish these emails or else stop making this assertion. I've looked at the email archives thoroughly and think they show you to have been dealt with extraordinary patience and that you should have been required to behave in a civil manner a long time ago. As you point out it is important to see the whole thread of emails and so you should also publish your own emails. The complete sequence in fact so that we can all make up our minds about whether you've been treated unfairly. As a last point your rude injunction to me to "So put up yourself. Maybe you are just lazy and want me to do your hard work for you. Christ, give me a break!" seems typical of you whenever you are challenged by someone. I'm not lazy and I am not the one making the accusations. You are. And there is no way I could look at emails which you say are not on the list. You are a very rude person that combines your rudeness with being nearly consistently wrong and self-righteous.

by pat c Mon Sep 18, 2006 15:47

"I am convinced there is sexism
Others are convinced there is not"

Miriam, I reckon its a case of Institutional Sexism: structures have developed wherby it has become increasingly more difficult for a woman to become an editor. This does not mean that any individuual editor is sexist. Nor does it mean that the Collective is deliberately sexist in its mode of operation.

But in a situation where there are 13 male editors and 0 female editors it should be obvious that there is a crisis. If a Trade Union had an all male Executive it would be seen as a scandal. Sometimes people involved in organisations get very defensive, any criticism of the status quo is seen as dissent and the dissenters quickly become enemies.

What is required is someone who is from outside of the Indymedia Collective and outside of the Indymedia periphary to act as a mediator. I Think that either SIPTU or ICTU could provide such a person. They have staff who are skilled in conflict resolution with particular reference to actual or perceived sexist structures.

by Miriam Mon Sep 18, 2006 15:41

I did post evidence - I didnt post it all. And only a fraction of what is there has been posted by either 'side' - we could each fill the universe with examples of supporting evidence I dare say- it is in the editorial archive where anyone can see it - so what is the point of putting it all up here too? There is no need to be so exercised. If I am allowed to put it here, I will. I do have other things happening in my life btw - like having been away for a couple of days and not aware that the thread was partailly closing down. I cannot devote all of my time to this issue. You might as well accuse James of providing one sided evidence - he has had to choose from a huge pile of possible examples the thing that he clearly thinks supports his point. I did the same with the information I was asked for. My only reluctance to post huge amounts of arhive material here has been making this thread even more difficlut than it is. I cant hide the evidence from anyone - its all there anytime you want to see it. So put up yourself. Maybe you are just lazy and want me to do your hard work for you. Christ, give me a break!

by Put Up Mon Sep 18, 2006 15:24

Im very happy to post antything that supports my point of view and will do so if I am allowed to - there is a notice above that normal editorial guidelines have been reinstated so is it now the case that I can still quote from the editorial archives?

So, after 250 or whatever comments during which anyone could post anything and you were invited several times by lunatic naive editors to support your allegations you didn't and now suddenly you have Burning Hot Evidence That Will Prove All. Yeah right. You're so convinced of your own righteousness you can't see straight.

by Miriam Mon Sep 18, 2006 15:14

And by the way, you have a bit of nerve accusing me of 'spin' and of having made lots of allegations when you do so anonymously. You use a familiar name that very few people here would know so it suggests someone that I have trusted to share thoughts with about these matters. Why not just say who you are. I have not made 'lots' of allegations. I have made about four or five core allegations that I can think of and have in fact, made far more complimentary and supportive remarks about this site than otherwise. So, how about minding your own exaggeration and spin, eh? Youre very brave with your allegations from behind your anonymity, I'm sure.

As many allegations have been made about me, including your own inaccurate one above, as the other way around.

There are two intransigents here:

I am convinced there is sexism
Others are convinced there is not

We are both pointing to evidence and so far are not persuading each other. In that sense, neither side is any more or less blameworthy than the other. It is alright to debate.

by Miriam Mon Sep 18, 2006 14:52

Im very happy to post antything that supports my point of view and will do so if I am allowed to - there is a notice above that normal editorial guidelines have been reinstated so is it now the case that I can still quote from the editorial archives? If not, then interested parties should sign up to the editorial list and trawl all the evidence there, thoroughly. You will need to find the first post to the editorial list that I made and work from there (its around about June of last year, I think). Thats putting up as honestly and comprehensively as I can. Im happy to argue the toss with anyone who can be bothered to do that, if Im not allowed to post here.

I have also several times suggested independent mediation of this issue with the collective and the suggestion has always been ignored. I am suggesting it again now. That is also putting up.

Thirdly, I have already shown a lot of (unadulterated) evidence to people outside of this discussion and the collective and they share my view of the situation. I may have been rude or angry at times - but it is my conviction that I have only been so in response to unprovoked aggression from a few people on this list, while others have adopted it as a necessary stragtegy for managing the site. I can think of only one exception to that - last week when I misunderstood some editorial actions and immdiately apologised. That was in the context of a fraught week and other offlist complicating factors where Indymedia is concerned. I was also sent an email by one editor a while ago which basically said that sharp responses were standard practice for managing online fora, whether I liked it or not. I dont like it and I dont think many others do either and it seems to be reserved more for the women than for the core group.

by Put Up Mon Sep 18, 2006 14:38

And most of the spin you put on your interactions don't pan out when we see the evidence. That's why you have to write so much and at such length in an attempt to bludgeon those you disagree with into silence and throw up confusion. You should just present the simple fact and keep it short. You should publish these rude letters and let anyone make up their own mind about it. You seem pretty good at the old rudeness yourself.

by Miriam Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:18

Agree entirely that most of what is alleged as censorship of contributors posts and comments on Indymedia.ie is not censorhsip at all. Examples of subjective hiding are rare and compared to mainstream media, the situation is utopian in that regard.

Specifically, recent allegations against Robbie and Anthony are not valid at all imo and, despite disagreements with them on other matters, there is no question of their motives being anything other than to be thorough, open and conscietious. One thing has become apparent however: there is too much eagerness on all sides of this discussion at times to suspect people of ulterior motives and deceptive behaviour. If we dont take the communication at face value, we are sunk.

You raise an important point about gender balance in Ireland generally - something I have not articulated as well in the posts above - that there is still substatially less participation by women on lots of areas, and there is still a much higher degree of background chauvinism determining the culture even of groups like Indymedia.ie. As compared to other male dominated groups in Ireland (pretty much everything) there is undoubtedly a heightened consciousness of what it is to be sexist amongst the men here. But as compared to an objective standard of non-sexist attitudes and behaviour, there is still some distance to cover. Some of us have paid the price of that and it aint a crime to say so.

I gather that a constructive discussion was had at the meeting and that some undertakings have been given to look at the gender issue. I look forward to the minutes.

by Ciaron - DCW/PSP5(perosnla capacity) Mon Sep 18, 2006 09:14

First of all want to thank everyone who has kept this valuable site going on volunteer labour for so long. It was very helpful during our three trials in Dublin to gather support and solidarity, spread the word in an environment where the mainstream media "covers" Irish complicity in the war with a near blanket censorship. Compared to the OZ and UK sites, I think this one has a higher quality of debate and interaction. My hometown Brisbane site has been deregistered because of adolescent anarchist attitude approach to editnig (all editing = censorship). Sad to see the decent in quality of the Melbourne site after the high quality start during S11 Blockade of the World Economic Forum. Once the editing qulaity drops, the mediocrity and irrelevance rises people start switching off frm the site and engaging debate and insight.

This thread exposes what happens when any group, community, family decides to air its dirty laundry on the world wide web. the internet is a very vulgar and abrupt medium. It spirals from there.

The gender balance on the editorial list doesn't really surpise me. The work has always struck me as needing a strong trainspotting streak. And how many female trainspotters are there (even in England, where the streak is so culturally strong they invented botany!)? Like Dick Cheney said about not showing up for the Vietnam War (4 deferments from the draft!) I would think women have better things to do!

The gender balance n the libertarian left in Ireland in general is pretty strange. I remeber attending RTS meetings with 3 wmoen 15 guys in 2002. A week ago AWI hosted a libertarian anti-war meeting down town, it was 80% male. It would be interesting to reflect on the gender balance in the libertarian left n Ireland on another thread. Compared to y experiences in OZ & English anarchist scenes the anarcho guys here don't seem to have that macho streak and are generally reasonable. I know there's exceptions (and some people would sonsider me one of them....but I'll always argue Australian cultural relativism on that one!) but generally speaking that seems to be case. so much so that there is sometimes such self consciousness in th anarch scene about not being seen as a leader=authoritarian that initiative is hampered.

by Miriam Mon Sep 18, 2006 08:17

Im not sure if Padraic's post above is meant to say that there is now no right of reply to posts that have come before it, but ref your reply to my post to the global womens list there are a few points I would like to clarify:

Firstly, I have not selectively offered information to IMC women. In other exchanges with other IMC women I gave examples of exchanges with other editors too . I also suggested going to the archives to check things out. I suggested looking for posts with my name over the last year as being the most likely way of finding the relevant exchanges. Im not at all trying to manage the evidence and trying, genuinely, to understand why there is so much resistance and vitriol directed towards me for raising the issue of sexism, which even some of my most embittered detractors are beginning to acknowledge may be an issue.

ON the other hand you give an example of an email that I sent to Risible without including his prior emails to me - some of which were sent to me off list in fact. That is unfair. I am not the first or the last person to suggest to Risible that he is/was overly aggressive. He told another woman member of the editorail list to 'shut up'. Nobody reading your account would have any idea why I had been so fed up with him. All you have done is to show that I was cross with Risible as if the fact of daring to be cross with him was an outrage - a self-evident impertinence and damning piece of evidence in itself. He's just a guy, OK? I gave as good as I got. No more and no less. He happened also to be an editor and so there were possiblities for using that power base to teach me my proper place in the editorial scheme of things. And that is a lesson that is still being adminsitered. Even at the point where Risible 'approved' me, he entered conditions on that approval that he had never insisted on to anyone else before. I accepted those conditions even though I privately thought it was unfair to distinguish me in that way. I am not a terrible person, bent on destroying Indymedia.ie (that would be why I posted all those articles and spent hundreds of hours helping out with basic editorial chores and tried very hard to understand the technical side of things better and why I have promoted Indymedia up and down the country among fellow activists and others. I have brought new contributors on board as well). I have been accused of lying and badmouthing Indymedia when I have done nothing of the sort. I have challenged sexism. That is all. I took my concerns, as is my right, to the place where IMC itself suggested I should. The exact argument we are having here is being conducted on Indymedia's all over the world. You admit that there may be sexism by some editors. Well if that's the case, then where is it? Ive pointed to some examples but Im only doing that because Im a nasty person, apparently. I have had some of the ugliest emails I have ever received sent to me privately, full of extraordinary suspicion and paranoia.

The fact remains that you have rejected well intentioned women who could have made good editors had they been approved in the same way that others were and given the chance to learn what many of you learned on the job.

The number of men and women proposed and rejected is statistcially relevant. One woman used to be an editor before approval was an issue. None have been approved since it became an issue, while many men have and it has not been done evenly.

YOu have also misrepresented the challenge that I made to Risible and others at that time: that it was not an abuse of the editorial list or the site to question the aggression with which some users were being responded to by some editors. That observation was made in complete ignorance of, or even relevance to whatever actual abuse (i.e. spamming or whatever) was taking place. I was talking about a different issue entirely and yet I have had this utterly false allegation thrown at me (that I supported abusers of the site) time and again ever since and it has also been used as a reason to block me. How do you think an ordinary person responds to repeatedly being accused of something they didnt do? By offering cucumber sandwiches and a smile? Or do they get cross and take to the virtual streets with loud protest? You understand and laud that reaction well enough when it is bin tax or whatever. Even Indymedia.ie might not be perfect. There. I've said it.

The second point I would like to clarify is that I did not mean the entire collective was approving Elaine for editor when that proposal was made - only that some people were doing so and that it was being done in a manner which conflicted with the processes that were being applied to other women, even while prejudicial treatment was being hotly denied. That is not Elaine's own fault and not a reflection on her but it does highlight an inconsistent approach from the existing editors. It's all on the record. There is nothing inaccurate about what I posted to IMC women about that.

by Padraic - 1 of indymedia.ie editors Sun Sep 17, 2006 22:28

The editorial guidelines were relaxed on this thread to allow everyone to discuss the topics on the agenda for the indymedia meeting. Since the meeting has now happened these guidelines will be back in force.

by Absolutely disgusted Sun Sep 17, 2006 20:09

To which?
and
wherefore?

by c murray - the unmans Sun Sep 17, 2006 20:03

That is a different article. I retyped it after a family lunch, which well fucked me off.
but 25,000 pay off on retiring and escaping the impeachment process is kinda news.

so check the files, you know the routine.

by Absolutely disgusted Sun Sep 17, 2006 19:41

A third piece of mine has been removed. about judge Brian curtin, getting an out regarding his ill-health.
It was removed from the newswire this morning.

Padraic and James should note that what the abusive person posting as Chris M is referring to is apparently the article which is still on the Newswire under the Opinion Analysis section right here
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78449
"Brian Curtin - the State of Enquiry"

If she had checked the reasons on the open newswire list she'd have seen that for herself. This is getting beyond a joke. I found this whole thing hilarious, but it is now starting to grate.

Open newswire list (but why bother reading it? it's much easier to fire off some gibberish)

by chris murray - unmans Sun Sep 17, 2006 19:28

now the questions of abuse of regular contributors and reasons for hiding a domestic abuse article have not been cleared up.

I presume they will, in the near future.

The domestic abuse article was in other press under the name :Erica Turgida.

Domestic Abuse: revisiting the spectre of domestic violence.

and the intepretation on the guidelines in relation to
It's Black and white and red all over: re usurping of Mary Harney by Mickey Mac,
which was valid in terms of feminism, has not been answered satisfactorily.

Nothing I write is thesis length.

If you put Erica Turgida into the search engine, you get 'Fucking Neo-liberals', there were two articles under that anon.

thanks, cheers, regards hugs and kisses.

by James R Sun Sep 17, 2006 19:09

Chris, is the artice you are talking about one that was posted under the handle of Observer? If so I completely endorse Padraig's hiding of it. I personally don't think it was anything other than unsubstantiated opinion and musing, ideal for a bulliten board but not so ideal for a site trying to provide the space for a radical journalism to breed. There's an article over here that goes into some of the real and serious problems generated by an open publishing system when people do not take on a self disciplining quality control when generating content.

The following taster will give you some idea of the theme:

The few original articles are frequently riddled with unsubstantiated claims, rumors, dubious anonymous sources, bad writing, and/or plagiarism. Rarely is anything edited—and I don’t mean by the collective that runs the site. Users themselves aren’t editing their own work, but instead are posting 18 blurry, almost identically bad photographs, or thesis-length uninformed opinion pieces that weren’t even spell checked. Verified facts are an endangered species on Indymedia, and arguments in support of fact-checking are often met with cries of “Censorship!” To make matters worse, Indymedia articles are usually posted anonymously (and therefore unaccountably), with no way to offer feedback other than the flame-ridden fray of the comments section. If the goal of Indymedia is, as its mission statement says, “the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of the truth,” we are clearly falling short.

by Chris Murray - unmans Sun Sep 17, 2006 17:06

I re-wrote it, re-positioned it and now am going to log.
a judge escaping impeachment-first one in the stae and no news content.

how extraordinary indy.ie has become. completely insular and separate from IMC.

now I would like to know why the domestic abuse article which was in OP was removed.

interpretation is a fine thing- akin to censorship, dependent on the person with the power-and that was just a passing remark :-)

by padraic - 1 of imc.ie Sun Sep 17, 2006 16:25

Hi Chris.

I hid the article. I can't remember exactly what I said when I posted it but the guideline it was hidden under was No. 8: Articles which have no news content.

All editorial actions are automaticlly sent to the newswire list (available here: http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-ireland...swire) but you already know this Chris.

by c murray aka-observor - the unmans Sun Sep 17, 2006 16:09

This is a note to the other people who have raised the issue of ed policy.
and I am willing to await a response from the editors.
A third piece of mine has been removed. about judge Brian curtin, getting an out regarding his ill-health.
It was removed from the newswire this morning.

I have asked which holy commandment it has breached.

There are three issues here.
gender is in the process of being sorted.
censorship is not.
abuse of people by the editors is not.

I have sent on the story and number to another outlet.
I want to know why it was removed. that is simple enough.
I have had no response, yet.
Perspective of the eds in applying the guidelines in this case would require illumination- I have had no adequate response to the reason for the domestic abuse article being removed either.
chris

by reader Sun Sep 17, 2006 09:20

Robbie, Paula G maybe cool but she should be an editor because of her many top media skills. There are editors who just create features and the like although her membership of SWP can't be ignored.

by pat c Sat Sep 16, 2006 20:38

"I'm the Robbie much maligned and sometimes defended above."

Your criticism is deserved. Your defence is not. But I would say that wouldnt I?

"I now take everything Pat C and Miriam say with a pinch of salt, but since this is the first time its been aired on the newswire, perhaps, some clarifications are in order to counter the latest repetition of untruths, falsehoods, or perhaps even, lies aimed at meself."

You are the one who has the history of believing wild conspiracies such as Prestons ravings. You also believed he was on hungerstrike. You also hide comments which criticise you or even reply to your comments. I wouldnt be suprised if you hid this one.

" I asked why she wanted to become editor since she hadn't shown any interest in editing. I called for an extension if necessary to allow this question to be clarified. I also had some technical queries (namely, that PaulG didn't have much access to the internet so why would she be interested in editing an internet site), but since then, I think that's her business. "

Did anyone ask you technical quyestions before you were approved? Immediately after you became an editor you pulled up the ladder after you.

"On March 29th, having heard nothing till R.Isible announced that he had PaulaG's password waiting for her, I blocked. This was in keeping with the consensus model, since my queiies had been ignored. R.Isible respected this and went offline for awhile. In the meantime, I received the wrath of many disgruntled editors. Pat C made NO comment on the matter till he decided to attack me last month with dogshite allegations. "

Untrue. I protested at your blocking of Paula at the time. Refering to my allegations as dogshite really makes your case.

"I had made over a hundred edits before blocking in March, and, more tellingly, had asked Pat C to calm down on the editorial mailing list because he was, as usual, generating more heat than light. "

Another lie. You hid comments which questioned Prestons conspiracy theories. Specifically you hid comments which responded to your own postings.

"I was wary of an increasing practice in imc.ie to give people editorial passwords because they were cool, or because they were mates - something which would fetishise editorship, a job that is actually more likely cleaning the jax, trainspotting, being a boring functionary. Someone's gotta do it, but it does require some activity - or else we end up with this sort of thread on a daily basis, and no features. "

Utter nonsense. You blocked a female editor.

"When I formally proposed that minimal editing should be done for a period of three months, Miriam, (contrary to her post to the Women's list), was the first to approve my proposal on June 22nd 2006. "

No one put such a pre-conditon on you. You havbe some neck putting this restriction on others.

"I'm visually impaired (2% sight in one eye, zero in another). I have no voice software that works. It takes me four hours a day to edit properly (I read about four times slower than most). "

So what? Many of us have disabilities. I I am almost blind in one eye, I suffer from depression, I have poor hearing in one ear.

"As for barring - I'd support barring Pat C from the site for persistent abuse - I and at least one other editor, have our respective dossiers."

You are not fit to be an editor. You are motivated by bias. You are not the only one with a dossier. Dossiers are being prepared which will go to Global Indymedia.

One day soon the guys in the Blue Helmets will arrive and drag you and Xhekov off to meet justice. I wonder if they will hold televised hearings like Saddams trial?

"I hope Miriam stays off the lists, because she was a drain on our collective's energy/resources. She criticised a lot, but didn't do any/much editorial stuff."

I disagree with Miriam on things but I have more in common with her than I have with you. You are a petty dictator who has no conception of democracy.

"Iosaf began the whole sexist thing back in February with a sexist response to Clare on a mailing list, claiming to be an editor. Iosaf later claimed it was a joke."

it was meant as a joke. Iosaf is not deliberately sexist. at times though his judgement is questionable. as is my own. no one is perfect.

iosaf however has never blocked a woman from becoming an editor.

"Chris, imo, either never read the editorial guidelines, or couldn't come to terms with them. Like Miriam & Iosaf, she wants to smash the collective as it's presently comprised."

Anyone who questions the great leaders is obviously destructive.

" I very much look forward to my early retirement as an editor on imc.ie."

So do I. Why not go now?

"In the meantime, there is no crisis just because our enemies say there is."

This is classic! Anyone who says there is a crisis is an Enemy Of The People. 13 male ediors no female editors. And Robbie does not see that as a crisis.

Go Now!

Thanks for the help once more Robbie. Your comments and actions both on the newswire and the ed list along with Chekovs smearing of dissidents as being mentally ill will help to swell the dossiers going to Global Indymedia.

by c murray - unmans Sat Sep 16, 2006 16:46

The meeting was constructive.

Thanks Aileen.

The mins to be posted.

Thanks Anthony.

by R. Isible Sat Sep 16, 2006 14:42

Although I have opposed Robbie on many issues I give him my full support in all the actions he has taken as an editor. I think he has been conscientious, honest and effective. I believe that he is not to blame for the slowness of the decision making process, but rather that other editors did not actively engage in the consensus decision making model. If anyone had a problem with him or his decision to block then our guidelines clearly show that he could have been removed as an editor if he were immovable on his block.

A large part of the reason for the breakdown in this process has been:
1) the disruption of editorial activity on the lists by a lack of mail etiquette
2) a lack of engagement by a significant minority of editors with the editorial guidelines, the published consensus process and the site itself

One thing at least is clear: if only for the purpose of being able to rebutt the insulting, inaccurate and frankly hurtful allegations made by some people above (who I am now convinced are certifiable) indymedia.ie should have a clear statement about encouraging women to become editors on the "Get Involved" page.

In the spirit of DIY and not waiting for other people (committees, consensus, majority caucus whatever) I'm going to make an attempt at writing one now:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indymedia Ireland is a volunteer, DIY organisation. There are many different tasks undertaken by everyone involved: writing original articles, publishing peer review and corrections to those articles, taking photographs, making movies, recording audio, editing the newswire, featuring newswire articles, and more.

Anyone wishing to collaborate in this process should read the Editorial Guidelines and the Operating Procedures first in order to understand how we operate at present. Understanding these guidelines is useful in order to understand the decisions that the editorial collective make when they are trying to ensure that what ends up published is news reporting and analysis of the highest quality that conveys truthful, accurate and clear information which does not get covered by the mainstream media.

We welcome everyone, regardless of their sex, gender, colour or other biological attributes to become involved. At present women and ethnic minorities are especially encouraged to become involved in the editorial and other administrative roles. Anyone wishing to become involved in the chore of sorting, analysing and caretaking of the site should start by reading the guidelines and procedures mentioned above. In fact it would be a useful thing for anyone involved with publishing or reading the site to take a look at them. Helpers should then subscribe to the editorial list ( imc-ireland-editorial@lists.indymedia.org ) and observe its workings. Be aware that this is a high-volume list and that specific netiquette (LINK TO OUR NETIQUETTE) is expected so that it can function effectively. After spending a period of approximately 3 months getting the hang of how things function, reporting abusive posts, mocking up features for featurisation, identifying problems and otherwise helping out the volunteer editorial collective should have ascertained whether the helper is likely to be fair, balanced and effective in collaborating on the lists and the volunteer helper should have ascertained whether the process is one that they would like to be involved with. It is worth noting that some familiarity with HTML and CSS are very useful attributes and that understanding netiquette is essential.

The volunteer editorial collective may be able to provide assistance and guidance to anyone that wants to learn, but it should be pointed out that most of this will be over the internet and is dependent on spare time of the volunteers, as is most editorial activity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Constructive suggestions for improvement welcomed. I'd suggest anyone wishing to amend this cut and pastes the text into a texteditor, makes their changes, reviews it then posts a comment with their revised text. I think a line-by-line commentary or rebuttal wouldn't be very clear and it's just easier to publish your entire re-edited text.

It's also worth pointing out that I have absolutely no idea if my and your time will be completely wasted as this is just a proposal. I think the statement might be a bit clearer about welcoming women, but whenever I worded it more strongly I started to think, well then what about INSERT-MARGINALISED-GROUP-HERE. I also do not believe in quotas and don't want to give the impression that there are specific reserved seats waiting to be filled by anyone. But I do want to point out that there is a lack of anyone besides white males and the participation of others is welcome.

by c murray - unmans Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:35

becuase a different perspective on how a gender imbalanced site is offered.
it is offered.

and it is important to include four active gender categories.
to have the personnel to manage them from a different perspective.

to stop negative trolling of women activists.

to allow for diversity.
to interpret the job of editor in a different fashion.

by Robbie - toilet cleaner at imc.ie Sat Sep 16, 2006 07:58

I'm the Robbie much maligned and sometimes defended above.

I now take everything Pat C and Miriam say with a pinch of salt, but since this is the first time its been aired on the newswire, perhaps, some clarifications are in order to counter the latest repetition of untruths, falsehoods, or perhaps even, lies aimed at meself.

I became an editor on March 1st this year. There was uncertainty as to whether PaulaG had been approved as editor in February, so R.Isible proposed her again. I asked why she wanted to become editor since she hadn't shown any interest in editing. I called for an extension if necessary to allow this question to be clarified. I also had some technical queries (namely, that PaulG didn't have much access to the internet so why would she be interested in editing an internet site), but since then, I think that's her business.

There was no response, apart from redjade saying he'd get back to me on it.

On March 29th, having heard nothing till R.Isible announced that he had PaulaG's password waiting for her, I blocked. This was in keeping with the consensus model, since my queiies had been ignored. R.Isible respected this and went offline for awhile. In the meantime, I received the wrath of many disgruntled editors. Pat C made NO comment on the matter till he decided to attack me last month with dogshite allegations. I had made over a hundred edits before blocking in March, and, more tellingly, had asked Pat C to calm down on the editorial mailing list because he was, as usual, generating more heat than light.

My stance on the editor matter wasn't particularly related to PaulaG, but to a principle that editing should have something to do with being an editor. Imagine that! The block expired on May 29th - enough time, I thought to give Paula time to show an interest in editing. In the meantime, seedot briefly supported my block, but my stance got no more overt support.

I have problems with political parties, but would not abuse my position to block anyone who merited it, being an editor.

I was wary of an increasing practice in imc.ie to give people editorial passwords because they were cool, or because they were mates - something which would fetishise editorship, a job that is actually more likely cleaning the jax, trainspotting, being a boring functionary. Someone's gotta do it, but it does require some activity - or else we end up with this sort of thread on a daily basis, and no features.

When I formally proposed that minimal editing should be done for a period of three months, Miriam, (contrary to her post to the Women's list), was the first to approve my proposal on June 22nd 2006.

I'm visually impaired (2% sight in one eye, zero in another). I have no voice software that works. It takes me four hours a day to edit properly (I read about four times slower than most).

Now, if someone isn't even prepared to do a minimal amount of editing (even a fraction of what I do), then, I don't care what gender they are. They have some neck wanting to do this heavy job; they've a neck like a jockey's bollox for saying they're the victims of sexism.

Editors generally protect the site against abuse (enforce the guidelines). The job is robotic. It has fuck all to do with disability, gender, colour, ethnicity...unless of course you're completely blind with no voice synthesizer - would I offer myself as an ambulance driver? Would I offer myself as an underwater basket-weaver when I've no inclination towards the work?

As for barring - I'd support barring Pat C from the site for persistent abuse - I and at least one other editor, have our respective dossiers.

I hope Miriam stays off the lists, because she was a drain on our collective's energy/resources. She criticised a lot, but didn't do any/much editorial stuff.

Iosaf began the whole sexist thing back in February with a sexist response to Clare on a mailing list, claiming to be an editor. Iosaf later claimed it was a joke. This started the ball rolling. He even had the stupidity to bring colour-blindness into the frey, because it's a male traie - neglecting to note that it's passed on by mothers to sons, and that colour-blind people are not fooled by camouflage.

Chris, imo, either never read the editorial guidelines, or couldn't come to terms with them. Like Miriam & Iosaf, she wants to smash the collective as it's presently comprised.

Given that www.indymedia.ie is not a blog, not wikipedia, not www.politics.ie (bulletin board chatroom), but an independent news-site which provides a platform for everyone but Fascists and the like. To highlight the original works, we cull the wasters and cut'n'pastes - sin sin.

This might be dry, might be boring, but that's the lot of an active editor. I'd rather be back contributing as an author again - but don't have the time since I edit. For turnover, we need volunteers to help out - I very much look forward to my early retirement as an editor on imc.ie.

In the meantime, there is no crisis just because our enemies say there is.

by seedot Sat Sep 16, 2006 05:27

drinking tokaz and taking pics of each other in fishermans bastion.

Why aren't you here, making media, or at least there making our media.

Deport indymedia camera people from Hungary, for the good of Ireland.

Cease scary ranting that drives our media makers away.

Sloganise in a vaguely communist fashion.

by redjade & Paula G - Budapest Branch of 3rd Indy .ie Sat Sep 16, 2006 02:51

Previous to this discussion the longest thread on Indymedia.ie was:
'Carole Coleman's Bush interview not bad'
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/65723

with (currently) 257 comments.

This comment, now, is the 265th....

and counting.

glad we're not there, yet ;-)

by James O'B. Sat Sep 16, 2006 02:46

Points regarding Paula’s nomination.
Miriam writes above (http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78329#comment167157 ):
Despite the fact that she had at one time been proposed and accepted as an editor, pending a prerequisite training on the technical aspects of editing, (something that had never previously been required of any of the male editors several of whom freely acknowledge they had to learn it 'on the job').

She wasn't accepted as an editor, although she almost was. A lot of the editors did actually vote for her to be one, but extension was requested pending clarification of what she would do and then there was subsequently a block.

Miriam: She was then blocked retrospectively by another male editor on the grounds that he felt she had not shown enough committment and ability (despite having contributed hundreds of excellent visuals and reports from various actions).

You can't block someone retrospectively. It's impossible. A block can only prevent something from happening. It can't undo something that actually occurred. Secondly, the whole point of Robbie's extension was that a good contributor does not automatically make a good editor. He argued for some evidence that she would make a good editor. C. and Anthony (in personal communication) agreed with Robbie.

Robbie’s mails: https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

--------------------------------------
Robbie did the primary blocking of Paula and he didn’t do it because she’s in the SWP. I would agree entirely that one’s membership is not relevant and if raised it should be rejected as not being a valid reason for refusing anybody.

------------------------------
The more general issue

Miriam writes: Nevertheless, it has been established that the contribution of material, written visual or whatever is to be discounted - ignored in considering whether to approve a person as an editor. The primary requirement is for technical competence and evidence of committment to the running of the site - defined as pointing out abuses of the editorial guidelines to the editorial group, answering queries from the general public and learning how to use html.

Contributions are not ignored. They demonstrate an interest in the indymedia project, which is pretty essential for any prospective editor. And it’s not just about these requirements although they are important. Probably the most important attribute in being an editor is the aptitude to step back, see both sides of an argument and, if needs be, come to a constructive compromise or to with good will, encourage an alternative idea to be tried. This is much more important than being able to string a bit of html together.

If a potential editor doesn't know their way around the site, doesn't know which list is for what, doesn't know what an editor actually does, then that isn't a lack of arcane technical knowledge as such, it's an ignorance of some pretty basic requirements. If that is the case, then the incumbent editors would have legitimate grounds for rejecting the nomination. So when Paula wrote “I also didn't understand the key difference between those two types of editing.... I thought they were all the same??”* (12.06.06) she was to some extent supporting the case Robbie made. Cf. 15.03.06 in response to queries as to the contribution she’d be able to make as an editor: “I've never indicated fully what I can do but that is simply because I didn't understand and still don't fully understand what one can do on the site. I don't think that should preclude the potential for participation and development.” **

This isn’t to say that Robbie was correct – that is not the argument here – but rather that he wasn’t obviously acting in an arbitrary or sexist way. Given Paula’s own statements it’d appear that he had some reason for using the block.

*https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html
**https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html
1 ofRobbie’s mails: https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html
C.’s support of Robbie’s enquiries: https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

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

There is a legitimate argument about whether editors should prove themselves on the job or prove themselves prior to the job. For the purposes of this post, the merits of either argument are secondary to noting the very important fact that there was not agreement amongst the editorial collective on this point. There was a continuum of opinion, from those who thought pretty much no experience on the lists was necessary to those who thought a considerable amount was. It is easier, however, to treat this continuum as breaking into two schools of thought: a)an editor should demonstrate their way to a password and b)give someone a password and they’ll learn as they go. Although the differences amongst the editors on this were pretty amicable, this should not hide that the differences were quite deep, deeper perhaps than some of them realised.

The year before, at least two editors were approved on the basis of b). Other editors weren’t massively happy with this, but were willing to give it a go on the basis that it was worth trying to see if it would encourage more people to get involved. Presumably, there were a range of views on how successful it was, but certainly, some editors, e.g. Anthony, were getting unhappy at the relatively low contributions to editorial work from them and Jon G’s propensity to nominate new editors (He nominated Miriam, Paula and Elaine).

This is the context in which further nominations were discussed. So when Eoin Dubsky, a contributor to Indymedia, expressed an interest in being an editor, two editors C.* and Padraic** requested that he contribute on the lists first before approving him. He did for a while but then disappeared from the list. Consequently he hasn’t become an editor. (Two other men were proposed as well, but weren’t approved, though the debate, if there was any, round their nominations is hard to find).

*https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html
** https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

To summarise, some editors wanted a more formal system of approving new editors. It was unfortunate that people like Eoin D and Paula G were nominated at this juncture, while there was an ongoing debate about editorial functions. Afaik, only Robbie has been approved in the last while, while three men and three women were nominated but never got the passwords. On the face of it, with both men and women being rejected and with plausible reasons being advanced, the argument that it was sexism causing it needs special consideration. Again, it doesn’t disprove that there isn’t any sexism whatsoever , just that the case Miriam is making isn’t nearly as strong as it would appear from her email to the Global list.

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

This difference of opinion became more apparent when Jon nominated Elaine before she had joined the editorial list. This is what Miriam is referring to when she writes:During this second round of debate on the issue, yet another woman who had not previously engaged in any editorial debate 'coincidentally' rode in to defend the status quo. Staggeringly, and against all of the rationale for excluding the other women, she had been nominated and approved by some of the men as an editor (the personal friends she mentioned, I assume) without her even knowing that it had happened. She had not remotely met any of the pre-requisites that were required of me and the other woman and yet they were merrily approving her for the role seemingly untroubled by massive contradiction between their treatment of their friend and their treatment of other women.

This is perhaps the most inaccurate section of the entire contribution. Yes, a few editors approved Elaine, but at least three other ones felt it was inappropriate for her to become an editor* given that she hadn’t (at that stage) participated on the list, but they hoped that she would get more involved. So she was never “merrily” approved, especially by the editors with whom Miriam had her most profound differences with, namely Risible & Robbie. Elaine has recently been participating on the list, but she isn’t (yet) an editor. Miriam completely ignores the fact that there were open differences of opinion between the editors as to method of getting new editors.

*https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

by James O'B. Sat Sep 16, 2006 02:39

This is a reply to Miriam’s mail to the Global list, which is a comment here: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78329#comment167157

As searching archives requires a lot of time, especially if one isn’t familiar with them, I’m going to reference them quite frequently to support this analysis. I suppose this is a reply to Miriam’s mail to the Global list, which is a comment here: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78329#comment167157

Note that people can follow the links to the archives if they wish to investigate further. In particular relevant mails from Miriam, Iosaf etc will almost always be found to be close to the ones I am quoting in terms of dates in the archives, so there should not be too much difficulty for them to find detailed supporting emails, such as they are.

Unfortunately some participants in the discussions as well as previously nominated editors are going to be named here. It is simply not possible to answer all the charges without going into considerable detail. To a certain extent, both Chekov and myself have avoided naming participants as many of them are involuntary players in this article, but this approach has left room for ambiguity, which is unfortunate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: defending indycensor who tried to disrupt the website last summer:
Miriam The allegation that I supported abusers of the site is wholly without foundation.

It isn’t that Miriam supported him (an attempt to vandalise the main website), it’s that she defended him without understanding properly what was going on. For example in August 2005 she wrote to the list: “I really think you should re-consider whether you have misinterpreted this person's reasonably expressed concerns? What vandalising has he or she been responsible for? What are you referring to?”* and later: ”You are fighting non-existent enemies where this ceonsorship exchange has been concerned...”**

*https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html (August 10 2005)
**https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html (August 12 2005 )
----------------

When the editors, and Risible in particular, defended their reaction* to the attempted vandalizing of the website, he received a malicious email of the first rank–

From: miriamcotton
To: "R Isible"
Subject:
Re: [Imc-ireland] Who's up for an Indymedia Ireland meeting (sic!!!!)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 10:28:03 +0100

Here is a little taste of your own medicine and I hope you are equal to it: The website is littered with your rudeness in the comments section, also to some on this members list and the archives are full of your self-important, snide and oh-so-opleased with yourself little deletions. Dont you just love yourself!Obviously, you are short on other opportunties for getting some worthwhile thrills. I can assure you, I am not alone in having this view of you.

Go and do your own research - if you insist on vandalising the website with your ugliness, then it is a matter for you to go and clean it up. You are completely devoid of manners or consideration for other people. I am by no means the first to point out your rudeness, Mr Infallible, and no doubt I will not be the last. You have not understood the import or motives behind the questions that I and others have been asking - presumably because of some lack of intellectual ability (which god knows you must be forgiven for) and you are the biggest and most obnoxious bully on the website.

You have no insight into what you are doing and saying and need urgently to think about how you come across to others. It must be a completenightmare for your colleagues and its high time someone told you to back off and get some perspective about your true status in this world - i.e. certainly no better than anyone you attack, and often a lot worse. I started reading your email below and gave up after two paragraphs - another hysterical, illogical and inaccurate diatribe accusing others of the things you are most guilty of yourself. Here is a little lesson for you: 'Risible is a complete ***t' = insult

'Indymedia is a great website but there are a few things that I find difficult eg understanding the protocol for deleting comments' = constructive criticism

Spot the difference, dearie? Now go and find something useful to do with yourself, for a change. You are fighting non-existent enemies where this ceonsorship exchange has been concerned and have needlessly stirred up a lot of anger and resentment.

Miriam’s next mail on the subject began “and I stand by every word.”

This was before Miriam was nominated as an editor.* So she writes above about being blocked as editor: This unfairness has caused me to be angry at times and my anger too has been used against me as a further reason to support the block - it is described as an inability to understand consensus and/or a failure to engage 'constructively and helpfully' with the editorial list..

She is inaccurate about the initial, crucial sequence of events. She displayed questionable judgment and made personal attacks before she was nominated, let alone rejected as an editor. As Chekov has noted above in this thread, there are more than a few examples of personal attacks against those she disagrees with.

*https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html (Sept 8, 2005)

Even after this, Risible agreed to Miriam’s nomination as editor, subject to “to one of the proposers ensuring that the structure and operating rules are clearly explained to Miriam and that she indicates that she abides by them.”*

That first nomination was only put to rest after Miriam’s offensive comments directed at Paula : ”Maybe if you'd followed it all, you'd be better qualified to comment. Funny, I've not seen you commenting in these discussions before. Im sure it'll keep you popular with the boys. Mind you dont go having any opinions of your own any time, though."**

*https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html
**https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

-------------------------
Second Nomination
Miriam was nominated for a second time by Jon G in the New Year:
Miriam: When I was proposed a second time some months later I was blocked again by the same editor who blocked me the first time - a person who goes under the name of 'Risible'. He has disliked me ever since I challenged him about his, to me at least, appalling rudeness to people both on the lists and on the newswire. Not one of the editors will acknowledge the blatant bias and prejudice of him being the person to block me in the context of his disagreement with me.

It wasn’t just Risible who blocked Miriam. Padraic also blocked her*: I don't support her being an editor and would actually block her omination on the grounds that I don't think she is reasonable in arguments on these lists - nor do I think she's willing to take on board other people's points of view.

Ronan agreed with the block.**. A significant number of the editors agree with Risible on this.

*https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html
** https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

by c murray - unmans Sat Sep 16, 2006 01:57

i have been a feminist activist for many years on personal/political and
union level.

I can call myself what I please.

I have earned the entitlement thru fighting for maternity rights thru siptu and the labour court.
I have fought a nine year gender bias case against duchas and won.

i have fought for my son's educational rights.
I make no apologies for my feminism.

I suggest you educate yourself and use a real name, please.
I wear my chip with pride. I alos fight for other women's rights privately and publicly.

and will continue to do so, long as I am asked.

by clarity Sat Sep 16, 2006 01:01

Nobody else on this thread has used the term "she-devil". You are the first. So perhaps you should remove the chip from your shoulder.

by chris murray - unmans Fri Sep 15, 2006 21:41

will put forward proposals for change tomorrow, if we are in a receptive mood.....

a six month period of implementation, have a massive list of links in front of
me which make interesting feminist research-need for definition/refinement.

or, if we are not receptive to positive proposals on the WOMYN issue
we can argue the toss about censorship, and how unmanageable a site
can become through lack of gender balance.

it is basically a question of a woman's touch-( you know' calamity Jane')

we have a differing perspective on it and as I said to Mim, unity comes
from respecting diversity and not calling feminsts she-devils etc.

by PaddyK's Blouse Fri Sep 15, 2006 21:10

Come on...don't stop now.

Just cos you've all left work now and you're not getting paid by some poor sucker to carry on like a bunch of blouses is no reason to deprive the world of more reasoned Oirish debate .

Cmon brothers and sisters, what will the Zionazi, Imperialist , Islamic Terrorist, mysoginistic, homophobes think if you jack it in now just cos its going on your own telephone bills?

If for no other reason do it for International justice.

by wageslave Fri Sep 15, 2006 17:12

My comments on this thread at least attempted to be constructive. Others have felt this is the case too.Yours is clearly not, it's just insulting.

Regarding my repetition, i was merely collating ideas that may have been lost in the noise in the interests of clarity.

regarding my apparent sexism. You'll notice that I suggested we (myself included) all reread our own posts and take a good cold look at ourselves in the mirror. In my own case, I was referring to the fact that more than one person has felt there is some sexism in my posts. Perhaps they are right and I have to think about that.

Is attempting to reconcile people who are fighting such a bad thing? My reasons for trying to are not because I don't see their bad side, but because I realise that these people have published some good CONTENT on the site and it would be a shame from that point of view to drive them away from indymedia.

What content have YOU ever published, flabberghasted (or whoever you really are)? would like to read some of it.

I suspect you are an editor using a sock puppet. nasty practice that.
Your tone is completely derisory and insulting and shows a lack of self control. Not someone I personally would be comfortable with having editorial control

If you really think my contribution to this thread is "passive aggressive widdle" and I am a "submarine psychopath" and " the stupidest person alive" then fine, but I ask that you at least have the guts to use your actual label and stand behind your post. Otherwise I'll just have to consider the possibility that you just made up a sock to hide behind in order to hurl abuse that you know very well to be offside.

by pat c Fri Sep 15, 2006 17:05

"Pat. First of all, that email was sent to the open editorial list, so your threat to distribute it on the lists if I delete it is a little bit silly. "

I meant lists outside of Indy like GrassrootsDissent. Indy is not the entire Universe you know. The silliness is on your part.

"Also, to respond to some of your accusations. I did not say that anybody was mentally ill, I merely pointed out the possibility as one of a list of reasons why editors should not act vindictively towards the people who are abusing them. "

Come on Chekov, you dont wriggle out of it that easily. Its clearly a Stalinist smear. There was no need for you to use that formula of words.

"I also do not have the ability to decide anything in advance."

Why then did you suggest in advance of the meeting that 3 people would have to excluded from further debate? And that 2 others would probably have to go anyway?

"While your accusations of Stalinism are obviously fair, I fear that you are ignoring much worse totalitarian abuses all over the world. As I write these lines, thousands of kindergarten teachers are engaging in similarly authoritarian measures against their hapless charges."

You are such a child at times. You bully and strut like a dictator, you accuse your opponents of being mentally ill. You decide the results of a meeting in advance then you throw in a little silliness to attempt to divert from your Stalinist behaviour.

"They need you pat. I'm just a petty dictator, their abuses need a hero of your stature to stand up to them. "

Nah, I'll stick to you. You have the neck to "expose the mainstream media" in the Village. Maybe your activities on Indymedia should be exposed there as well.

Dear Vincent ...

by Chekov Fri Sep 15, 2006 16:54

Pat. First of all, that email was sent to the open editorial list, so your threat to distribute it on the lists if I delete it is a little bit silly. As you also know, we've pretty much relaxed all of our normal editorial guidelines on this thread exactly so that people can see the sort of crap that you come out with. I am perfectly happy to stand over it. To be honest your hilarious accusations against me are much better support for my arguments than I could have come up with on my own.

Also, to respond to some of your accusations. I did not say that anybody was mentally ill, I merely pointed out the possibility as one of a list of reasons why editors should not act vindictively towards the people who are abusing them.

I also do not have the ability to decide anything in advance. I have merely been putting forward concrete proposals on the editorial lists and here which might help to resolve our problems to give people a chance to think about things that I might propose in advance of the meeting. Of course, all of the 11 active editors are my flock and just because I propose something they will all fall into line like obedient little sheep. Nope, couldn't be further from the truth - they're about the most hard to coerce bunch that I've ever come across.

While your accusations of Stalinism are obviously fair, I fear that you are ignoring much worse totalitarian abuses all over the world. As I write these lines, thousands of kindergarten teachers are engaging in similarly authoritarian measures against their hapless charges. They need you pat. I'm just a petty dictator, their abuses need a hero of your stature to stand up to them.

by pat c Fri Sep 15, 2006 16:40

"Pat C's wild comparison of Chekov with Stalin is just another instance of this malice."

No. Chekov shows the malice. He suggests his oponents are mentally ill. He says everything would be perfect if only the editors were allowed to take special measures against the dissidents.

Read Chekovs letter above which I published. Even before the meeting he has decided on the outcome. Miriam, Iosaf and I will not be allowed to participate in further debate. Sean and Chris will on a probationary basis but Chekov knows that they will break the rules anyway and will have to be expelled.

"It shows just how much those out to destroy Indymedia have lost a sense of perspective."

The fact that you ignore the above from Chekov suggests that you are the one who lacks a sense of perspective. It is Chekovs power lust which will destroy Indymedia.

"No matter how vocal one editor may be, they still only have one vote out of 15. Maybe it appears that Chekov has influence because his arguments are rational and his standards are high, and the other editors recognise that. "

Saying that your opponents are mentally ill demonstrates high standards? Deciding in advance the outcome of a meeting is rational?

"He clearly doesn't suffer fools gladly, but why should he? "

He doesnt suffer dissent gladly. If you oppose the editors then you are an enemy of the people.

Chekov may not be a Stalinist but he is acting in a Stalinist manner in Indymedia.

by Sally Creagh - personal capacity Fri Sep 15, 2006 16:25

Glad to see Chris M is displaying at least some sense in rejecting the martyrdom of the Miriams and Pat C's of this world. From what I've read I think Chekov is correct in saying she doesn't have that edge of malice that characterises their agenda.

Pat C's wild comparison of Chekov with Stalin is just another instance of this malice. It shows just how much those out to destroy Indymedia have lost a sense of perspective. No matter how vocal one editor may be, they still only have one vote out of 15. Maybe it appears that Chekov has influence because his arguments are rational and his standards are high, and the other editors recognise that. He clearly doesn't suffer fools gladly, but why should he? Why should anyone tolerate the type of online behaviour displayed in recent times which sucks up the time and energy of people whose time would be better spent constructively nurturing the development of Indymedia?

Just to counter Miriam's accusations of some sort of attempt to impress 'the boys', I will say that it is obviously very strange that there are no female editors out of the 15. I suspect there is a sub-culture that has evolved within the running of the site that has facilitated this, rather than it being consciously thought out sexism. And the situation that some have pointed out on this thread, where one editor is preventing a female applicant from being admitted is ridiculous (if that version is true, and to be honest I can't claim to know both sides of the story on this one). One person should not have a veto on something like this - it should require two or three people at the very least to guard against things like sexism and personal vendettas dictating who is excluded. I understand this woman is being vetoed because this editor doesn't like her political affiliations. If this is true it's unacceptable.

But I totally understand why Miriam was not given the green light. It's very obvious she doesn't have the objectivity or clarity to make decisions in relation to content. And if it wasn't obvious to people before this, it bloody well will be now that this thread has been allowed to go unedited and people can see the full extent of the crap that has been going on.

I only got involved in this argument because I was dismayed at the attempts to undermine a very worthy resource. I find this whole thing as depressing as every other right-thinking person. I really hope the meeting on Saturday goes well and that constructive ways are found to put a stop to all of this destructiveness.

by c murray - unmans Fri Sep 15, 2006 14:12

you have to use em, collaborate in 'em
and put positive agenda forward, like the rest of us.
martyrdom is 20th century.

also have been thru it, but not seeking legal advice.

unity in diversity tis called.

I am not a 'we' or associated with your martyrdom

by an indymedialover Fri Sep 15, 2006 13:34

get a life the lot of yeh..

the funny thing is in real life yer probably the most timid bunch and wouldnt say boo to a cat

i want someone to post a longer thread than the one above this!!!

miriam you give women a bad name, and you are my worst nightmare, you have far far 2 much time on yer hands women

by Miriam Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:59

Good to hear from you and reassuring to know that in fact the ratio has been 15:1. It is not of course the trump card that some guys here probably think it is for a whole bunch of reasons but I am glad to realise that you were involved as an editor, and stand well corrected that there have been no women editors.

I can understand that for you to try to interpret the history of this discussion from this thread would be difficult in some respects and if that is what you have done then the misunderstandings and inaccuracies in what you say are entirely understandable. But I will have to explain them nevertheless.

I don't quite know how to start here, I'm a bit worried that I'll take off in a tangent but that would hardly be out of place on this thread. First off, I became involved in indymedia in 2001 having met some like minded folk, men and women, in Genoa. On 29th September I attended my first indymedia.ie meeting in St Andrew's resource centre on Pearse St, which was the 2nd founding meeting. The site itself was officially launched on April 6th 2002, and I was one of the editors.

Can you tell us Amanda, if at that time you were subjected to the sorts of pre-conditions for becoming an editor that were imposed on the women who subsequently expressed an interest? Eamonn and Paul are two such (and I amnot accusing them of sexism). Do you realise that those standards were applied retrospectively in one case and that they were justified by men here even though many of them never had to meet those standards before they were approved as editors? did you realise that one of those women is still blocked, aeons later, despite her consistent and considerable contributions to this site.

Would we be right in thinking that it was necessarily all hands on deck at that time - and proper order too. You are not talking about the same situation and if you were treated as an equal at that time then we all have to acknowledge that for what it is. You were in on the editorial group from the outset, you were much needed and your commitment and skills were taken at that time for what they are. That much is true, from what you say. And I have never doubted that any of the men on the collective ever intend to be sexist.

In the meantime however, as with many an evolving institution (and we are getting on for that on Indymedia) the collective has to some extent become a victim of its own success. It is not the staggering toddler it would have been in the early days, but is now more like a strident and, at times, rather self-regarding teenager, who has become over confident in some ways because of an unexpected degree of success. Attitudes that will not have been evident in the first instance have had time to manifest themselves in the now well established - even entrenched - conventions of the groups philosophy and operation. All institutions and groups go this way - from anarchists to freemansons. And, interesting to note, the collective wears many of the positive and negative characteristics of IMC groups all over the world. They are only people after all.

I continued as an editor and contributor despite both my gender and residence in Limerick (two supposedly insurmountable obstacles). I quit as an editor in March 2003 due to a conflict between my role there and my contractual obligations to the NGO I had been recently employed by. I stayed involved in indymedia, contributing articles and attending meetings. I eventually quit completely in 2005 when I emmigrated.

I dont know why living in Limerick should be an insurmountable obstacle. I wouldnt have thought so and have never said anything like that. There would however be some practical difficulty with regard to physical meetings - especially if you have children or have other committments that would inolve you in an overnight stay every time you had to go to them. There is also the issue of respecting the national identity of the newswire and the courtesy that is owed to committed people who do not live in Dublin by making sure to visit those locations for meetings too. I have travelled to Dublin for meetings only to find they were cancelled at the last minute (once when I interviewed Fergus Finlay and another time either before or after - I cant recall exactly). You might understand why I am a bit put off about going up to Dublin - aside from the practical difficultues I have.

I never once in my time with indymedia.ie experienced sexism, I never felt excluded or patronised due to my lack of penis. And most importantly, I never felt my presence on the editorial team was one of tolerated tokenism.

Again we share a lot of experiences of the Indymedia editors. For about the millionth time, I too think for the main part that men involved are nice people and have mostly had perfectly pleasant experiences of them. Nobody has called me a bitch, told me outright that because I am a woman they dont agree with me or that my opinion doesnt count - although it has manhy times been completely ignored. My articles have been treated with respect and a degree of appreciation that I never expected.

I didn't always agree with everyone in the collective, and not all of them always agreed with me. This had nothing to do with my gender, and if it had I would have known, and called them on it. And there was no way if I had found myself in disagreement with everyone else that I would have accused them of inherent sexism.

We really have an awful lot in common where experience of the editorial group is concerned. I too have had many an objective disagreement, expressed in perfectly good cheer, which had nothing to do with sexism and have accepted outcomes and decisions that did not reflect my viewpoint without anything more than a shrug - to say nothing of all the times when it has been quite clear to me that I should respectfully defer to their longer experience of the situation. On the other hand, I have frequently been snarled at, by one editor mostly, for making genuine mistakes of the learner variety. That would be the same editor who blocked me from being an editor subsequently. Nothing to do with me having objected to his rudeness, no siree. Remember too that all my contact is in the virtual realm - that is a very different experience to yours.

Do you know why? I AM BETTER THAN THAT. I am grown up enough to realise that sometimes I am wrong, and that if the person telling me I am wrong is a man there is a possibility that he is telling me that, not because I am a woman, but because I am wrong. Your gut instinct to scream "sexism" is the kind of thing that has stalled the feminist movement for the last 20 years and will continue to do so if you, and others like you don't cop on.

Now I am sad to say, and I know you wont be surprised, but this is where we part company. I hope that, from what I have told you of the facts so far, you will begin to see that you are completely mistaken about the idea that everytime I am disagreed with I scream out sexism. That is a distortion and exaggeration which has been pedalled about me by some within this collective - and in this and other discussions - to the point of apocryphy. But it simply isnt true. Therefore you have no need to be as exercised as you are about me and no need to go leaping to the conclusions you have. You might also like to consdier that there is a vast school of feminist thinking which regards the idea that other feminists are to blame for 'stalling the feminist movement' is in itself a massively sexist charge. But either way, the charge as you have laid it at my door is besdie the point because you have completely misrerpresented my motives, my actions and my words.

Do you know that the majority of young women in our society refuse to call themselves feminists? Do you know why? Perhaps because they associate feminists with women of the type that you are appearing to be. Women who cry "sexist" whenever they are challenged in life rather than examine the challenge itself.

Again, all these accusations are based on an utterly mistaken understanding of what has actually happened.

I am a feminist, I have been discriminated against due to my gender and I'm sure that there will be times in the future where someone will attempt to do so again. I'm not afraid to say that there is still so much, even in our part of the world, that needs to be done to achieve sexual equality. Women are often seen as inferior, called sluts for having sexual habits which a man would be credited for, can still earn less for doing the same jobs, are still objectified in ways that men just aren't.

I totally agree with you about this and the things you describe here are the obvious forms of sexism which it is easier to identify but not necessarily any easier to challenge. So far as you have experienced sexism, and difficulty in challenging it, you have a loyal friend in me. That is not a personal statement or an attempt to ingratiate myself - it is an objective assessment of what I believe is due to any woman who is victimised becaue of being a woman, regardless of how I may feel about her personally. My conviction is that where personal differences arsie, they should not be used a reason to undermine the fight against injustice - whether it is to do with sexism, racism or oppression of any kind. If we allow ourselves to be petty like that we will get nowhere. So I shake your hand, despite your misguided attack on me here, on that objective ground.

But when I say things like that I get lumped in with crazy women who seem to think that men are responsible for all the world's evils. Who refuse to accept that men too can fall foul of gender bias. Who refuse to accept that sometimes they are wrong, or under-qualified but prefer to attempt to manipulate the situation by accusing the system of being injust to them due to their womanhood.

Am I a 'crazy woman'? Is that not a stereotype in itself? Well actually I do think that men are more responsible for most of the worlds evils. But I agree with you that it is stupid to paint women up as sainted victims about whom no criticism can be made. It gets us nowhere and is more insidiously sexist that some male to female sexism, becuase it means we have to live up to an idiotic and impossible ideal. We are as angry as we are gentle, as fallible as any man. And this point does go to some of what I have been trying to argue in this discussion. that I am not always judged by the same standard as the men - that there is a readinjess to see in my statements and views both motives and flaws that either are not there, are exaggerated out of all proportion compaed to comparable behaviour in the men. There is a sort of live and let live attitude among the men, well established and emphasised by the closeness and lenght of their shared experience. They have established a collective working mind. New people who come along with observations are threatening more than they know about or intend to, it seems, and the men are ferociously defensive at times. There are loads of examples where I have been treated with less tolerance, understanding and liking than men on this collective. A different, if uniententional, standard is applied. I am sure you will agree that there is such a thing as institutinalised sexism, at least I hope you see that there is. That is what I have been alleging. Attitudinal, more subtle sexism - although there are one or two examples of more overt sexism too. The fact that is subtle doesnt alter the impact of its outcomes though. I dont think women are perfect but we are still the underdogs - it is not at all an even conversation as some women like think. We have only achieved a surface equality and some of what is being called liberation and equality is the exact opposite, in my opinion.

Miriam, I get that you have been doing this for a long time. Going on marches before I could even walk, nevermind march. But perhaps you have gotten so used to things being a certain way that you haven't taken the time to look around and realise that this is not 1979, it's 2006.

Amanda, this does make me laugh but I know what you mean by it. My feminism is not what you think it is at all, though. I may be a sort of granny feminist in your eyes, out of touch with how things have moved on. Not so. I dont mean to be patronising but like most women (and men) my age, I have come through various life experiences and you know what, the issues dont really change. They may wear different clothes and accessories for a while, but its the same shit going down anyway. Im still a woman and I still face this crap every day as do we all and I totally agree with you that it is as stupid as it is counterproductive to paint men up as the enemy. It is sexism that is the enemy and we're all victims in that respect. The pressures this causes men are so far completely unrecognised - relatively speaking. Take the example of male rape. The vast majority of victims never report it and many experience horrific psychological prolems. I read one case where a guy in his thirties was snatched off a street by two men, dragged up some stairs into an appartment block and raped twice. He found himself back out on the street within a short space of time. Life carried on around him as if nothing had happened but his life was changed completely by that brutal 20 minute experience. They took turns to hold him down. A lot of women would identify with that and yet we dont share those experiences as a rule. What a shame, there is a real possibility for getting somewhere, maybe, if we cooperated with one another in this sort of context.

So many of the men you are accusing of sexism were born into a world where sexism of the kind you feel surrounded by was not acceptable. I know a lot of the guys you are accusing of discriminating against you and other women and they would not do that. They didn't do it to me, it isn't the type of behaviour which is acceptable to them. In fact if anyone is being sexist here it is you.

I know things have changed a bit but not nearly as much in Ireland as in some other places and I have to disagree with you that some of these men are as aware of the deeper sexism that they fall into at times.

The editorial collective didn't give you what you wanted, so you decided to use the fact that they are all men against them.

I am not being petty or petulant - it is about the bigger issues, the ones I have discussed above. I am so weary from this particular accusation.

I am angry and hurt by your accusations. Accusations against men who I like and have enjoyed working with, and accusations against me as you seem to consistently accuse all women who stand up for them to be nasty, selfish and naive collaborators. So I don't quite know what kind of insults you are cooking up for me; the only woman allowed into their inner collective. Although actually I have a pretty good idea, so why don't you surprise me, by reading my comments again and going and taking them in, maybe read back through this thread and actually accept the fact that not everyone one who disagrees with you is sexist or desperate for male approval. But that maybe they have valid points and that you still aren't finished learning.

You have no need to be hurt. I have never met you and nothing personal was intended to you. You have jumped into the middle of this and upset yourself needlessly. I have been excoriated for raising the issue of sexism and I would have thought that would be a matter of some conern to you, given what you say above. What gets me about the women who come on here, never having had a single exchange with me about anything and who yet seem to think they know better than I do what my motives are. It's not just you and I have to say, again, that I see in what you have done here that your closeness to these men has not helped your objectivity. It's very obvious that it hasnt. In so far as it is legitimate evidence of what these men are like, in my opinion of course, it actually overlaps entirely with what I have been saying myself. I dont doubt that you can say in all honesty that they are good people and that you worked happily with them, but that does not mean they are incpapable of getting things wrong or of being indavertently sexist. Waht you are saying, in effect, is that these men are perfect as regards sexism, and no matter what the truth of any other womans experience is, we must accept that their concerns wil not be entertained, even considered as a possibility. That is the problem with personal testimonies - they are not about the facts. You are advocating a sort of totalitarianism, if you think about it. You dont know what my experiences have been so how can you form a judgmjent? That is a fundamental principle of justice. Some men on this collective want it established that they are incapapble of sexism so that they can say, it seems, there is no need ever again for any of them to trouble with that business. I dont cook up insults for people but I do respond to them when they are thrown at me. I respect your experiences and your views. We will just have to agree to differ on the other points though. Im glad too that you engaged with me in a way that makes it possible to respond to the issues and not to the personal.

I have, I think three times now, asked for independent mediators to look over the facts, to work with this collective to resolve this specific issue. It has never been taken up. There will be mediators at this Sunday's meeting but I think that is to ensure that the agenda can be got through, and that lives will not be lost, rather than to resolve this.

Finally, I am ,not doing this for myself. Do you honestly think that this public flogging that I am enduring is not excruciating and humiliating? Other women were affected, it is not just me. Not all of them are prepared to say so in public which is a shame because it leaves me looking as if I were alone in this. I have been angry with them for that. I would point you also to the fair and objective assessment of other experienced IMC women - feminists who have devoted alot of effort to analysing sexism within the new media - IMC in particular. They fully support me in my view that I have run up against enedmic sexism. They have not caricatured me for the anger and frustration I have shown and which it is always better to try and avoid -and which almost all of the men involved have exhibited too, I might add. But these women understand that I am a human being and that that anger is not a relfelction so much on me but on the difficulty of tackling subtle prejudice in the face of such intransigience and that my basic point is valid and justified - in the light of the facts.

But at least we are able to thrash this issue out here, however painful.

by pat c Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:51

I think its only fair that all of you should read how Chekov intends to stage manage the upcoming Indymedia meetings. In true Stalinist fashion dissidents are to be silencened:

Therefore I think we should exclude iosaf, miriam and Pat C from any such debate in advance. I would expect that both chris and sean ryan will fail to obey the ground rules and will find themselves excluded in time, but I don't think that either of them have shown the same malice or have the same track record in destructiveness as the 3 mentioned above.

In the best tradition of Stalin, dissidents are also to be described as insane. So far Chekov hasnt got the power to have us committed. But have a look:

While I think that some people's behaviour has been consistently appalling on the lists, and now on the newsire, we should remember that:
a) people tend to misbehave a lot more on the internet than in person
b) some people are mentally ill
c) we don't want to become the mirror images of those who have been attacking us.

Problem? What problem? The nuts are attacking Indymedia!

Those are hardly the words of a Libertarian. I wonder if there are any Anarchgists out there who are prepared to oppose Chekovs Stalinist sizure of Indymedia.

Anyway read Chekovs Masterplan below.

Btw. Chekov, you can hide this posting on Indymedia but if you do it will just be circulated on lists. Chekovs Airbrush only works on Indymedia.

Some thoughts on this meeting.

As horrific as this car-crash of a thread has been, I'm hoping that it is a catharsis of sorts. For the last year at least our editorial time and energy has been almost entirely tied up in pointless and bitter disputes, with various people acting in terrible ways and getting away with it. To be honest, I think that if it went on in the same manner for much longer, we'd fall apart within 6
months. We've lost two of our best editors (eekk was our best feature writer and ris was our best moderator imho) and others amongst us have been increasingly inactive on the lists - I know that at least myself and seedot have been almost completely put off from contributing due to the hugely offputting negative atmosphere around the place. New people getting actively involved have also completely dried up. As somebody else remarked recently, you'd have to be
completely insane to start opening your mouth around these parts - no matter what gender you are.

Hopefully, letting it all hang out in all its ugliness and nastiness on the newswire will help to concentrate our minds and give us the impetus to come up with lasting solutions to make sure that things never sink so low again. It might also wake a few of our users and supporters up to the fact that we are
facing something of a crisis and that we can't be taken for granted and we need
help and support and active involvement. I've been trying to get people to come
along and I've been encouraged by the response.

However, bitter as we may feel, I think we should all do our very utmost to make
this meeting a constructive one. That means that we desist as much as is possible from using the meeting to bash those who have attacked us. While I think that some people's behaviour has been consistently appalling on the lists,
and now on the newsire, we should remember that:
a) people tend to misbehave a lot more on the internet than in person
b) some people are mentally ill
c) we don't want to become the mirror images of those who have been attacking us.

Therefore, I think that everybody should try to concentrate on staying positive and constructive and not waste our time bashing people.

I've been chatting with a few people about it and considering the packed agenda,
the emotiveness of some of the topics and the tight timescale, I think it would be a good idea for us to split into groups and then to report back our ideas.
hat way people can get their say on the topics that are closest to their hearts
and we should remember after all that this is just a discussion meeting and it
is the follow up meeting that will make decisions.

However, there are a couple of things that we should decide in at least outline
terms at this meeting. Firstly, it has already been decided that we are only going to accept written proposals submitted in advance at the decision making meeting. We should take advantage of the site and the lists in general to
discuss whatever proposals come forward as much as we can - this will allow the
actual decision making meeting to be as painless as possible. However, there is absolutely no point whatsoever in allowing these discussions to replicate the
ugly thread that we have at the moment or the horrible editorial discussions
that have become common. To this end I think we need some ground rules to cover
these discussions. It would be great if we could come up with some a basic
moderation approach to such debates which would allow, for example, some
moderators to be appointed with the power to quickly and efficiently remove
people who act in a destructive or wantonly selfish manner from such debates.
We are, after all, in a crisis situation and it would be senseless to allow ourselves to be too concerned with the freedom of trolls to cause trouble.

Having said that, I'm inclined to think that a tiny number of people have
already shown themselves to be sufficently malicious, disruptive and destructive
so that we can know for certain in advance that they will fuck shit up. Just
like there is no point in allowing fascists to hold meetings and organise -
since you know with 100% certainty that they will attack you when they have a chance - there is no point in allowing people with extensive track records in malicious abuse to take part in crucial discussions since we know with 100%
certainty that they will do their utmost to fuck shit up.

Therefore I think we should exclude iosaf, miriam and Pat C from any such debate
in advance. I would expect that both chris and sean ryan will fail to obey the
ground rules and will find themselves excluded in time, but I don't think that
either of them have shown the same malice or have the same track record in
destructiveness as the 3 mentioned above. This should not be seen as a
permanent ban, more as providing us space free from those with the most proven
and consistent track records in destructiveness in order for us to sort
ourselves out. In order to justify the particular people, I cite iosaf's most
recent reference to "r'oisin" in the middle of our current crisis, despite the
fact that he knows perfectly well that this contravenes one of our fundamental
prinicples and that a large number of us expressed our condemnation of him
stooping to such lows only a couple of weeks ago (added of course to his lying
accusations without retraction and his complete lack of responsibility). I
think we are all aware of miriam's inability to engage in an honest disagreement
without personalising things and engaging in bitter attacks. Pat C.'s
disgraceful hounding of Robbie in all manner of underhand ways can be added to
his 5 year record of irresponsibility and feuding as well as his most recent
misbehaviours.

I should emphasise though that I am only proposing their exclusion from the
discussion of whatever formal proposals we come up with. They should still have
the right to post to the newswire and be moderated with exactly the same
principles as everybody else.

I also think that we should set up a new list specifically for policy / process
discussions and use it for this purpose. We can still use the editorial list
for abusive post reports, features and moderation discussions. But we need a
protected space to sort our shit out.

We are going to need a decision making process for the proposals. I think that
it is crucial that the editors agree to cede decision making power to a wider
group at the second meeting. How exactly we select this group, I don't know,
but we could just ask anybody who is interested and we feel has had some level
of constructive input over the years to come along and trust them to be sensible.

Finally, I think that there are certain areas where we need to accept that we
just need decisions - and that if we can't get consensus that we'll have to go
for majority. This means that editors will have to accept that they might have
problems with various aspects of the agreements, but that the alternative - the
status quo - is far worse than an arrangement agreed by the majority. I mean if
we can't agree on a set of list rules (which we haven't succeeded in doing for 5
years) we will just fall apart really soon.

Chekov

by pat c Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:31

Aidan might not be an editor anymore but he is trying to get my replies to him censored. In particular he wants my original comments about the machettes (2002) hidden. He was the one to introduce this topic but he wants my response hidden!

This guy would make a great editor!

by pat c Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:13

"A) One there was no face to face contact with you at the point that you made your "joke", you' were just someone who boasted about their willingness to commit violence for a cause,"

Two lies there. One of the editors, Ray knew me for ten years at that stage. He knew I didnt have a record of cutting up people with machettes. I never boasted about a willingness to commit violence. Ony a disturbed person like yourself would have taken the machettes quip seriously.

"you irrational hatred of the IMC collective, and your willingness to commit violence aganist someone (who you admit you didn't even know who, who you thought, might be an IMC member) and your "joking" about "twin machetes", "

Yes jokes. That person had issued threats against me. You seem to have no problem with that.

"I'm sorry you may assume you were joking, however among several members of the IMC community your jokes were taken seriously. "

Who? Apart from you? If they had raised such fears either in Cyberia or in the real world the editor who knew me for 10 years and another editor who knew me for a couple of years would have confirmed that I wasnt given to chopping up Indy editors.

"B) You may assume that anyone who disagrees with your definition of what is republicanism is a west brit sympathiser. As someone with family in Omagh, I disliked giving a platform to people who cripple and killed Irish people in an "attempt" to "promote Irish freedom". "

No I dont. I criticise actions of the RIRA and CIRA as well. I am on record here on Indy doing so. I condemn attacks on civilian targets. I also condemned the CIRA bombing which killed a member of the TA. The TA have never played a part in the suppression of the Nationalist people in the Six Counties.

"I wanted to ban the CSM 32 from publishing on Indymedia, and when I looked at the publishing guidelines, I understood that there was nothing opposing to the CSM from publishing on Indymedia.ie. Once I saw this I resigned, a number of editors wrote publically to acknowledge their sympathy with my position."

Are you saying that they agreed with you in introducing a Section 31 to Indymeda? They certainly didnt say that openly.

"I live in a world where I can object to the unnecessary killing of Irish civilians by the British government and by Irish "freedom fighters". "

We have that in common then.

Aidan you have now beng pursuing a bizarre vendetta against me for four years. Why do you have an obsession about the machette quip? Have I attacked anyone with a machette in the last four years?

Get over your obsession. You just come across as a sad individual when all you can throw at me is some remarks I made four years ago.

"Miriam you may claim that in five years no woman has been an editor, thats a lie pure and simple. "

Miriam believed that to be the case. None of the editors who were around at the start pointed out to Miriam that Amanda had been an editor.

"Pat, you're a presence in a community that is distruptive, unpleasant, unwanted, and useless."

I'm glad to see that you still love. Your obsession continues and continues. We have had no communication for 2 years yet you rage against me as if there had been no discontinuity. You are truly obsessed with me.

" You're not part of the community and your absence would be welcomed. "

By you in exile and by a few of the authoritarian editors and their lackeys?

"And yet you claim I'm unhinged."

Your obsession with me and the fact that time after time you raise something that occurred 4 years ago prove that you have a problem. Get counselling. Or get a divorce and propose to me.

by fed up Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:18

I've returned to this thread a few times and tried, in vain, to keep up with the debate. Can't read it anymore. Too much head-wrecking stuff to take it.

The attacks on the editors should be done face-to-face at the meeting, if people are so inclined, though I hope the nutty critics stay well away from that meeting. In my experience, email and web discussions almost always polarise a situation in a way that wouldn't happen at face-to-face meetings. Internet discussions with anonymous postings (such as mine) also often give a sense that the 'division' is worse than it actually is. In reality, this assault on the integrity of the editors is being carried out by three or four people known to all. It's nothing more than that.

In between all this carping and head-wreck stuff, a real problem - the complete absence of female editors - is not being dealt with constructively.

My advice is deal with this on a face-to-face basis. The destructive critics who just want to whine should stay at home and and continue with their internet 'activism' on, say, (Details of nazi site removed by editor in line with our 'No Platform' policy). At least, they'd be doing what they're obviously good at to positive effect if they moved over there. Wreck it, I say. Off you go!

by Flabberghasted Fri Sep 15, 2006 08:12

Not surprising that I would be singled out as I am not an editor, happened to have a little discussion with miriam and am expendable.

Hey, I'm a little six-year old girl with blonde hair in plaits and I'm nervously twisting my gingham frock because you're angree with me. Sowwwy Mr. Not An Editor!

Putting me up as the evil sexist is tactically sound. Hey Miriam, perhaps we, as the only sexists on this thread, can have another good fight and take the heat off the editors? silly twits that we are. Sigh...

Of course, you couldn't be sexists could you? It has to be a tactic.

Anyway, not that anyone in the editorial group will be particularly interested judging by their dismissive attitudes but in the interests of being constructive...

No, what you're doing is being REPETITIVE now, Mr. Not An Editor.

Although "troublemakers " have been labelled as the cause of all the problems

Yes by you, if you scroll up to the top and read your own message you'll even see an "Apology" from yourself for "introducing the word troublesome" which is about as sincere as any of the rest of the passive aggressive widdle you've dribbled over this thread.

and it is true that some people have a tendency to distort events, Nevertheless those people do not control things here and this thread has made me lose faith in the integrity and motivations of (some) of the editors.

Those people certainly shouldn't be in control, but because of the reluctance of editors to do anything about them they've managed to control the place.

Also, IMHO even though we commenters can all be a pain at times, We all want what's best for indymedia too at the end of the day. I believe that includes Miriam, Pat C , Sean ryan and iosaf and the site would be all the poorer without some of their contributions

Emotion can be very hard to convey accurately over the internet and people often get the wrong impression, so I want you to imagine that I'm leaning forward into your face and shouting. My face is red and the veins are popping out. Little bits of spittle are occasionally flying off the foam on my lips and hitting you in the face. You can smell the rancid reek of this morning's tofu and nutritional yeast scramble on my breath as I convey the following information to you:

IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THEN YOU ARE THE STUPIDEST FUCKING PERSON ALIVE

If you like you can imagine that I'm holding you by the lapels and moving your body rhythmically but violently.

We've had our squabbles here. Now lets all get back to working together to keep Indymedia the best voluntary independent non corporate Irish news site, wherever we fit in on Terence's list.

Yeah, whatever Mr. Peace Man. It's exactly people like you that are the submarine counterpart of the psychopaths mentioned above. They couldn't do it without your tolerant, velvet-mouthed, butter-wouldn't-melt-on-my-tongue cooperation.

by Amanda Moloney Fri Sep 15, 2006 05:12

I don't quite know how to start here, I'm a bit worried that I'll take off in a tangent but that would hardly be out of place on this thread.

First off, I became involved in indymedia in 2001 having met some like minded folk, men and women, in Genoa. On 29th September I attended my first indymedia.ie meeting in St Andrew's resource centre on Pearse St, which was the 2nd founding meeting. The site itself was officially launched on April 6th 2002, and I was one of the editors.

I continued as an editor and contributor despite both my gender and residence in Limerick (two supposedly insurmountable obstacles). I quit as an editor in March 2003 due to a conflict between my role there and my contractual obligations to the NGO I had been recently employed by. I stayed involved in indymedia, contributing articles and attending meetings. I eventually quit completely in 2005 when I emmigrated.

I never once in my time with indymedia.ie experienced sexism, I never felt excluded or patronised due to my lack of penis. And most importantly, I never felt my presence on the editorial team was one of tolerated tokenism. I didn't always agree with everyone in the collective, and not all of them always agreed with me. This had nothing to do with my gender, and if it had I would have known, and called them on it. And there was no way if I had found myself in disagreement with everyone else that I would have accused them of inherent sexism.

Do you know why? I AM BETTER THAN THAT. I am grown up enough to realise that sometimes I am wrong, and that if the person telling me I am wrong is a man there is a possibility that he is telling me that, not because I am a woman, but because I am wrong. Your gut instinct to scream "sexism" is the kind of thing that has stalled the feminist movement for the last 20 years and will continue to do so if you, and others like you don't cop on.

Do you know that the majority of young women in our society refuse to call themselves feminists? Do you know why? Perhaps because they associate feminists with women of the type that you are appearing to be. Women who cry "sexist" whenever they are challenged in life rather than examine the challenge itself. I am a feminist, I have been discriminated against due to my gender and I'm sure that there will be times in the future where someone will attempt to do so again. I'm not afraid to say that there is still so much, even in our part of the world, that needs to be done to achieve sexual equality. Women are often seen as inferior, called sluts for having sexual habits which a man would be credited for, can still earn less for doing the same jobs, are still objectified in ways that men just aren't.

But when I say things like that I get lumped in with crazy women who seem to think that men are responsible for all the world's evils. Who refuse to accept that men too can fall foul of gender bias. Who refuse to accept that sometimes they are wrong, or under-qualified but prefer to attempt to manipulate the situation by accusing the system of being injust to them due to their womanhood.

Miriam, I get that you have been doing this for a long time. Going on marches before I could even walk, nevermind march. But perhaps you have gotten so used to things being a certain way that you haven't taken the time to look around and realise that this is not 1979, it's 2006. So many of the men you are accusing of sexism were born into a world where sexism of the kind you feel surrounded by was not acceptable. I know a lot of the guys you are accusing of discriminating against you and other women and they would not do that. They didn't do it to me, it isn't the type of behaviour which is acceptable to them. In fact if anyone is being sexist here it is you. The editorial collective didn't give you what you wanted, so you decided to use the fact that they are all men against them.

I am angry and hurt by your accusations. Accusations against men who I like and have enjoyed working with, and accusations against me as you seem to consistently accuse all women who stand up for them to be nasty, selfish and naive collaborators. So I don't quite know what kind of insults you are cooking up for me; the only woman allowed into their inner collective. Although actually I have a pretty good idea, so why don't you surprise me, by reading my comments again and going and taking them in, maybe read back through this thread and actually accept the fact that not everyone one who disagrees with you is sexist or desperate for male approval. But that maybe they have valid points and that you still aren't finished learning.

by seedot Fri Sep 15, 2006 03:56

This threads for ranting.

Good suggestions though.

C.

by wageslave Fri Sep 15, 2006 02:44

And bang goes my attempt at reconciliation...Sigh

by Aidan O'Brien Fri Sep 15, 2006 02:34

Pat theres two points

A) One there was no face to face contact with you at the point that you made your "joke", you' were just someone who boasted about their willingness to commit violence for a cause, you irrational hatred of the IMC collective, and your willingness to commit violence aganist someone (who you admit you didn't even know who, who you thought, might be an IMC member) and your "joking" about "twin machetes", I'm sorry you may assume you were joking, however among several members of the IMC community your jokes were taken seriously. Heres a quick tip pat (and frankly giving notes on fundamental social graces to a man ten years my senior feels demeaning) when viciously arguing with someone over the internet, after boasting about enjoying violence aganist your enemies, after claiming to want to pick a fight aganist some imaginary enemy at an IMC meeting, don't threaten to turn up at an IMC meeting with a couple of vicious swords and then claim it's a joke. I'd think thats a fundamental social basic but considering the consistent failures of your ability to engage normal people in rational argument, I thought it should be said.

B) You may assume that anyone who disagrees with your definition of what is republicanism is a west brit sympathiser. As someone with family in Omagh, I disliked giving a platform to people who cripple and killed Irish people in an "attempt" to "promote Irish freedom". I wanted to ban the CSM 32 from publishing on Indymedia, and when I looked at the publishing guidelines, I understood that there was nothing opposing to the CSM from publishing on Indymedia.ie. Once I saw this I resigned, a number of editors wrote publically to acknowledge their sympathy with my position. I had a philosophical difference, I was not interested in spending my time money and effort on a website being used by an organisation I found morally objectional, help them to promote their views. You may take this ann assume that I am now the website officer for buck palace, but weirdly I live in a world where I can object to the unnecessary killing of Irish civilians by the British government and by Irish "freedom fighters".

Ironically my the tough editorial stance that I've stood by as my term as an editor has continued since I've left, so I can assume I've done more in my four years setting up the site, than your bitching from the sidelines.

Miriam you may claim that in five years no woman has been an editor, thats a lie pure and simple. Also the effort energy and abuse you've stunk up about editors and the sexists technology. Well frankly Miriam, if you've devouted a tenth of the energy you've devouted to bitching about the inherant sexism of the technology, in actually learning the technology, you'd be programing fucking linux by now.

Look Miriam, if you tried out for a job as truck driver, and didn't get it, because you couldn't drive, its not sexism, its because you cannot drive. There are plenty of roles for volunteers on a site, to claim the collective won't give you a job, you are incapable of learning, or incapable of trying to learn, as an example of sexism is mind boggling. And when challenged you spent frankly hundreds of hours writing posts declaiming the inheirhant sexism of such a system, instead of learning the skills necessary to do a role. Jesus christ Miriam you give Woman's lib a bad name.

Pat, you're a presence in a community that is distruptive, unpleasant, unwanted, and useless. You're not part of the community and your absence would be welcomed. And yet you claim I'm unhinged. I admire your boundless capacity for self delusion. Significantly less than I admire the boundless patience of the IMC Ireland volunteers who put up with your crap.

by wageslave Fri Sep 15, 2006 02:14

Thanks for your comments chekov

I believe, and I'm certain most will agree, that on the whole, the editors have done a huge amount of good work and have a lot to be proud of with indymedia. In a way after all that effort, it's understandable that they might be fearful of it going downhill if it got into the wrong hands.

Also, IMHO even though we commenters can all be a pain at times, We all want what's best for indymedia too at the end of the day. I believe that includes Miriam, Pat C , Sean ryan and iosaf and the site would be all the poorer without some of their contributions

We've had our squabbles here. Now lets all get back to working together to keep Indymedia the best voluntary independent non corporate Irish news site, wherever we fit in on Terence's list.

regards
wageslave

by Chekov Fri Sep 15, 2006 01:39

As I said above, thank you for being one of the only people on this thread who has at least tried to be constructive and to actually propose solutions. Although I don't agree with many of them, I do agree with some and although I do think that XXXXX has something of a point, I don't think that it means that you should be written off in any way. Nor do I think that the editors are entirely free of sexism - or general misbehavior themselves.

Personally, I'd hope to see a mailing list code of conduct which would cover the interactions of editors as well as everybody else. One of the big problems with the existing rule-free set up is that the only way to try to force abusive people to behave is to put them down as sharply as possible. Personally, I know that I do this (where above you refer to my derisory tone, I think you weren't being unfair). I try wherever possible to only use such a tone when we are dealing with a genuinely destructive troll, but I'm not perfect and when there is such a volume of trolls, I'm sure that I'm sometimes way too sharp with people who are genuinely trying to be constructive.

Anyway, this meeting is only going to be an exploratory one and will be followed by one in which we will actually take formal proposals for reforms. I really hope that you take part in the discussions about those.

by wageslave Fri Sep 15, 2006 01:09

Not surprising that I would be singled out as I am not an editor, happened to have a little discussion with miriam and am expendable. Putting me up as the evil sexist is tactically sound. Hey Miriam, perhaps we, as the only sexists on this thread, can have another good fight and take the heat off the editors? silly twits that we are. Sigh...

Anyway, not that anyone in the editorial group will be particularly interested judging by their dismissive attitudes but in the interests of being constructive...

I would like to make the following suggestions for discussion at the meeting

(1) that the process of removing an editor by other editors be made quicker, easier and anonymous so editors can be more relaxed letting new blood into the editors group, knowing mistakes can be reversed

(2)that the idea of indymedia as an online community is explored and the use of a BBS in parallell with indymedia be discussed from the point of view of

- allowing this community to interact in a less constricted way than through comments on articles

- as a means to discuss indymedia articles, workings, ideas and related activism and generally let off steam if necessary in a less restricted setting out of sight of the main indymedia content

- as a way of binding the community together and facilitating contributors to socialise and mobilise

- as a more accessible way have editorial discussion

(3)that the idea of registering commenters in some way to help reduce abuses be explored

(4)that the idea of an editors code of conduct when dealing with the indymedia public be discussed and that a set of dos and donts be compiled to assist prospective editors

(5)That a short paragraph on the spirit of each of the guidelines be drafted as an aid to editors and contributors and to help prevent abuses

(6)That the subject of limiting the span of editorial tenure be discussed as a way to help bring in new blood and especially women

ex editors acting in an advisory teaching capacity to pass on their expertise

(7)The idea of trainee editors be discussed, each working as a student of an experienced editor until ready for the job

(8)That meetings are held in other parts of the country too.

Although "troublemakers " have been labelled as the cause of all the problems and it is true that some people have a tendency to distort events, Nevertheless those people do not control things here and this thread has made me lose faith in the integrity and motivations of (some) of the editors.

Perhaps burnout is part of the explanation but I do think all of us, editors and troublemakers alike (and myself included) need to reread our own posts on this thread and take a good long cold look at ourselves in the mirror

by Miriam Thu Sep 14, 2006 21:55

I just wanted to offer you some advice. If you show any sign here of agreeing with me you will not be welcomed as a friend. Beyond saying that my writing is ok, you must not agree with anything else that I have said if you want to remain on good terms with most of the male editors here. Above all you must not say that you see any sign of sexism in them - but its ok to accuse me of sexism though. That is not an outrage at all, so you will be on firm ground with that. Good luck.

by Miriam Thu Sep 14, 2006 21:49

I posted this in June after the last row about sexism

Dear List

This is a long post and will need some attention to detail. I hope you will presevere with it, however, because I write for advice and support from you about an experience that I believe demonstrates serious sexism on the Indymedia.ie editorial collective.

I am a disability activist and for the last 12 months have been contributing and assisting the editorial group on Indymedia.ie, the Irish newswire service. You may know some of its members.

The editorial decision-making collective consists of a group of 15 men, although the service has been running for four years. The first two women proposed as 'editors' were both rejected on the grounds a)that one (me)had supported abusers of the site and/or were not technically competent to be an approved editor or had not shown sufficient commitment to editorial work.

The allegation that I supported abusers of the site is wholly without foundation. I have contributed approx 35 articles to the site, promoted its use widely in Ireland, helped out with basic editorial work over hundreds of hours. I proposed the establishment of a disability category for the site, which was approved, and which provides a valuable opportunity for people with disability to air their concerns and views and to hold state agencies and politicians to account. (They could have done so anyway on the open newswire but a dedicated space has been a catalyst to a number of people to become involved).

With regard to the other woman, I was told in a private email by one of the approved editors that the true reason that there was resistance to approving her as an editor was because she was a member of the socialist workers party.
Despite the fact that she had at one time been proposed and accepted as an editor, pending a prerequisite training on the technical aspects of editing, (something that had never previously been required of any of the male editors several of whom freely acknowledge they had to learn it 'on the job'). She was then blocked retrospectively by another male editor on the grounds that he felt she had not shown enough committment and ability (despite having contributed hundreds of excellent visuals and reports from various actions). That block was then upheld by the same editor who had previously told me that his real reason for preventing her being an editor was her political affiliations. The SWP has certainly been a controversial political grouping in Ireland and there are aspects of its history that do not do it credit. But there are many genuine people who are members, even so.

The editorial grouping has in recent months been discussing the process by which a person may join the editorial group and be approved by a vote from the approved editors for what it refers to as 'editorial privileges'. At the same time it is insisting the role of approved editor is a mere tag, an insignificant and merely functional matter with which contributors need not be concerned. Nevertheless, it has been established that the contribution of material, written visual or whatever is to be discounted - ignored in considering whether to approve a person as an editor. The primary requirement is for technical competence and evidence of committment to the running of the site - defined as pointing out abuses of the editorial guidelines to the editorial group, answering queries from the general public and learning how to use html. Training will be offered to anyone who passes these prerequisites. The person will have to be approved by the existing editorial group to have access to the 'privileges' (featurising articles, hiding abuses and, crucially, the right to vote in editorial decisions). A single editor may however block any new person from joining the group by deploying the 'editorial block' at any time.

This all seems to run counter to the ethos of IMC.

I have had some fabulously furious arguments on the editorial list about this issue and have alleged clear sexism in these events, something which resulted in a practically unanimous snarl of outrage from the men involved and indeed from one woman too. Attempts to debate the issue have been referred to as clogging the editorial working list and I include below examples of responses I had this week.

Only one of the approved male editors has positively objected to the sexism and argued that we should be admitted to the editorial collective immediately. He once threatened to resign from the collective if I was not made an editor. A second editor then threatened that he would resign if I was.

The allegation that I supported abuse of the site is based on the fact that I wrote to the editorial list to say that I thought they were too aggressive and impolite to people who wrote criticising them. A lot of new users perceive that they have been censored inexplicably and they write in aggrieved tones to the editors to challenge it. It is usually that they have contravened one of the ed guidelines and more often than not there is a good reason for the hide. My point was that considering their understandable if mistaken conviction of having been censored, we would be better to respond nicely to them in the first instance so as not alienate people needlessly. Another person or entity known as Indymediawatch.ie (of whom I knew nothing at the time - I am not an internet aficionado) had also posted a similar observation and I supported the unobjectionable point. It turns out that this person had been harassing the editors appallingly over the previous years - spamming and generally causing a nuisance. I had never myself done anything of this sort. In fact, since that time I have been targetted privately by the same person with sexually lewd emails and also on his public blog with distorted accounts of things I have written and so forth. Nevertheless, the block against me still stands for my alleged 'crime'. No matter that I had no idea who this person was or that the thing I was saying was so unobjectionalbe. I cannot help conclude that there is wilful misinterpretation of what I was saying. When I was proposed a second time some months later I was blocked again by the same editor who blocked me the first time - a person who goes under the name of 'Risible'. He has disliked me ever since I challenged him about his, to me at least, appalling rudeness to people both on the lists and on the newswire. Not one of the editors will acknowledge the blatant bias and prejudice of him being the person to block me in the context of his disagreement with me.

I have to say that, in fact, I do not actually care at all about attaining 'privileges' - the whole idea of them seems to run so counter to everything IMC is about. But I do care about the unequal treatment and the sexism - we should all be able to participate equally imo.

This unfairness has caused me to be angry at times and my anger too has been used against me as a further reason to support the block - it is described as an inability to understand consensus and/or a failure to engage 'constructively and helpfully' with the editorial list.

A couple of weeks ago, I made the decision to challenge this appalling sexism as assertively as possible and alleged attitudinal sexism. The response has effectively been that I have not provided any evidence for what I am saying, despite all of these facts. If you analyse what is being said about me it amounts to this: I am not a very nice lady and we don’t want difficult types like her upsetting the cosy status quo.

Ironically, the second woman proposed as an editor had never entered into editorial discussions until I raised the issue of sexism in the first instance. She had just been nominated as an editor and was being blocked as I explained above. She claimed that she saw no sexism in my experiences or in the fact that she was being blocked herself. She is still blocked too however and from an email she has sent me privately I believe she reversed her opinion in recent weeks.

During this second round of debate on the issue, yet another woman who had not previously engaged in any editorial debate 'coincidentally' rode in to defend the status quo. Staggeringly, and against all of the rationale for excluding the other women, she had been nominated and approved by some of the men as an editor (the personal friends she mentioned, I assume) without her even knowing that it had happened. She had not remotely met any of the pre-requisites that were required of me and the other woman and yet they were merrily approving her for the role seemingly untroubled by massive contradiction between their treatment of their friend and their treatment of other women.

Is there something about IMC that I don’t understand? I proposed an independent IMC arbitrator and was ignored by the editorial group. I have now resigned from the editorial mailing list and feel aggrieved and intimidated by these experiences.

I am dedicated to the open publishing principle and see its fantastic potential. Indymedia.ie has by any measure been a hugely successful site and is influencing media in Ireland to a significant extent. I have no desire to be disloyal to it or to damage it in any way. Outside of these issues I have had pleasant experiences of working with the male editors - many of whom have been kind in other contexts. I do not wish to caricature them as unpleasant - rather as singularly unable to understand how unconscious sexism is clearly at work here. Ireland is still a remarkably chauvinist society, however, and it seems that the men involved are correspondingly less aware on this issue than their counterparts in other more open societies would usually be. I lived in the UK 25 years and know that this stuff would almost certainly be unthinkable on a UK IMC collective. There is now a suggestion of setting up a second site but its unclear how likely that is to happen.

I would be immensely grateful for your advice and support.

Yours sincerely
Miriam Cotton

The following evidence of what I am talking about bears reading although it may a little difficult to follow in places.

This is an email exchange between me and the woman, Elaine, last week. I apologise in advance for the pettiness in a few places.

Indymedia Ireland editorial discussion wrote:

<
< In original posting I wrote "And now Miriam, I didn't run "screaming from it
< [the list] seeing the way other women are being treated" as you assert."
<
< Miriam wrote "... I hope its clear that I didnt intend my remark about you
< (superflous in hindsight) to imply that I was representing your views."
< And later in the same posting ..."I didnt assert any such thing. It was a
< self-evident (I thought) speculative joke about someone I have had no
< communication with before."
< And again ... "no intention to use you or your situation personally
< whatsoever."
< Finally... "Im sorry to say Elaine that you have comprehensively
< misunderstood the most fleeting of references to you and inferred a personal
< significance for yourself where nothing of the kind was even remotely
< intended. All I can say is that I apologise if the joke was not more
< obvious to you."
<
< A straightforward apology would have been more appropriate than the sly
< insults above.

What a nerve. I have no reason to apologise whatsoever.
<
< Miriam wrote "You are of course entitled to your views which will be very
< popular with the boys here and which can only serve you well if you ever
< change your mind and choose to get involved more directly. I sincerely hope
< you will, incidentally."
<
< The attempt at sweetness towards the end of that sentence is made redundant
< by the bitterness that precedes it.

I am not attempting any sort of sweetness - it is not my style at all to ingratiate. Again you read things into this which are simply not there. So, a woman is 'bitter' when she defends or asserts herself articulately. That is a sexist caricature.
<
< Miriam wrote "Elaine was proposed as an editor despite her lack of
< experience (something which she was honest enough to point out herself).
< Call me cynical but might her proposal as an editor (clearly not something
< she chooses to take advantage of) have anything to do with the fact that
< Elaine is a friend of some of the editors? Might the warm feelings she
< mentions create a comfortable feeling about this obviously much nicer
< person?"
<
< Insinuations of this sort usually come from cynical sexists who try to
< devalue a person's worth by suggesting an improper relationship.

It is you who chose to deploy your personal friendship with six editors as a qualification for commenting on what is happening here. So far as I am concerned that is a form of nepotism.

I am sure
< many women know what that feels like but I was a bit surprised to hear it
< from another woman.
I have no idea why you should feel that way.

I believe the proposal came from the fact that my work
< as a contributor to indymedia had been noticed and for no other reason.
< As for being a "much nicer person", I have never believed this to be to a
< person's disadvantage irrespective of gender.

Yeah, well, try challenging sexism on this list and see where it gets you. Your 'nice person' status will be revoked in short order, I can tell you. Oh, I forgot, you claim that there is no possibility that any of the editors could possibly be sexist. It is precisely because I have dared to challenge the sexism which I see as being rampant on this list that I am now caricatured as I am. And you, for all your talk of being surprised at how another woman might talk to you, are right there with the boys putting the boot in. Thanks for that. I dont expect you to agree with all or any of what I say about sexism on the list, but there are other principles here, such as my right to challenge sexism without being victimised and unpleasantly caricatured. I also have the right to be assertive without being caricatured or victimised as I am. Witness the contrast between the way risible (who has the most domineering personality on this list)is responded to. He is frequently rude, patronising and dismissive to people, even when the substantive points he makes are sound. His attitude goes completely unremarked and unchallenged (except by me, of course). Any crtiicism of it is met with the reply that he does so much work, that makes it alright. In contrast, when I assert myself in a comparable way (although it is never my itention to be rude)it is used as an excuse to block me as an editor and to threaten me with banning. The huge amount of work I have done for Indymedia is completely disregarded because it is done as a contributor and so doesnt count to the same extent as risible's - or any other editor for that matter. In short, there is appalling sexism and victimisation involved.

I made it perfectly clear that I was not commenting on your abilities one way or another. Im in no position to. What I was commenting on was the reception that you are receving here on account of claiming that you do not see any sexism on the list. It was about the attitude of the boys twoards you, and not about you per se. I entered several caveats to make that meaning perfectly clear - which you have included in your quote above and which it seems your are wilfully disregarding in your attempt to caricature my fairness towards you as something else.
<
< Miriam wrote "Well that's all very jolly Elaine but it simply does not
< reflect anything like the reality of the way other women have been treated
< and I think they, rather than you, are entitled to declare whether they
< found those experiences sexist or not. Dismiss us and our views if you
< wish."

< You are suggesting that my opinion is not valid because ... it runs counter
< to your experience?
< 'They' are indeed entitled to declare anything they wish but if their
< declarations are at odds with what you believe will they still enjoy that
< privilege? Or will they have to endure the same treatment from you that I
< have received? With regard to dismissing your (singular or plural) views;
< I merely expressed an opinion that happened to differ from one you held.
< You surmised it to be an attack on your views, which was hardly the case.
< If you re-read my email you will see that towards the end I refer directly
< to you. Prior to that, what I wrote was my opinion, not aimed directly at
< you but to which you have taken such objection. Clearly a case of you, to
< paraphrase, 'dismissing me and my views'.

You are the person who came into this discussion declaring that you could confidently assert that none of these men was guilty of sexism. You supported that assertion by suggesting your personal knowledge of some of them meant that you would be in a better position to know. You also underwrote the reputations for the rest of them. That showed an arrogant disregard for the real difficulties that I and others have experienced. For the record, I too have had many a perfectly pleasant and decent exchange with some of the men who have locked horned with me on this issue. I am not in the business of writing anyone off as people.

< Miriam wrote "You seem to think that your personal knowledge of these people
< gives you an advantage. For me however, it seems only to have biased your
< outlook in favour of your friends."

< I think nothing of the sort, I was merely outlining my experience in an open
< and honest way. The fact that I was upfront about my friendship with some
< of the editors should have made that clear.

Well Elaine, I am shocked by your lack of perspective about that. This is not a personal issue at all. Friendships should have nothing to do with it. Being up front about them doesnt alter that.
<
< In my original posting I wrote
< "There is very little in this world that I would run screaming from, and if
< you were a man I would be in my rights to say that that was a sexist
< remark."
< Miriam wrote, "Yet again, you have put an inaccurate interpretation on what
< I said. And I think what you say yourself is sexist."
<
< Hardly a great comeback, in fact it reminds me of the boy who cried wolf.
< But can you prove that what I wrote was sexist or was your response just a
< knee jerk reaction? Don't tell me you think the line you followed up with
< is proof?.

You failed to explain why you thought the joke was sexist. there was no sexism in it whatsoever. So you need to do a little explaining yourself. It alluded to the protracted nature of the debate and the possibility that, as a woman, you might be appalled by the way I and others were being treated. It did not say or claim that you positively were. But how wrong the speculation was, though.
<
< Miriam wrote "Sexism about women is fairly frequently practised by women
< themselves."
<
< But authoritarian values can be practised by anyone.
< Now I see what the problem is. If I disagree with what you hold to be
< truth, I am clearly at fault. Biased, in your words, prone to
< 'misunderstanding' and 'inaccurate interpretation', and glory be, I
< 'inferred a personal significance' for myself.

Yes, you assert that I was signifying you personally to an extent that I had absolutely no intention of doing in the strictly limited context of a fleeting joke. I am not even remotely referring to your personal significance in any other aspect of your life and would never, ever, suggest that you had none in that regard. You have used that unimportant and insignificant joke as your hook to join in the witch bashing and are trying to make out that you are aggrieved by it. You have no need to be aggrieved whatsoever. But if you insist on telling me that I meant something which I did not, I cant help you at all. Nobody can. Maybe you prefer to feel aggrieved.

< Personal significance indeed, shocking. Try asking not to be dragged into
< someone else's act, used as a stick to beat someone with, misrepresented
< whether consciously or otherwise.

For the last time, I absolutely did no such thing. I made a self-evidently speculative joke which was actually about MY views, not yours. I did not claim to represent you or to be authorised to do so in any way.

When I pointed that out to you, you
< insulted and demeaned me, but no sincere apology was forthcoming.

I feel no necessity to offer you any apology whatsoever. If you want an example of being dragged into this issue and used as stick to beat people with, you should take the matter up with Robbie Sinnott who did just that in spades last night with your name against me. The contrast between your silence on that and your manifestly unfounded accusations about me is bizarre and massively sexist.

Athis
< stage none is wanted, I have your measure.

You certainly owe me a fulsome apology for your wholly unprovoked and unpleasant assault on me. You have had to go a very long way out of your way to claim justification for that and in the process have undermined the serious issue that was up for discussion here: the actual sexism that I and others believe some of the women here have been subjected to. By your own admission, it was an exercise in defending your personal friends. Your misprepresentations of my meaning and motives are seriously defamatory and I do not take them lightly, I can assure you.

I sent you and the other women on this list an invitation to meet up to discuss the issue of women and their participation in Indymedia.ie. My intention was to see if we could find a way of brokering this matter more amicably, to find out to what extent we might agree or disagree with one another and to subject my own arguments to the scrutiny of other women. You never responded to that invitation. I see why, now. Instead, you have attacked me from a highly partisan position and your feeble attempts to claim that I was 'using' you are laughable - a transparent attempt to insinuate yourself into an adversarial realtionship to me that I have no interest or inclination to gratify. The only people to beneift from this unedifying spectacle are the men on this list who claim that they are incapable of sexism and that there is no evidence of it despite the evidence to the contrary. How they must all be laughing now.

Well done Elaine.

Miriam

Elaine replied:

"Miriam wrote: yadda yadda yadda
(as usual)
Part of the reason I didn't engage with the list before was due to your
irrational, insulting postings. You do not represent all the women on this
list, you certainly do not represent me. Take your medication, have a week
off - do what ever it takes to get back a sense of perspective. Your
rantings are the type of nonsense that get women a bad name. I am not your
analyst and this is why I didn't go in for social work as a career. I am
not trained to deal with this level of idiocy. No matter what is said to
you your reaction is aggressive (not assertive), insulting and hyper
sensitive. Any male who disagrees with you is automatically labeled a
sexist and the integrity of any woman who challenges that is called into
question.
Lady, you need help, and I don't care enough to offer that!

Ends
***************************************************************

Earlier in this thread Chekov accused me of falling out with some women activists. At the time I had no idea what he was referring to. While reviewing the discussions on the women list to provide the evidence requested of me above, it seems he may be referring to a disagreement that I had with Chris about the organisation of a meeting in Dublin a couple of weeks ago and about some points of principle that I made about how we ought to communicate to one another - as between the women concerned. I have had no direct contact with those women since the last row, when I had some messages of support privately but nothing acknowledged publicly where the men here could see them - except for Chris. That pissed me off and I said so to Chris on the womens list. I have not had a row with them. This may all sound odd, but when you are responding to someone elses dangerous paranoia you end up in the nuttier corners of speculation. If, and thats a big if, these events are what Chekov is referring to then the question I want to know is, how did he get this information and from whom. That list is women only so it would have to mean that one of the women is retailing our discussions to the men. On the other hand, Chekov may be referring to some other fantasy altogether, in which case I remain completely baffled and must leave Chekov to his imagination.

by MMVI AD Thu Sep 14, 2006 20:40

Editors should be chosen on their skills and talents etc not gender. It is tokenism and the antithesis of "feminism" and equality to suggest that a woman should be an editor just because all of the rest are men.

by James O'B. - Editors' External Support Group Thu Sep 14, 2006 19:28 Bedlam

Dave: question for the editorial collective.... can miriam and chris M be blocked from using the site,

As is obvious from my comments, I disagree strongly with Miriam’s analysis. The links to the archives, in my opinion, speak for themselves and really the only way interested folk can come to an informed opinion on this issue is to spend a bit of time studying them.

That said, I’m not in favour of bans in general and I don’t see that it would achieve much here. There’s a virtue in having dissenting voices, even if this unmoderated thread is depressing. It’s unusual on imc.ie to have such relaxed moderation (for good reason!). So although I disagree with most of what Miriam says (and how she says it, especially on the list) on this issue, there has to be space for alternative viewpoints. After all, although I’m confident that the archives back up Chekov’s and others’ arguments, if it happened we were wrong, then there would be no way to rectify the situation as the dissenting voices would already have been banned. For that reason alone, alternative viewpoints are important.

I am in favour, however, of some moderation of the email lists. Sometimes, the emails coming in are private arguments, irrelevant posts, egotistical musings, ill-thought out allegations or massively repetitive arguments. It should be possible to cut out that rubbish while leaving space for a variety of viewpoints on how the site should be run.

Also, Miriam in particular writes some very good stories which are well worth reading.

by XXXXXX Thu Sep 14, 2006 19:06

"I’m afraid to say anything and have very little confidence to make any points or put forward opinion because it seems they’d be ripped to shreds. I’ve followed this thread for the last few days and every time I want to reply I just chicken out. I know, I know this is my own problem."

Sorry to hear that, but it's good that you've been able to overcome this and to post. I can't say I understand why you would be so afraid of posting on an online forum when you could be Clare, Mary, Mark or !hlox! (as we can see from all the different names people have given themselves). The only thing that can be attacked here (unless you want to reveal information about yourself) is what you say. If you're afraid to be "attacked" or disagreed with for what you say then that's bad, but it's something to do with you and not something that is going to change with the world. Please note, I am not attacking you by disagreeing with you and responding to you. I am responding because I believe some of the things that you say are untrue or are verging towards untruth. I find this upsetting.

"A number of posts here have been very condescending and at times sexist."

That is true, but not very many of them. And to make such a short statement in the middle of what is a generalised accusation of sexism in the collective isn't clear. It suggests all sorts of things, and doesn't make it clear if you agree with the people like Miriam who claim sexism. In the middle of a massive row like this you should be very specific about what you say because otherwise your post is open to misinterpretation. I see some possible sexism in wageslave's comments and I see definite sexism in the comments of people like Miriam. I also see the accusation of sexism against the editors just because they happen to be men as sexist.

" Thankfully I am not aware of the in and outs of this current debate,"

That strikes me as one of the most arrogant things anyone could say when they then go on to say that

" but I can see it includes a large number of personal attacks, on two women in particular."

I can see those people making a large number of personal attacks. You have now joined them in that personal attack or at the very least given the impression that you do so.

I find it hard to believe that you are as diffident and afraid to express your opinion as you stated at the top of the post if you are confident enough to make a judgement like that while at the same time acknowledging you don't know the situation. Frankly, that strikes me as a statement of breathtaking arrogance.

" If you disagree with points and the approaches of these people that is fine. Is it possible to make your counter arguments without resorting to personal slurs? If your point isn’t strong enough to stand without them then maybe its not worth making."

An excellent point.

"As a woman who has been involved in many activist initiatives in the last few years in Dublin, I have a keen interest in indymedia and use the site almost daily. However, I could never, ever see myself getting involved in the behind the scenes indymedia.ie work. I would be prepared to do the work but in this case I haven’t the confidence, heart or the stamina, I’m sorry."

I'm sorry too. But I wonder if you're willing to jump to judgement as above whether you would have too much confidence?

"I believe that you do want more women to be involved; I understand you know this will improve the editors collective and make it more balanced; "

If you're talking about simple numerical balance then that's a given. If you're making some other accusation that the editors collective has an ideological imbalance and has discriminated against women in some way then you should honestly and straightforwardly provide details of what you mean. Otherwise you're just making insinuations.

"I don’t know how much you are prepared to make the necessary changes to make this happen."

It strikes me that the person that might need to make a necessary change would be yourself.

"I’ve been involved in various activist type organisations for over 6 years. The websites, mailing lists etc were by and large run by and set up by men. I’m not saying they were oppressing me by doing this, they were the only ones who knew how to. This is a result of a more widespread sexism in society and hopefully I don’t need to explain that "

No, you don't need to explain institutional sexism. What you do need to explain is how that uncontroversial statement leads to:

"so in a way yeah, Html is sexist."

"Now that I am involved in a feminist group I am getting a chance to learn all this net/html stuff for myself from other women. I also finally realise that it is not half as hard as I had been lead to belief."

Good. I'm glad you realise that. The huge number of women that do this stuff on a daily basis and undertake real programming jobs far more complex than anything to do with indymedia ireland should serve as an inspiration. It's worth mentioning that in a couple of the other collectives women are the actual site administrators and coders while men write the fluffy content, e.g. http://romania.indymedia.org

"So indymedia editors, you want more women actively involved in the collective? You’re not going a very good way about it. How about - set it as an objective to get 2, 3, 10 whatever number of women editors by this time next year. Figure out the best way to achieve this, run workshops aimed at women teaching web/html stuff. As a group discuss and consider the idea of safer/positive spaces. Have a few more real world meetings. Host an open discussion specifically on the topic of women and indymedia.ie. Hold an open day with computers where people can come and ask techie questions. Seomra Spraoi is up and running now and would be available for any of the above. I know you have limited time, limited resources. Maybe my suggestions are just stupid. But something needs to change."

I have to say I wonder why no one has taken up the extant offers of training from indymedia editors? I wonder why women instead of individually deciding that they are going to be an editor are asking for men to teach them html when they could teach themselves? I would agree with you that there is a deep, structural sexism in Irish society and I'd suggest one of its offshoots is women who call themselves feminist but don't take the positive steps of empowering themselves. On visits to Ireland I am routinely appalled by the blatant sexism of both Irish men and women and observe a lot of the tired old battle of the sexes shoe-horned into a new guise of feminists versus "anti-pc" because both parties are afraid of the new world of limitless possibilities that stretches in front of them.

Maybe somebody from the editorial collective will spend more time with people that don't want to have the heart to spend time on doing editorial work. More fool them if they do without checking out the genuiness of the person first.

by Dave Thu Sep 14, 2006 19:00

a question for the editorial collective.... can miriam and chris M be blocked from using the site, im sure if we set up a poll almost 90~% would agree it is time for such drastic measures..again, please please go away, you are embarrassing yourselves, and the very concept/praxis of feminism... feminism is not about whining every time you dont get your way, that is spoiled children syndrome... narcissim

by pat c Thu Sep 14, 2006 18:47

Found the original reference to machettes. It was in response to a slagging from an editor. That was back in the days when for some strange reason I was at odds with some of the Indy editors.

"
by pat c Tue Oct 22, 2002 14:22
" If we held an IMC meeting outside your front door you'd climb out a back window to avoid it."

i'd rather join a leper colony. my only pupose in gpoing 2 an imc mtg would b 2 unmask & despatch certain characters (i've been training with twin machettes)
"

Now what rational person would take that as an genuine threat?

by Aidan O'Brien Thu Sep 14, 2006 18:18

why do you lie? i was threatened and you know it. its somewhere in the archives, i'll find it. the person who did so spoke wrote about attending the indy meeting and i reckon was an editor.
[

So conjecture and speculation, thats all you've ever needed Pat.


Just a thug? but then anyone who disagreed with you was a thug.


Anyone who boasted that they enjoy violence is a thug. Which you have.


13 nil. What more evidence is needed?


Eh lots? How many of the collective are travellers? Jewish? Africian? Are we then to assume that the collective is a collection of anti semtic, anti traveller racists?

You've gotten two and two and come with a hojillion.


aidan, aidan. just look at the abuse you heap on me. sigh. i am sure that when you look in the mirror you see a sweet loveable, fair, pacifist person.


Pat, theres no evidence I'm mentally unhinged, claiming I am isn't fair. I mean it's not like I've spent the last three years hanging around in a web community causing abuse and hassle, a community where I am barely tolerated. I mean that would be evidence of someone who is mentally unhinged.


I seem to remember that some of the editors were getting tired of you in your last days. your attempts at and demands for censorship were getting too much for anyone to stomach

I agree I developed some fundamental issues with the editorial policies and by the end of two years of RTS cases I was more than a little on edge, but anyone to stomach? I've a good few saved messages from editors, expressing disappointment at my retiring, and an open offer to come back and get involved at any time.

Invites I sincerely doubt you'd get.

Later Pat I'm not having you thread jack this away from my first post, your prefered tactic when someone says something you don't want to hear.

It's just so depressing to see you've not changed a bit. Your thugish louthing behaviour has just developed some.

by Tony Thu Sep 14, 2006 17:26

It's tempting to smirk about the assembled stupidy in this thread, but I would much rather see the various particpants consider what daftness there is in their politics that leads them to such a state.
Pat C, I have believed that you have a streak of sanity. Don't prove me wrong.

by pat c Thu Sep 14, 2006 17:10

"No one threatened to assault you pat, no member of the colllective, and considering the demented rantings you were, and thankfully still are prone to, you still think the site is pro Isreali, because it wouldn't allow you publish the term Zionazi? Or how about the other lengthy dubious preconceptions you inflicted on this site and the editorial collective over the years."

I wouldnt use the expression zionazi any longer. it was a mistake to do so. but others use it here without being censored.

why do you lie? i was threatened and you know it. its somewhere in the archives, i'll find it. the person who did so spoke wrote about attending the indy meeting and i reckon was an editor.

"Because we knew him, and we knew it was a joke, you were just a thug roaming around the site boasting about your enjoyment of violence, and your hatred of the collective, you can see how we treated your comments differently. And the machete is just one of the many "colourful" posts of yours which poisoned the atmosphere of the wire."

Just a thug? but then anyone who disagreed with you was a thug. i was a thug to you because i was an anti imperialist. never said anything about enjoying violence. my crime was to condemn british imperialism.

"And there we have it, you've no evidence that women were excluded, baring the Paula incident, so ergo Amanda must have just slipped through the net, of the old boys club, jesus you are desperate aren't you?"

13 nil. What more evidence is needed?

"Is your capacity for self delusion still so towering, that you believe Indymedia.ie was and is some cigar chomping brandy swilling old boys club?"

No. But I do believe it is institutional;y sexist.

"And the pointless cheap ad homiens keep coming. Plus ca change pat. "

aidan, aidan. just look at the abuse you heap on me. sigh. i am sure that when you look in the mirror you see a sweet loveable, fair, pacifist person.

The reality is that you would start a fight with Mother Teresa or Gandhi.

"And deal with this shit? I'm nominating Chekov, JD, James, and Risible for fucking sainthood for tolerating your nonsense."

I seem to remember that some of the editors were getting tired of you in your last days. your attempts at and demands for censorship were getting too much for anyone to stomach.

by Clare Thu Sep 14, 2006 17:08 Dublin

This entire thread is seriously depressing, I know a lot of you agree but maybe for different reasons.

I’m afraid to say anything and have very little confidence to make any points or put forward opinion because it seems they’d be ripped to shreds. I’ve followed this thread for the last few days and every time I want to reply I just chicken out. I know, I know this is my own problem.

A number of posts here have been very condescending and at times sexist. Thankfully I am not aware of the in and outs of this current debate, but I can see it includes a large number of personal attacks, on two women in particular. If you disagree with points and the approaches of these people that is fine. Is it possible to make your counter arguments without resorting to personal slurs? If your point isn’t strong enough to stand without them then maybe its not worth making.

As a woman who has been involved in many activist initiatives in the last few years in Dublin, I have a keen interest in indymedia and use the site almost daily. However, I could never, ever see myself getting involved in the behind the scenes indymedia.ie work. I would be prepared to do the work but in this case I haven’t the confidence, heart or the stamina, I’m sorry. I believe that you do want more women to be involved; I understand you know this will improve the editors collective and make it more balanced; I don’t know how much you are prepared to make the necessary changes to make this happen.

I’ve been involved in various activist type organisations for over 6 years. The websites, mailing lists etc were by and large run by and set up by men. I’m not saying they were oppressing me by doing this, they were the only ones who knew how to. This is a result of a more widespread sexism in society and hopefully I don’t need to explain that so in a way yeah, Html is sexist. Now that I am involved in a feminist group I am getting a chance to learn all this net/html stuff for myself from other women. I also finally realise that it is not half as hard as I had been lead to belief.

So indymedia editors, you want more women actively involved in the collective? You’re not going a very good way about it. How about - set it as an objective to get 2, 3, 10 whatever number of women editors by this time next year. Figure out the best way to achieve this, run workshops aimed at women teaching web/html stuff. As a group discuss and consider the idea of safer/positive spaces. Have a few more real world meetings. Host an open discussion specifically on the topic of women and indymedia.ie. Hold an open day with computers where people can come and ask techie questions. Seomra Spraoi is up and running now and would be available for any of the above. I know you have limited time, limited resources. Maybe my suggestions are just stupid. But something needs to change.

by seedot Thu Sep 14, 2006 17:00

I want Cigars and Brandy. Can we add this to the donate page?

by seedot - disconnecting editor Thu Sep 14, 2006 16:57

Since we've ignored most of the guidelines for this thread, can we go for some BBChat as well. Give my best to Amanda as well and txt me next time your this way and I'll buy you a wedding pint.

Just to reminisce some more, I think Amanda was editor number 2 (the original coder gave me the password which i then passed to Amanda). In those days it was a single password for everything/everybody. We had these discussion back in those days as well - but since we were having regular real world meetings the big issue was why no women were turning up to the meetings to be given the password. I remember talking about this in 2001 without realising it was cos I was such a sexist and not that the project was a sort of geeky male thing. BTW - my daughter (yes a man with a child, despite what people may imply above) attended a huge number of those early meetings and classed herself as the youngest member of Indymedia. She has contributed images and comments to the site since then but when she ended up spending a lot of her easter holidays in 2004 in the media centre got turned off indymedia. Probably driven out by the sexism as well though ;-) (course the lack of childcare didn't affect me - being a man).

Couldn't be bothered with most of the rest of this thread - just hope we can box the row into a specific agenda item and do some work on Sat. I would like to talk about IndymediaTV and Belfast/Dublin screenings - but am not sure if theres any point? Maybe a split might be a good idea.

by Aidan O'Brien Thu Sep 14, 2006 16:56

Its good to see you are as honest as ever. My comments about machettes were a joke and were made in response to someone who had threatened to assault me.


No one threatened to assault you pat, no member of the colllective, and considering the demented rantings you were, and thankfully still are prone to, you still think the site is pro Isreali, because it wouldn't allow you publish the term Zionazi? Or how about the other lengthy dubious preconceptions you inflicted on this site and the editorial collective over the years.


All of this has been pointed out on Indymedia numerous times in the past. But you never let the facts get in the way of a good rant. At about the same time as my macette remark, an Indymedia editor suggested that the Collective would engage in Satanic sacrifices. Did you take that seriously?



Because we knew him, and we knew it was a joke, you were just a thug roaming around the site boasting about your enjoyment of violence, and your hatred of the collective, you can see how we treated your comments differently. And the machete is just one of the many "colourful" posts of yours which poisoned the atmosphere of the wire.


The rest of your diatribe above shows the contempt you have for any idea of accountabilty or inclusion. You have no problem with a situation where there are 13 male and 0 female editors. Oh! There was 1 female editor in 2002 for a while! Wow! How did she slip through the net?



And there we have it, you've no evidence that women were excluded, baring the Paula incident, so ergo Amanda must have just slipped through the net, of the old boys club, jesus you are desperate aren't you?

Is your capacity for self delusion still so towering, that you believe Indymedia.ie was and is some cigar chomping brandy swilling old boys club?


You are one sad and sorry individual but I hope that someday you receive the therapy you obviously so desperately require.



And the pointless cheap ad homiens keep coming. Plus ca change pat.

]
But in the interim I hope you return as an editor to Indymedia.ie. It will be just another proof for Global Indymedia of the dysfunctional situation in Indymedia.ie.


And deal with this shit? I'm nominating Chekov, JD, James, and Risible for fucking sainthood for tolerating your nonsense.

by pat c Thu Sep 14, 2006 16:56

here we are. i found the satanic comments. these were made by an editor and you posted on the same thread under several names, yet you never pulled him up about his satanic rituals. "poker on the fire with your name on it". "I just have to make sure I eat plenty of raw meat washed down with the blood of virgins. Do you have any spare children?"

Apalled at such stuff coming from an editor ;) How come you pretended to take my remarks seriously but not his?

Snared!
by Ray Fri Aug 16, 2002 13:06
Damn it, Vanessa, you've caught me out.
Yes, I do worship Satan. I don't mock these stories about Jewish blood sacrifices and satanic child abuse because they're the laughable ramblings of delusional freaks, but because I am in service to the Prince of this World.
Watch out! I'm coming to get you!

Children of lucifer? That's nothing
by Ray Fri Aug 16, 2002 13:37
I was talking to Lucifer last night, and he told me that Jesus was actually him in disguise! Yeah, that's right - all those parables, that mock 'crucifixion', the phoney miracles - it was all a scam, and you fell for it! Honestly, you mortals are so easily fooled. A couple of simple spells, a sacrifice or two, and you'll believe anything. He told you as much himself, remember that bit about 'the devil taking on the fairest of forms', and that saying about 'the devil quoting the bible for his own purposes' - that was Lucifer being ironic.

See you in hell! I've got a poker on the fire with your name on it, and a swarm of insects that haven't eaten in ages and are really looking forward to meeting you!

Jews? Christians? Moslems?
by Ray Fri Aug 16, 2002 13:55
They're all just fuel for the Eternal Fires, Vanessa. The way I see it, when you've got a red-hot poker, and you see a penis in front of you, who cares if its been circumcised or not? And whether you're forcefeeding someone the flesh of their children, you'd be surprised how few of them ask if its 'kosher', or 'halal'. As for carrying the seed of satan, well, yes I am, and its nice of you to notice. I didn't think I'd be showing yet, but His Fearsome Spawn is growing nicely, and I'll be giving birth in plenty of time for the coming apocalypse. I just have to make sure I eat plenty of raw meat washed down with the blood of virgins. Do you have any spare children? I could put in a good word with Lucifer for you.*

by barra Thu Sep 14, 2006 16:55

Just from reading some of this tread it would be a good idea to put the topic of women and indymedia last on the agenda so other important issues don‘t get nelected on Saturday.

by pat c Thu Sep 14, 2006 16:21

"You've managed to make the rantings of Pat C(tm), the early years, seem like the rational, sane musings of a lucid coherent individual. That’s right, you've achieved the impossible, making the paranoid delusional ranting of a man who once threatened to turn up at an indymedia meeting brandishing twin machetes, seem charming and lucid, and valid. "

Its good to see you are as honest as ever. My comments about machettes were a joke and were made in response to someone who had threatened to assault me. All of this has been pointed out on Indymedia numerous times in the past. But you never let the facts get in the way of a good rant. At about the same time as my macette remark, an Indymedia editor suggested that the Collective would engage in Satanic sacrifices. Did you take that seriously?

The rest of your diatribe above shows the contempt you have for any idea of accountabilty or inclusion. You have no problem with a situation where there are 13 male and 0 female editors. Oh! There was 1 female editor in 2002 for a while! Wow! How did she slip through the net?

You are one sad and sorry individual but I hope that someday you receive the therapy you obviously so desperately require. But in the interim I hope you return as an editor to Indymedia.ie. It will be just another proof for Global Indymedia of the dysfunctional situation in Indymedia.ie.

by Truth Thu Sep 14, 2006 16:17

Consult a solicitor Miriam it will be an excellent way for you to waste your money. Once again you have failed to publish what you sent to the list from which you claim you got support for. All you do is shout sexist and then threaten to involve a lawyer, despite the fact that you never offer up any evidence to back up anything that you claim. You will never be an editor of indymedia and nor should you. Please do waste your money on a solicitor.

by Sally Creagh - personal capacity Thu Sep 14, 2006 16:14

No, the archives do not back Miriam or Chris M up. I did my research into their 'contributions' before making my comments and I think these are the types of people who give feminism a bad name. Miriam consistently accuses any woman who disagrees with her of trying to impress 'the boys' or trying to ingratiate themselves with 'the boys'. This is insulting to those women but it also indicates that if she has to resort to this her arguments are very weak to being with. And yes, indeed, the arguments of her and Chris are incredibly weak and often non-existent. Even when they are proven to be wrong, their response is to come back with further ridiculous accusations. At one point, Chris M, whose tiresome ramblings are often overly tolerated because of fear that she will become abusive if they're hidden, even resorted to threats of litigation.

This isn't feminism to me. And yes, I diss you, but I don't consider you a 'sister'. I consider you a distraction, and a destructive one at that. Your crededentials as a feminist don't interest me. They are nullified by your behaviour in relation to Indymedia. If you really cared that much about the position of women in online communities, you would do something constructive like set up an all-women Indymedia for the country. Instead, you badmouth and tell lies about a resource that many women actually value, and in the process it seems, try to destroy it.

by Aidan O'Brien - Fomer Editor IMC Ireland Thu Sep 14, 2006 16:08

Miriam, Chris, take a bow. You've managed to make the rantings of Pat C(tm), the early years, seem like the rational, sane musings of a lucid coherent individual. That’s right, you've achieved the impossible, making the paranoid delusional ranting of a man who once threatened to turn up at an indymedia meeting brandishing twin machetes, seem charming and lucid, and valid.

For starts to clear up a minor factual error. Amanda Moloney. Amanda Moloney was a founding member of Indymedia Ireland; publishing the first reports for the IMC Ireland collective, on the UK site, back before indymedia.ie was operational. She also with the help of Grattan Healy wrote the first feature for Indymedia Ireland. She was also an active editor for much of 2002, before retiring. Not because of some institution sexism on the part of the collective, but because she started working for an NGO, and felt it would be a conflict of interest to continue.

But of course you knew all this, being an expert on Indymedia Ireland, so either your knowledge of the machinations and workings of the collective, is not as definitive as you claim, or you intentionally mislead both readers of this thread, and the IMC womyn collective. I'm cheerfully expecting your retraction on both this site, and the IMC womyn collective (more on them later)

Oh Chekov, JD, Amanda says hi, we got married in August.

Now onto your claims; I still get, the digest of the ordinary list but not the editorial, so I've only some knowledge of your behaviour on the editorial list. I think it's a testimony to the patience, and openness of the current collective, that they are still dealing with you, in a polite, calm and open manner. I'd be reduced to hammering nails into my arm to force myself not to reduce myself to unparliamentarily language, in dealing with yourself and Dolaith.

The HTML is sexist claim, is possibly the biggest load of horse manure I have ever heard. And I've been on global IMC list. There’s a wealth of resources to help you study and learn this simple language, and people will to help you out, screaming that you don't understand it, and ergo it is sexists, well words fail me. Polite words that is. What else is sexist in your world Miriam? Jars of pickles you cannot open? Gents toilets?

Both yourself and Dolaith seem to have an idea of what you think indymedia should be. Dolaith gets outraged if someone comments on an article she's "watching" you scream sexism, when you cannot understand something. You have an idea of what indymedia should be, and anyone who disagrees with you is obviously following some patriarchal sexist agenda. Roll eye smiles were invented for you.

Onto the womyn list. Please don't get me started on the spelling “womyn”. Congratulations you got two womyn to agree with you. Your grasp of the way the indymedia global system works appears to be as fragile as your grasp of IMC Ireland's five-year history.

Frankly on the global lists you can always find someone to agree with an idea no matter how barmy, and you will always find someone to disagree with an idea no matter no sensible and rational. Real and difficult decisions can take months to achieve consensus, incidents like the IMC France or Belgium which needed urgent action two six months to achieve, don’t even get me started on IMC Palestine.

Trying to get some global decisions made is like trying to punch treacle. You've got one member on IMC womyn agreeing with you, well done, don't try and claim this is some sort of victory. Oh and who is this “media analyst” who agreed with you, whats their name? And be a dear not being a womyn, myself, I cannot join the list, and see what insight she had. Or what you showed them. So publish them here.

Onto Paula, again I’m not privy to the decisions, Paula has contributed to the site, as a photographer, for years. Never showed any interest in becoming an editor, though. Her last mail to the general list claims that there was an inherent sexism to the photo publishing system, but declined to elaborate. A remark of mind-boggling inanity that it hurts my brain. How can a system she's used for years suddenly become sexist? On the basis of the above alone I'd veto her being put forward as an editor.

You're right though, the system of editorial selection needs to be changed, and fuck me, what’s near top of the agenda of this meeting. A proposal to just does that. But what do you do? You write tedious posts which claims an inherent sexism, yet offer no proof. On the basis of the above, I suspect you don't have a constructive bone in your body, you just like to yell till you get your own way.

I'm frankly amazed the collective for has tolerated you so long.

Indymedia Ireland needs contributors. Neither you are Dolaith are contributors, you storm in with demands, and then when they are not "met" you yell about sexism. You've little grasp of what Indymedia is supposed to be, and a firm grasp of what you expect it to be, and a firmer grasp of how you're planning on getting it, yelling "sexist" at the top of your lungs, until you've drained the positive progressive energy of the room, and everyone shuts up and goes along with you, just to get some peace and quiet.

You should be banned, I/P banned, list banned the works.

People have work to do; pandering to your preconceptions isn't part of the job.

Html is sexists, Jesus did you ever hear the like of it.........

by Miriam Cotton Thu Sep 14, 2006 15:58

Dear Truth/Pedant

You have your view about the archive - others have theirs. I cant alter them and they tell the story. Whether you like it or not, they come over very differently to many other people outside this collective and some of its users than they do to you. I don't have to say anything to independent observers - I have no need to make false or misleading claims about what has happened here - it would be entirely stupid for me to do so given how simple it would be to prove that I had. From a position of cowardly anonymity, you are trying to call me a liar. I am not lying. You asked for the evidence of what was being said, and I gave it to you. Now, I am going to completely ignore anyone who tries to make out I am lying on this thread - except to consult with my solicitor.

by The Truth Thu Sep 14, 2006 14:30

Miriam I have seen the archives on Indy Ireland, are these the archives you are refering to? because they do not back you up.

Also you failed to produce the emails that you sent these people. You are digging a very very big hole for yourself. Why don't you produce the emails you sent these people?

by Rose of Tralee Thu Sep 14, 2006 14:29

I find myself wondering what useful purpose can be served by individuals sniping and attacking each other on Indymedia Ireland?

It seems to me that Indymedia Ireland provides a very useful - and UNIQUE - means for Irish people to respectfully discuss and circulate information on a wide range of very important subjects, which the Sir Anthony O' Reillys and the Rubert Murdocks of this world would like to prevent the vast majority of people from knowing anything about.

Personally, I have nothing against people arguing and insulting each other - if that is what they wish to do. However, I do wonder if Indymedia Ireland is the best place to be doing it - mostly because I see Indymedia Ireland as a precious and scarce resource, which could be used for better things?

I don't know any of the people responsible for the running of Indymedia Ireland. Despite this, and whoever they are (male or female), I believe they are providing a very useful facility, and I hope they will get the help and support they seek to improve their service.

Principles before personalities?

by Watcher Thu Sep 14, 2006 14:16

The key line here is the following:

If Miriam's representation is even remotely accurate"

Which means that the correspondant has not verified anything and is entirely dependant on Miriam's representation.

As anybody can see from above, Miriam makes huge claims about bullying and sexism (of which she is by far the most guilty party from the above quotes) and fails to back them up. Again and again and again.

Let's have that evidence Miriam. How many times have you been asked to produce ANYTHING AT ALL to back up your smears?

by Miriam Thu Sep 14, 2006 14:10

I dont make stuff up.

Here is the text of one message I had. I will need to get the permission of the person who sent it to me as she has not authorised me to use her name in this way. If she does consent to get involved in this, then you can slog it out with her too. I have to block three names mentioned here in fact, until I get their permission:

"Miriam:
Sounds like you've got some good ideas. [XXXXXX], from the original Seattle IMC will
probably contact you
directly.

[XXXXX] IMC Japan, (where I am teaching for a month) responded and said you could
contact her directly
she's having some problems with her email, so if this doesn't work, get back to me and I'll
put her in touch with
you another way.

here's what XXXX wrote:

"Unfortunately, I am not surprised, given what Lisa and I found in our
research on gender and imc, and the experience I've had in other
'alternative' media organizations (though not my imc, thank goodness).

My first advice to her would be to take this to the imc-women list (if she
has not already) and to browse its archives.
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-women

Second, there is already some documentation on similar issues- might help
her to know that she's not alone in this. Lisa and I reviewed some of it,
(With Lisa's permission, please forward her our chapter draft), including a
review from 2001 http://de.indymedia.org/2001/11/11129.shtml.

{MIRIAM: I"LL FORWARD THIS ARTICLE ONCE I GET LISA"S PERMISSION. DOROTHY}

Familiar patters I see reflected here:

- valuing tech skill over all other contributions and skills (tech arrogance
is acknowledged by many as a major issue in the network)
- bad numerical gender balance
- aggressive communication environment including trolling, cyberstalking and
flaming (typical of 'open' online communication, not limited to imc).
- listerv dicussions degenerating into flamewars (trading of insults).

When sexism is raised- refusal to acknowledge it, accusations of pettyness
and narrowmindedness, attempts to reduce it to a personal problem,
pathologizing the person who raises it. Other women saying they see no
sexism.

Reasons for restraint- not wanting to be disloyal; taking into account
sexist surrounding culture.

I support making a big big deal out of this. This case could help focus some
of the debates about sexism in the network into action, and far from
damaging indymedia, could help restore some measure of credibility.

If Miriam's representation is even remotely accurate, the collective
violates several of the principles of unity, meaning in theory this
collective could be kicked out of the network (disafiliated), though I'd
have to check on the procedure. (My guess is that
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-process would be the place
where disafiliation proposals are sent and discussed)

Apart from the specific case of discrimination, in my humble opinion any IMC
of more than 5 people that has such a bad genderbalance (15:1) and does not
take positive and transparent action for 4 years to address this can rightly
be called sexist.

I see a couple of strategic options, e.g. along the lines of the old
women-in-left-organizations dilemma: reform or seccession.
1 reform locally (with support from global network)
2 use local reform effort to further global network reform
3 secceed relatively quitely, i.e. Setting up another ireland-based IMC with
the intent and purpose to be a non-sexist alternative
4 seceed and make it a big political statement that can help global
reform/other local reform efforts

Secession would involve setting up a new imc, a long and painful process,
but not impossible if other people (preferrably women) can be found to
cooperate in ireland, and help from women-tech list members.

Sure people on the imc-women list will have many good things to say, this is
just my few cents worth for now."

"The Truth"

There is absolutely no point in me lying or exaggerating anything that has happened here - it is all totally verifiable and I have nothing to gain from behaving like a liar. Its all on the archives for the whole world to see.

by The Truth Thu Sep 14, 2006 13:47

All we have had from you is allegations and references to people backing you up. Where are these people backing you up? Produce these emails and also produce the emails you sent them. It is an absolute joke of an argument that you are using. Allow me to give you an example here is what I could say:
I emailed several academics and experts in sexism who confirmed to me that Miriam is using allegations of sexism in an attempt to bully people into doing what she wants. I emailed them because I thought I might have been wrong but I wasn't the people I emailed told me I was completely right and in fact I was far too lenient with Miriam.

Now you see that is a ridiculous argument to have as no proof was given to back it up, just vague references to people I had emailed. Of course the above is made up, but how do we know yours aren't either?

by anon Thu Sep 14, 2006 13:45

Thanks for the outline, Miriam. Can I suggest, however, that part of the negative reaction to your manner is summed up by the following line from your latest comment?

"And it is sexist and unfair for any of you to say otherwise."

It might be 'unfair' of people to criticise you, but this moral blackmail that all criticism of you is 'sexist' is pretty annoying and the sort of hyperbole that the feminist movement needs like a hole in the head.

by Miriam Thu Sep 14, 2006 13:32

These are my motives:

Chauvinism is defining our society not just in terms of men-to-women, but in every aspect of the way the country is run. There is ruthless, machismo bullying underlying much of what most people on this thread dislike about the way the country is administered.

Now, I am not arrogant enough to imagine that my being an editor on Indymedia.ie is going to change any of that. It is nothing at all to do with 'personal ambition', though most of my critics are convinced that it is. What I perceived in the way me and others were treated was a shocking degree of innate and overt sexism among a group of men who I really thought would be different - and who for the main part I really like. That is not to say that I have not been angry with many of you, on this issue, during these speicific discussions. You are running a national newsservice - a significant and much welcome alternative to anything else that we have. And it is precisely because of its alternative nature, precisely becaue I value it so much, that this issue is so important to me. I want Indymedia to get it right because it matters to too many of us that it should get it right. I dont pretend to represent all women or think that it is down to me alone to sort Indymedia out where sexism is concerned. But I believe I have a duty to challenge Indymedia's sexism as it has affected me and others near me in this virtual world we inhabit, in these circumstances.

This is neither fun nor rewarding, as things stand. It is a lot of hard work, comparable so far as I am concerned to any other activist or protest work that I do and which many of us here are involved in too. I dont have the time for it, and other things are suffering because of it. I have taken time out on about four of five occasions now and it is appalling to see how I am sneered at and doubted for doing that too. Remember, I am a volunteer too. And for all the hours I have put into to doing what housekeeping I have done on this site, I have also written many pieces for it. Some people put a very nasty interpretation on my reasons for doing that and hate me for mentioning it while constantly harping on about how much they do themselves. Any positive evidence of what I have done is sneered at by some people. I do what I do because I am loyal to the ideals of this newswire and for no other reason - just like any of you. And it is sexist and unfair for any of you to say otherwise.

I am not lying, manipulating or conspiring in any way. What you see is what there is - nothing more to it than that. You are running what purports to be a national newswire service without adequately involving women .

I went to IMC Women Global, in desperation, after two vicious emails - one from a woman and one from a man - to see if I was imagining things, if I really was as wrong as a lot of people here seem to think. I showed them the exchanges. To be honest and accurate, I made sure that I showed examples of the worst of my own anger along with examples of stuff that has been said to me. To give some indication how bizarrely my editorial critics are behaving, two of the examples that Chekov posted above to illustrate my 'abusiveness' and the difficulties I am supposed to have created for others were interpreted in exactly the opposite way - as evidence of ill treatment of me. As I said, the responses I have had from women within that group have been supportive - some were stunned by the things that were said to me, by the reasoning and logic of some men on this collective. One experienced media analyst said that, even leaving aside all the other examples of sexism she saw in the way I was treated, the fact there are no women editors, after five years, clearly indicates a problem. As I said before, one person felt that Indymedia.ie should be disaffiliated from the network unless or until it sorts this out - that it should be made an example of. I have been told that I have apologised too much and that my own contributions to some of the discussions show signs of psychological abuse in a few instances.

I also gave people the link to the editorial archives and invited to them look through them to form their own opinion. I cant do fairer than I have. I have made a point of saying complimentary things about Indymedia.ie, of acknowledging the praise it deserves - about its editorial policies and the good will of the editors in other respects and stressed that the difficulty is down to the issue of working with women. It may be, as someone else has pointed out, that other groups (Asian, Black, Gay People) have similar feelings but Im not aware of them so far. Other Irish women on the list have been positive too. One male editor on this site hadnt realised that it was women only and tried to join the list for discussion. I was quick to counter claims that he might be an abuser, and vouched for his good intentions. All this is very familiar territory on the Global lists - well-intentioned men who nevertheless cannot see their own sexism.

Sadly (?) I cant come to the meeting - distance, time, child care, expense etc etc. But I sincerely hope that something will come of it. That said, it is a bit worrying when all the same editor chaps are busy agreeing amongst themselves that they have found just the cove to be a solidly independent mediator....(For God's sake, have a sense of humour about that last remark, OK?). Id get a trusted woman in there too if I were you...Anyway, I'll be watching out for the mushroom cloud to the North.

Suggested solution, absent an outbreak of peace and harmony at the meeting:

Two experienced, and genuinely independent mediators, with good expertise in the area of sexism to look into this disagreement. To go over the evidence (God help them) and to hear what we have to say. I hate this acrimony - nothing I would like more than to end it.

by Truth Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:52

First of all I am not an editor and any check on the IP's can verify that very easily. Secondly this has to be the worst thread on indymedia, ever. It is a case of several people not getting their way attempting to bully people. I exclude Pat C from this who I believe is allowing his argument with Robbie to spill over onto this thread. This thread is absolutely ridiculous and shows how farcical some of the bullies are.

by pat c Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:48

"Pat in the past you have rightly complained why people have posted your full name so I'm not clear why you choose to post your theories about who Chekov may post as in other threads. It's actually not relevant to the discussion here and you are aware of this."

What has full names got to do with pseudynoms? If Chekov can out people so can I. Or is there one law for Chekov and another for me? Its more than a theory by the way about Badman.

"The problem on this thread is not that some people decided to post as Joe Blogs rather than Pat C or Chekov or Andrew or whatever. It is that some people posted as Joe Blogs and as Joe Smith and as Joe Other in order to conduct a 'conversation' between their three identities."

I say the editors also did this. The only way this can be resolved is by allowing an independent inspection of the logs. The editors are not being particularly clever or security conscious by leaving the monitoring on for so long. They are gathering and storing information which would be of use to the State. They haven't turned it on to protect Indy, just for their own purposes.

"Proxies"

The proxie I am speaking about is one wherby an organisations access to the web is through one proxy server.

by Andrew - WSM- personal capacity Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:40

This thread is a car crash - that aside

Pat in the past you have rightly complained why people have posted your full name so I'm not clear why you choose to post your theories about who Chekov may post as in other threads. It's actually not relevant to the discussion here and you are aware of this.

The problem on this thread is not that some people decided to post as Joe Blogs rather than Pat C or Chekov or Andrew or whatever. It is that some people posted as Joe Blogs and as Joe Smith and as Joe Other in order to conduct a 'conversation' between their three identities.

For those puzzed by the jargon this is what 'sock puppetry means'. The Wikipedia entry on it can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet . Some extracts from this follow

"Sockpuppet .. is an additional account created by an existing member of an Internet community pretending to be a separate person. This may be done so as to manufacture the illusion of support in a vote or argument or to act without social effect on one's "main" account. This behaviour is often seen as dishonest by online communities and as a result these individuals are often labeled as trolls.
..
Typically, the user:
has more knowledge than would be expected of a newcomer regarding the site's methods, rules, and community members;
takes part in similar discussions and has mostly same opinions as the user's main account;
..
Combatting Sockpuppets

Fighting sock puppetry has become more difficult in recent years due to the advent of several new technologies, two key ones being internet proxies and NAT (Network Address Translation).

Proxies
Proxies as they relate to sock puppetry are online services through which users can surf the Internet, making it appear to web servers that they have a different IP address, are located in a different city (even country), or are otherwise not the same person they were before they began using the proxy."

by pat c - Gang of Four Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:16

Editors of course would never use multiple identities. The editors checking through the logs would confirm this. I wonder which editor "Truth Dawns" or "Troll" is? Does Chekov post as Badman anymore or has he got a new moniker now? I remember Chekov really stirring the shit as Badman alleging that Ruth Coppinger didn't live in the constituency she was a candidate in. But once again theres one law for the editors and another for the rest of us.

How about getting in someone independent to have a look at the logs. S/he could give an opinion as to whether the logs had been edited, altered or added to. Who in their opinion was posting using multiple identities. Whether or not you could identify multiple identities posted through a proxy server. Now thats worth a try.

" am stunned by the crackpots who seem to be trying to take over this site and disrupt it, not only them but Sean Ryan "

Why the ongoing attacks on Sean Ryan by editors or supporters of the editors? What has he done to annoy you?

" Maybe they could invite Con Carroll and his friend Paddy (The gay anti-abortionist who never puts any spaces between words) to help out."

Why the attacks on Con and Paddy? What have they done to you? They have never attacked the editors.

"In the parlance of a left with the memory of Stalinism and the more retrograde features of Trotskyism, there is a term called 'packing a meeting.' What you, Chris and others have been engaged in on this thread has amounted to virtually packing a meeting. You have used anonymity to manufacture non existent supporters of your point of view."

James, the editors have done just that. They control the logs though so who will ever know which editor was posting as Troll etc. A real sign of Stalinism is to see any dissent as a threat. To see a need to stamp it out.

"This stuff is what I call sorry. It's a shame to air it all in public, but hopefully having done so will give the editors the impetus to deal with it properly and stop allowing such anti-social egoists to dominate our working time. "

Look at that piece from Chekov. The editors want to be given the power to deal with the anti-social egoists who are disrupting Indymedia. Thats straight out of the Stalinist Show Trials of the 1930s. I can just hear the cries of "Shoot the mad dogs!".

Its amazing how the list of Enemies of the People has grown on this thread. Chris, Miriam, Iosaf, Pat C, and then strangely Seán Ryan is added to the list to be followed by Con Carroll and Paddy. Theres a mighty purge coming.

Folks, you dont even have to criticise, disagree with or even question the powers that be in Indymedia. If you dont cheer loudly enough then you will be suspect. So go along to the meeting, cheer the leadership and hiss at the dissidents. Dont forget the chant: "Shoot the mad dogs!".

by omg Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:09

keep your dirty underwear thread somewhere else ffs, i enjoy reading this site but this thread is quite simply anally retentive

if a vote gets taken and someone gets a resounding no where is the point in crying over it like a kid?

Why not just give your layout of your meeting, let all the crap get aired at that, face to face rather than online hereos

by definitely anonymous Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:43

Miriam, what has been said about you and the other relentless critics by "Sally Creagh" is absolutely true. You need to stand back and think about this. You are draining energy from people and damaging the site. Despite your complaints about being stretched for time (aren't we all?), you seem to have no difficulty finding time to endlessly harass the editors on this site with relentless complaining. You are a destructive force, as are Chris Murray and Sean Ryan.

Indymedia is being endanaged by this nonsense. Yes, there are serious issues to address with regard the complete lack of female editors. That is a problem that needs to be resolved - in a constructive way that respects the integrity and hard work of the present editors. Negative bickering is just dragging everybody down.

Please, stand back and think about the way you're approaching this. Indymedia is a voluntary effort, sustained by a few individuals. The issue with female editors does need to be sorted out, but it won't be helped by your negative sniping.

by Miriam Cotton - Impersonal Capacity Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:00

Nice to hear from you too.

A lot of efffort obviously went into to making your post as wounding as possible. I'm sorry to disappoint you but I stand unimpressed and uncrushed by your salty remarks.

First off, where did you get hold of the idea that your personal interpretation of feminism is the gold standard? And what the hell do you know about my feminism anyway? Have we met somewhere before? I would have welcomed you, as a life-long feminist, to this discussion (my first 'reclaim the night' march was down the Charing Cross Road in London, way back in 1979). If only anything you had said above was remotely connected to a feminist perspective then we might have been able to get some useful discussion going here. As it stands, though, it is just more of the same ole same ole sadly sexist abuse. Some of the boys will be delighted with you! When all else failed, that's all they had left to rely on too. So, that's the bitch cut down to size, etc etc. Vampire indeed! And I thought the witch thing was funny. There are four people standing round my computer falling about laughing at the moment. Some feminist!

Once again we have the interesting and well-documented phenomenon (IMC Worldwide, that is) of a woman critic, never heard from before in these discussions, entering into the fray in the middle of a discussion to diss on one of her sisters who is trying to challenge endemic sexism within an all male collective. No, I dont expect all women to agree with everything I say because I am a woman. But I certainly dont expect them to join in the witch - sorry - vampire burning - and certainly not in the calculatedly venomous way that you have. Tell me, does that sort of thing make you feel good? Interesting too how people like you can call yourselves activists and such like when the first thing you reach for is the banning solution to silence voices that dont reflect your point of view.

As to valuing Indymedia, you clearly have no idea what my involvement with this project has been. I'm delighted to allow that you may well be a much better feminist/activist/person/whatever - as you clearly believe yourself to be - but it does help to actually know what you are talking about before you start chucking insults around.

by redjade Thu Sep 14, 2006 09:39

Miriam,

A question: are you going to the meeting?

by Padraic - 1 of IMC editors Thu Sep 14, 2006 09:34

The situation is exactly what it seems at face value, there are about six or seven people who have a fundamental disagreement with some of the editors on certain points and they have said so. That's a lot of people for one collective to alienate. Any chance at all that the problem is at your end, I wonder?

Is it really as high as six or seven? Reading through this thread it seems more like maybe four people - yourself, iosaf, chris and pat c. Granted it would be better if we didn't annoy anyone but you can't have everything.

Anyway the purpose of this thread was to explain what the upcoming meetings were about and to get some feedback.

My own hope for these meetings would be that:

i)people who use and are interested in the site would get a better idea of how it works

ii)we could come up with ways to streamline the process of appointing and deposing editors

iii)we could come up with ways to empower and involve people who don't want to be editors

iv} we could recruit 4 or 5 sane editors

v) we could develop more of a real world presence

Ths thread might be offputting but i hope that everyone interested in the site and the ideas of indymedia can make it along to the meetings.

by Miriam Thu Sep 14, 2006 08:50

You have got this totally out of proportion. More than many if not most people on this site I use my own name - on my stories and on a lot if not most of the comments I post. I do that as a point of principal although it has cost me dearly in several ways. I believe that people should stand up and be counted and not hide behind silly names - silly names which make this site look utterly stupid to most sensible people, but thats another point. If you cant be counted then nothing you say will mean anything, no matter how worthwile it might be.

Now, that said - and read carefully - there is a huge sense of humour bypass occurring here. The aliases that I used within the context of this thread were all directed at the arguments I have been making in this discussion - to underscore the sense of what I was trying to get over. The nature and style of my posts were identical - easily identifiable as me - and intended to be so.

Now do you feel silly?

You are upsetting yourself for no reason and again, motives are being attributed to me which I simply do not have. The absurdity of what you are saying (that I was trying to 'pack the meeting' - for God' sake!!!!) is manifestly nonsense given that I volunteered the shared identity of those aliases myself - just in case anyone hadnt realised it - precisely because I didnt want anyone to think that I was three people. Jeezzus! And not, as in the nightmarish fantasies of Chekov who seems to think that I had some way of knowing from West Cork that he has been using some gadget in Dublin to tell him who is who, it seems. Of course if you think I'm a wicked and evil witch then you might believe I could do that, I suppose. In other words you have twisted and contorted the facts of what I was doing to suit a stupid and grossly insulting caricature - and despite the obvious evidence of what I have actually done.

There is some sort of strange paranoia at play here. Let me reassure you. There is no conspiracy against Indymedia.ie by any of the people who are accused of it here. Nobody has invited me to do anything like that. So relax. Maybe you all know something I dont but from where I am sitting the stuff you have posted is dulally. The situation is exactly what it seems at face value, there are about six or seven people who have a fundamental disagreement with some of the editors on certain points and they have said so. That's a lot of people for one collective to alienate. Any chance at all that the problem is at your end, I wonder?

by James R Thu Sep 14, 2006 06:51

I actually thought that those aliases were humourously transparent when I posted them. Im pretty sure most people spotted them for the jokes they were.

Miriam, surely as somebody who seems to be quite an avid user of the net you realise that it affords great anonymity. A consequence of this is that people can exploit anonymity to manufacture sock puppets to back up an argument they are making. In the parlance of a left with the memory of Stalinism and the more retrograde features of Trotskyism, there is a term called 'packing a meeting.' What you, Chris and others have been engaged in on this thread has amounted to virtually packing a meeting. You have used anonymity to manufacture non existent supporters of your point of view.

To me that is low. To me that really boils down to a complete disregard for the Irish Indymedia project. The reason as an editor that I put time in to this site is because I'd like to think it has a readership outside the left wing ghetto, a readership that is not privileged to the cat fights that typify this thread and a readership that does not find your and others adoption of pseudonyms 'humourously transparent.' That you think everybody who reads Indymedia and this thread is in on the same routine jokes is rather a pathetic ambition for the site. It either refects a rather pathetic level of ambition for the site and what it has achieved or the last minute excuses of somebody royally caught out for using unscrupulous methods in advancing a line of argument.

What makes me content with contributing to Indymedia is the level of response I get from people I know outside of the orbit of politics I operate in that value the site and rate it often more than me. The site has a reach beyond those typified as classic Indymedia users. How this has happened probably needs some study, but that it has happened is undoubted. With that in mind, I'd suggest that anyone sharing a conviction to broaden and deepen the project take a good glance at Terence's post and see if they can offer to fill in any of the gaps in it. There is so much worth doing and so few doing it. Terence provides a good wishlist of what is needed. If you think you can contribute then please come to the meeting on Saturday or join the lists.

by Truth dawns Thu Sep 14, 2006 06:28

Just brazen it out there. Shure no one would believe that a fine upstanding man like yourself would do something underhand like using more than one identity. You would never be caught having debates with yourself, would you? Anyone who thinks otherwise must be completely deluded.
It must have been the branchman hiding in your office.

by Terence Thu Sep 14, 2006 01:39

It strikes me that a certain amount of the discussion over the role of editors within Indymedia may well stem from non-recognition of the various tasks required to make Indymedia work. So I am providing a rough summary here and some commentary after some of them in order to show that not everything revolves around the magic password

Actions/Work required to make the site work.

1) People to write stories / news / events -anyone can do this.
2) People to add comments -anyone can do this.
3) People to moderate by applying the guidelines
a) Anyone can report what they think breaks the guidelines easily via the red button.
b) Only 'editors' can hide any material that breaches the guidelines
c) This is carried out chiefly via the editorial list. Generally one must deal with from 50 to 200 emails per day.

4) Deal with email requests to IMC Ireland and Editorial Lists
a) There is a steady but relatively low level stream of emails to the list requesting all sorts of things.
b) Anyone on the list can reply, but they may not claim to be an editor if they are not an editor.

5) People to write Features. A feature requires at least 3 votes by editors.
a) Anyone can suggest a story to be made a feature. They are usually 90% of an existing story.
b) Anyone can provide any additional background material, summaries and links
c) Only editors can make a story a feature and do the mockup to add any extra html and pictures.
d) Much of this derives from the fact that allowing public users to add their own html to mock up a story to a feature is a security feature, because enabling html to the public opens the door to spambots and hackers and other forms of website attack. Additionaly incorrect and unclosed html tags would break the display of the site on that story

6) Maintaining the website on an operational basis.
a) This is carried by techies and who may or may not be editors also.
b) Ideally requires knowledge of website hosting, some database experience and some knowhow of Oscailt. This is a low level activity though
c) For certain types of problems more extensive techie experience will be needed.

7) Maintaining and writing new code and bugfixes within Oscailt.
The code is freeware and you can download it from SourceForge. (Click on Oscailt logo for details)
a) Again anyone can install this on their site, home PC and fix bugs, add features etc and propose to the tech list. Requires a fair amount of programming knowledge
b) Document the Oscailt code.
c) Propose and discuss and implement new technical features. Low level of activity at the moment.

8) Maintaining the various Indymedia Ireland Mailing lists.
a) Main job is to remove spam and forward the rest of the email onwards to the list.
b) Deal with occaissional admin related requests
c) Carried out by semi-technical people. Currently carried out by an editor.

9) Raising and donating funds.
10) Indymedia Print Activity
11) Films nights. -You do not have to be an editor to organise or take part in this.
12) Surveys -Anyone can do this
13) Outreach. You do not have to be an editor to organise or take part in this.
a) This can be done by various means, such as telling others about it. Emailing, creating posters, leaflets to give out at demos etc, website links, etc etc

14) Photography. -Anyone can post images up alongside their stories or in with comments.
a) Bandwidth restrictions mean a limit on the image size needs to be set in order to limit this.

15) Organise real world meetings.

I am certain that I have missed some other vital things, but I think it should be clear to people that alot of various activities are required to bring you Indymedia Ireland. I guess it would be fair to say the bulk of the physical work is the writing of stories and the applying of the guidelines and dealing with abuse.

So you can see that there are many ways to help out in terms of one's abilities.

The issue though that is central to the heated part of the debate is of course who holds power, what power and how it is exercised and people are suggesting this power resides with the possession of an editorial password and the vote that comes with it. What is not readily acknowledged though is that all editorial actions are on the public record via the newswire email list and any action to edit, hide, or delete a story generates an automatic notification to the newswire. The mainstream media do not even come anywhere remotely near this type of transparency.

Regarding power and votes etc, it should be clear that day to day activities like whether to hide some contentious story or comment should remain with the site editors, as one cannot expect that we can wait to consult the wider community of Indymedia. Again though I stress that these actions taken though go on the public record.

Then there are decisions about the wider Indymedia collective and so forth which would be all medium to longer term goals, actions and or decisions. This will hopefully be addresed at the meeting and a practical working mechanism will perhaps be proposed that can deal with this. Since real world meetings had fallen by the wayside in recent times, this has meant that these decisions automatically fell back on the editors. In practice though very few longer term actions have been carried out largely because people did not have time to do them.

Hopefully the above has helped to clarify to some degree what any involvement means and the different levels and aspects to it. Thus if you want or plan to help, you should consider what and where you think you can make a difference and what it is you want to do? And why?

by Sally Creagh - personal capacity Thu Sep 14, 2006 01:20

I am a reader of this stie and occasional contributor. I have no axe to grind. My view is that Chris M and Miriam are not worth engaging with and are distracting from the main purpose of the website. Why is anybody bothering? No sane feminist would take them seriously and feminism is not about acting like a victim, personalising everything and whingeing every time you are challenged about something. They simply cannot stand anybody to disagree with what they say. They are narcissists.

I am stunned by the crackpots who seem to be trying to take over this site and disrupt it, not only them but Sean Ryan and a couple of others too. Maybe it'd be better to ban them. As someone who reads and uses this site but has no involvement in its running, I think all they are doing is dragging it down. They should not be allowed to take over a resource that is invaluable to activists in Ireland. If these people are allowed to air their eccentric, self-regarding, self-deluded, Walter Mitty type ramblings and crackpot conspiracy theories here anymore the whole indymedia project in Ireland will become a laughing stock. I think they're too idiotic to be agents provocateurs but some of their online behaviour would seem very similar to people who have that function, people who want the online activist community to implode and want to discredit feminism (as if there's not enough of that about already). My advice is just tell them to get lost. Their behaviour has a destructive, embittered air about it - these people are vampires and energy suckers.

by bringiton Thu Sep 14, 2006 01:10

"I nominate ChrisM for write the guidelines, Miriam for outreach, Iosaf for tech support and PatC for chairing their meetings. Should be a laugh!"

Even with iosaf's help i doubt is Chris will be able to navigate around the site. Maybe they could invite Con Carroll and his friend Paddy (The gay anti-abortionist who never puts any spaces between words) to help out.

They should get plenty of articles - there are any number of places that stuff will be copied and pasted from, plenty of rightwing nutjobs and 9-11 lunacy to whet iosaf's appetite.

by Miriam Wed Sep 13, 2006 22:19

You seriously need to calm down. Just look again at what you have written:

"I invited you to put forward your side of the story and you are free to do so. You have been invited to put forward evidence of the abuse that you claim to have received many many times but you never do. You much prefer to simply throw out broad accusations which are impossible to refute without taking a huge amount of time to trawl through the evidence. It's a fundamentally dishonest way of arguing but it's one that you have prefected.

In all the enormous number of flame wars that I have observed you taking part in, I have pretty much always tried to mediate. However, your abuse of Elaine and your refusal to apologise for your sexist abuse of her when you were called on it by pretty much everybody made me come to my senses. You are the worst bully I've ever come across and you will use whatever you have to hand with absolutely no principle. Because we are a collective who do our very best to counter sexism, that's your weapon of choice against us when you don't get your way. But as the quotes to Paula and Elaine above show, you are the worst offendor in that regard. What was their abuse that prompted your reaction? They opened their mouths and disagreed with you - nothing more. It's all there in black and white.

Finally, isn't it interesting the way that as soon as I revealed to both miriam and pat that we had been monitoring their sock-puppetry on this thread, me and my power-lust suddenly became the big problem. What integrity. Of course we want to work with you, youse are such a delight to have around. "

I have not the slightest idea what you are talking about here. This is the second time onthis thread that you have come with alarmingly fanciful ideas about what I am doing. What the hell has Pat got to do with it? He seems to be entirely innocent of anything he is accused of by you, from what I can see. What did you 'reveal' to us? Where and when? Ive not followed all thats been said here today, I admit, but whatever you are talking about its got nothing to do with me. I had no idea anything was 'revealed' to me. Jesus Chekov, get a grip, man. I put my aliases down to make absolutely sure that people knew who I was on this thread. I did so in complete and blissful ignorance of your raging suspicions about who was doing what. I actually thought that those aliases were humourously transparent when I posted them. Im pretty sure most people spotted them for the jokes they were. WTF, Chekov? Baffled again, sorry.

This all amounts to nothing more than absolute proof of an obsession with prooving me a bad person. It doesnt help anything and above all it is not about the issues. It is nothing more than your intemperate and highly subjective projection of ill motive on my part. And the fact is you are wrong about that. You have ample evidence of the goodwill I have toward Indymedia. Anyone who wants to find out whether I am nice or nasty can do what you have obviously spent a lot of time doing today: trawl the editorial archives for evidence of who said what to who and when. I can tell them all now, I lost my temper a few times out of frustration, no doubt about that and it probably isnt pretty. Mea culpa. Big bad me, badder than an old tin can... And if, having done that, you come back here to tell me I was really rather rude, Ill be very much inclined to agree. But I will still tell you that I believe that I (and others) have been discriminated by this editorial collective. And that is the reason for my rudeness and badness.

So let me make it easy for everyone: I'm a shockin' unholy person. Terrible.

Now can we get back to the issues? Please?

by redjade Wed Sep 13, 2006 22:09

statistics mean nothing without context and information.

100% of all proposed editors have been stopped/delayed.
since whatever date I cannot remember at the moment

Struggle as you may to make this only a Male vs Female issue, you are quite simply factually and historically wrong, Miriam.

and Miriam, its all on the record.
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-ireland...orial

You can read it if you like
the 'Global IMC' can read it.
anyone can read it.

by Miriam Wed Sep 13, 2006 21:54

Lets get those blocking statistics into perspective:

Per centage of men proposed but blocked: 12%

Per centage of women proposed but blocked: 100%

All of the women proposed so far have been blocked.

by redjade - just 1 editor Wed Sep 13, 2006 20:48

'How many people are in the collective (ie dictatorship of doers)'

Good question - I don't think it can be quantified exactly. Thats not evading the question, its just not known who or how people 'identify' with indymedia. Many activists use it regularly to get info, to add info, to comment about info - I'd say that makes them 'indymedia.' But I would also say that just being a regular reader makes a participant as well. It is also ever more difficult to judge as there are somewhere to close to 200,000 people coming to the site each month. We need a good survey, me thinks.

'...the two women blocked...'

Please, it is very easy to forget or just to have missed the simple fact repeated only a few times on this thread that there were also two men rejected and/or delayed, as well.

But two answer your question from my own perspective, I'd say that one of the women has not had much ability to be online, and another has been more involved than some current editors.

by reader Wed Sep 13, 2006 20:21

How many people are in the collective (ie dictatorship of doers)... not just simply editor there are a number of of women in this intangible 'collective' and this should be the step at which people get, feel and are involved... not editorship.

indy.ie posssible and half done projects should be more visible.

I wonder have the two women blocked for reason of lack of involvement editorial actions and simple html have actually done anything about this themselves since the last meeting.

by Troll Wed Sep 13, 2006 20:18

It's amusing to see ChrisM and Miriam suddenly "declaring all "when they realise the jig is up. ChrisM openly and honestly confessing to her identities, then Miriam suddenly posting as WickedWitch/LostCause/Miriam ! Unfortunately for PatC he seems not to have realised the situation as quickly as the others.

by pat c Wed Sep 13, 2006 20:15

"Finally, isn't it interesting the way that as soon as I revealed to both miriam and pat that we had been monitoring their sock-puppetry on this thread, me and my power-lust suddenly became the big problem. "

Poor Chekov, everyone is plotting against him. No Chekov, actually its when you made those claims that I decided it was time to fight back. Ever hear of that? You attack someone and they respond.

I have better things to do with my time than to deal with your rameis. But if you want a battle royal here then you will get it. I dont really think you are that power crazed but maybe you could do with a rest. Why not step down for a while?

by Chekov Wed Sep 13, 2006 20:08

I invited you to put forward your side of the story and you are free to do so. You have been invited to put forward evidence of the abuse that you claim to have received many many times but you never do. You much prefer to simply throw out broad accusations which are impossible to refute without taking a huge amount of time to trawl through the evidence. It's a fundamentally dishonest way of arguing but it's one that you have prefected.

In all the enormous number of flame wars that I have observed you taking part in, I have pretty much always tried to mediate. However, your abuse of Elaine and your refusal to apologise for your sexist abuse of her when you were called on it by pretty much everybody made me come to my senses. You are the worst bully I've ever come across and you will use whatever you have to hand with absolutely no principle. Because we are a collective who do our very best to counter sexism, that's your weapon of choice against us when you don't get your way. But as the quotes to Paula and Elaine above show, you are the worst offendor in that regard. What was their abuse that prompted your reaction? They opened their mouths and disagreed with you - nothing more. It's all there in black and white.

Finally, isn't it interesting the way that as soon as I revealed to both miriam and pat that we had been monitoring their sock-puppetry on this thread, me and my power-lust suddenly became the big problem. What integrity. Of course we want to work with you, youse are such a delight to have around.

by Miriam Wed Sep 13, 2006 19:55

It confirms no more than I have said myself - yes I have been angry. But you leave out all of the other side of the discussion - the things that were said to me which provoked those responses - so it doesnt count for much, to anyone of reasonable, fair judgment. It's pathetic. All you do here is confirm an obsession with proving that I am a bad person. I had already posted several of these so-called examples of my outrageous 'abuse' elsewhere and I have to tell you that, they didnt prove what you would like to think they did to people who are not blinkered as you are.. Of course I was honest enough to include examples of my anger alongside those of others, unlike you. That's called honesty. The people who are making fools of themselves here (Dave) are the sad editors who cannot come to terms with the idea that they are not infallible.

by Dave Wed Sep 13, 2006 19:31

Miriam, Chris M... you are embarrassing yourselves and maybe you should set up a separate indymedia , at the minimum it will save the rest of us having to read your pathethic ramblings, in fact, maybe i am just as bad for entertaining you both... please please go away

by Chekov Wed Sep 13, 2006 19:30

Here is a hastily selected list of abuse that you have directed towards editors in the last year. I have only spent about 20 minutes looking and I know there is a whole lot more out there. In contrast you will not be able to find anything remotely similar aimed towards you.

To Risible (only a few days after first signing up to the list)
https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html
"Dont you just love yourself! Obviously, you are short on other opportunties for getting some worthwhile thrills. I can assure you, I am not alone in having this view of you. Go and do your own research...Spot the difference, dearie? Now go and find something useful to do with yourself, for a change."

To Paula (a blatantly sexist comment)
"Maybe if you'd followed it all, you'd be better qualified to comment. Funny, I've not seen you commenting in these discussions before. Im sure it'll keep you popular with the boys. Mind you dont go having any opinions of your own any time, though. "
https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

You later acknowledged that you were completely wrong about this entire episode which dominated our working lists for over 3 months:
"With hindsight I also realise that several people had tried to explain this to me but because I had not actually seen the evidence, I failed to see what the situation truly was. I was effectively supporting a long-term abuser of the site"
https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

Despite this apology, in which you also withdrew your candidacy for editor "the idea of me being an editor might be best put aside for a long while, I think." you have now re-written the history to your original argument - that you were the victim of sexism.

The debate about Paula's appointment:

To Padraic:
"I am tired of being lectured by approved editors that I shouldnt trouble my head about being an editor myself (and I dont want to be one at the moment btw)and understand that my writing is what really counts. Bollox. And how disgustingly condescending and smug."
https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

To Robbie:
"This is all so insufferable, pompous and self-referential that it is embarrassing. Nobody subjected you to this sort of micrscopic nit-picking. You'd think you'd have a litte more modesty about your position in all this. Your behaviour is ten times more concerning than any technical or other considerations that may attach to Paula. Spotlight on that, please, other editors? What to do when one person parks himself like a big fat pudding in the middle of a debate and is allowed to obstruct the progress of others? Frankly, I think that on current evidence, Robbie's approval was a monumental mistake."
https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

More accusations of Paula "playing to the boys"

"Paula was right when she called it the glass ceiling. And I'm sorry to say this Paula, but while it may ingratiate you with the guys to drop that charge, that is nevertheless what is going on here."
https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

More abuse of Robbie:
"Patronsing and sexist, as ever."
https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

Your most recent flame-war in June

More abuse of risible
"Im not sure about Risible - whose attitude and manners I find arrogant, self-important and bullying."
https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

and more
"In short, I have done massively more than many of the editors on this site at the point at which they were accepted as editors. You have led an aggressive and sexist campaign against me based on personal dislike and a difference of perspective."
https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

Rewriting history:
"In any case I was first nominated last Autumn before any of this arose and risible was allowed to block me because he didnt agree with something I said." (note the apology and retraction above)
https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

When Elaine disagreed with you
"Well I dont have that personal advantage and I hope its clear that I didnt intend my remark about you (superflous in hindsight) to imply that I was representing your views. You are of course entitled to your views which will be very popular with the boys here and and which can only serve you well if you ever change your mind and choose to get involved nore directly. I sincerely hope you will, incidentally."
https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

A response from Elaine:

https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

"Insinuations of this sort usually come from cynical sexists who try to devalue a person's worth by suggesting an improper relationship. I am sure many women know what that feels like but I was a bit surprised to hear it from another woman. ...If I disagree with what you hold to betruth, I am clearly at fault. Biased, in your words, prone to 'misunderstanding' and 'inaccurate interpretation', and glory be, I
'inferred a personal significance' for myself. Imagine a woman doing that? Personal significance indeed, shocking. Try asking not to be dragged into someone else's act, used as a stick to beat someone with, misrepresented whether consciously or otherwise. When I pointed that out to you, you insulted and demeaned me, but no sincere apology was forthcoming."

Attacking C.
This is a classic example of the rude and elitist response that is underpining certain editorial contributions to this discussion. An nasty in-joke reply for the benefit of your clique to a perfectly civil question. Im sure youre brilliant on code, C., but there are lot of other things that you aint so good at all. Like spotting the contradictions in your own arguments for instance.
https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

More abuse of Elaine:
https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

Even Pat C. gets some
"Sadly, you bring a partially sexist attitude to teh great points you make by remarking on my 'tone..'You want me, as a woman, to conform to your notions of acceptable engagement and are not applying the standard evenly. ."

Elaine responds:
Part of the reason I didn't engage with the list before was due to your irrational, insulting postings. You do not represent all the women on this list, you certainly do not represent me. Take your medication, have a week off - do what ever it takes to get back a sense of perspective. Your rantings are the type of nonsense that get women a bad name. I am not your analyst and this is why I didn't go in for social work as a career. I am not trained to deal with this level of idiocy. No matter what is said to you your reaction is aggressive (not assertive), insulting and hyper sensitive. Any male who disagrees with you is automatically labeled a sexist and the integrity of any woman who challenges that is called into question."
https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

by Selfish Jean - Boys Wont Rule Forever Wed Sep 13, 2006 19:22

How many women editors will you have after the meetings? Do you think the complaints to Global Indymedia are going to go away? Much as you might like to, you cant make dissidents vanish. There will be a reckoning.

by Troll Wed Sep 13, 2006 19:14

I wholeheartedly endorse the founding of a second indymedia.

I nominate ChrisM for write the guidelines, Miriam for outreach, Iosaf for tech support and PatC for chairing their meetings. Should be a laugh!

by Selfish Jean - Its A Boys Club Wed Sep 13, 2006 19:08

"And there is the kernel of the problem, the disconnect between what this collective says it is and what it actually is."

You put your finger on it Miriam. But the editors dont see the disconnect because they live in a consensual reality where they do no wrong. If you know your motives are beyond reproach then obviously anyone who disagrees with you is at best a nuisance and at worse a troll. If they cannot be won over they must be expelled or driven out.

Its unlikely this battle will be won at either of the upcoming meetings. The meetings themselves cannot decide anything no matter how many attend. All suggestions must come back to a meeting of the existing editors. Any one editor in this Coven of 13 can block proposals from the meeting.

The answer may well lie in founding a second Indymedia.

by pat c Wed Sep 13, 2006 18:48

"Pat C throws a bit of abuse at a particular indymedia editor due to a stupid fight he had on the editorial list some months back. "

I did no such thing. I mentioned that one editor had blocked a woman from becoming an editor. If you see that as abuse then you have abandoned libertarianism.

You also seem to think you have it all sussed out as to who is posting under what identity. Some of us who post here do so through proxies. Some of which have over 1,000 users. Watch out readers, Big Brother has the monitoring system turned on and is checking ip addresses.

Keeping the monitoring system on for a long time is not a good idea. You are gathering information which would be of use to the State.

by pat c Wed Sep 13, 2006 18:38

Loss of power corrupts absolutely.

One of the problems is that SOME of the existing editors fear that they will lose power if the project is included to involve more people. They are not misogynist but easily fall into misogynist ways by keeping out anyone who seems bolshie. So far most of the "bolshie" prospective editors have been women.

Editors need to realise that time and things move on. There comes a time to step down. In other Indymedias editors regularly step down or are rotated. So why not in Indymedia.ie? Two of the editors have already stepped down. Maybe its time for some of the other Old Boys to follow suit.

by Miriam Wed Sep 13, 2006 18:37

Here is a perfect example of the sort of lashing out that you resort to when you dont like what is said to you:

'but pretty much everybody who has ever disagreed with her has been the target of lengthy and bitter missives.'

Not only is that untrue, it is sarcastic and intended to suggest that the fact I have gone to the trouble to explain what I mean thoroughly is a problem. And it is one of many comparable remarks that have been made to me by a number of people. As to bitterness, just take one, long, cold look at some of your posts to this thread.

Sorry, sorry thread indeed.

I have no monoply on showing anger in these exchanges Chekov, so stop acting is if there were some separate, superior justification that excuses you when you do it. If I am abusive and bitter then so are you. You dont see it but you are extraordinarily proprietorial about this website. I can understand that up to a point, given the extent of your contribution to it, but you ought to watch out for that if you really mean us to take Indymedia.ie in the way you say you do. And there is the kernel of the problem, the disconnect between what this collective says it is and what it actually is. There is a lot of overlap, for which you are all due acknowledgement and thanks but you are too used to the view from the inside looking out and dont realise any more what the view is like from out here. We're trying to tell you.

Get your head around some facts;

I like Indymedia

I dislike its sexism and will complain about that, as is my right, so long as I believe I have justification for it. You have discriminated against me and I am not going to pretend otherwise. What would you do if you believed you were in that position? I'm well aware of the 'over-my-dead-body' position that you and others have adopted about me.

by Chekov Wed Sep 13, 2006 18:36

Why is it such a sorry sorry thread. Sure there is some bickering but It is obvious that people needed something like this thread to express their views / feelings. It should happen more often. There should be a regular "let off steam at indy" thread. It might have the effect of people appreciating the editors more for their openness.

I called it a sorry sorry thread because there has been so little constructive input. You are one of the only commenters who has tried in any way to engage constructively. Apart from you and one or two others, all the critical comments have been from people who simply want to throw a bit of mud at indymedia editors in public. For example, Miriam accuses me of things and simply refuses to provide any substantiation. She also continues in her efforts to rewrite the past and paint herself as a victim of bullying when the public record - and her own admissions on this score - are entirely clear and unambiguous. As I said above she has engaged in far worse behaviour on the lists for the last year and has viciously attacked almost everybody on the list who has disagreed with her. Pat C throws a bit of abuse at a particular indymedia editor due to a stupid fight he had on the editorial list some months back. I have absolutely no clue what chris's angle is but she has aired a whole heap of unsubstantiated and scurrilous claims about us doctoring stuff and being sexist. Iosaf throws a bit of mud and runs away when called to back it up.

This stuff is what I call sorry. It's a shame to air it all in public, but hopefully having done so will give the editors the impetus to deal with it properly and stop allowing such anti-social egoists to dominate our working time.

by wageslave Wed Sep 13, 2006 18:22

ok sorry, on re-reading, perhaps I was a little hard on you but i was also thinking of this snippet from chekovs post

"Incidentally, to anybody who is still reading this sorry sorry thread. For once we have relaxed our editorial guidelines on the site. This has enabled indymedia readers to see for themselves the sort of shit that we have to put up with on the editorial lists."

Why is it such a sorry sorry thread. Sure there is some bickering but It is obvious that people needed something like this thread to express their views / feelings. It should happen more often. There should be a regular "let off steam at indy" thread. It might have the effect of people appreciating the editors more for their openness.

AnotherRobot, i agree about the whistleblower / work aspect but I also think the extra step of registering would put off a lot of casual trolls

by Another Robot Wed Sep 13, 2006 18:05

Disagree by all means but do try and mask your contempt a little.

There was no contempt in what I wrote and I felt none while writing it. I have pointed out the problems with what I saw as your suggestions. You are now attempting to stifle my disagreement with you. Please desist, leave out the personal element and deal with the arguments. I'd agree that the current guidelines are concise and clear and can argue that attempts to "flesh them out" would make them more confusing. The guidelines are simply guidelines for the editors to apply, they are not proscriptive, exhaustive or all encompassing.

As regards your suggestions of logins and registration, these are all easily circumventable and add the problem of making people whistle-blowing or posting from work trackable.

by wageslave Wed Sep 13, 2006 18:01

And people do not do it purely to benefit society. They do it for their own personal reasons.

by Chekov Wed Sep 13, 2006 18:01

You wrote "Chekov takes his time to explain things, often at length and yet accuses me of disrupting the list with long emails for doing the same.

Please back that up with a single example of me doing such a thing. I believe you are just re-writing history again and making stuff up.

by Wicked Witch/Lost Cause/Miriam Wed Sep 13, 2006 17:56

Could have sworn I posted this message a few minutes ago but it doesnt seem to have arrived.

James

I didn't mean to imply earlier (way back up this list now) that people are positively prevented from posting to the editorial list when they want to raise an issue of concern to them. To be quite clear, what I am saying is that if you cant go to meetings or the stuff you want to say cannot be said in a few lines or paragraphas, and if some editors dont like what you are saying, you are frequently accused of 'disrupting a working list' and told that your emails are too long and troublesome to read. I have to rely on that list to raise issues of concern and have always tried to do it economically. There have been about four or five discussions where I had a lot to say and Ive been caricatured for taking the time to do that. Chekov takes his time to explain things, often at length and yet accuses me of disrupting the list with long emails for doing the same.

Wageslave

You are back in the dark ages. Its long recognised that childbearing and rearing has a disproportionate impact on women's ability to participate in community/social and political life. That's not a choice, its a consequence of social structures which fail to recognise that childbearing benefits everyone: men, women children and society as a whole, and that women should not have to bear undue consequences for their biological definition in the overall scheme of things. That's how concepts such as flexi-time, job-sharing and part-time work came about. For crying out loud, where have you been?

by wageslave Wed Sep 13, 2006 17:56

The set of guidelines is short and not at all comparable in girth to the US constitution.
Training would not be required to read a page or two of text
Thats the perfect example of a STRAW MAN argument

"too much verbiage"
Hmmm, a short concise description of the spirit of each guideline would not be "too much verbiage" IMHO

FYI I have entered the list. I am trying to help and have been highlighting abusive posts as well as " just waffling and expecting to be privileged just because I disagree"
I think it's clear to readers that I am just trying to offer suggestions and ideas to try and improve things and your description of my contribution is insulting and unpleasant. Disagree by all means but do try and mask your contempt a little.

It is clear to me that there is great defensiveness and resistance to any suggestion of change by the "robots"

In theory it sounds good to leave things as they are but in practice it is evident to many on indy that licence is taken with the guidelines and editors are quite nasty replying to anyone who dares to speak up outside their sandbox

Might i add the suggestion that there be a code of behaviour used in replying to people by editors. Manners and politeness are not optional when dealing with the public in any job.

Many editors comments are disparaging and derisory. This is hardly constructive on a thread left open to allow open discussion of the problems in indy. If i as a male feel this then I'm sure females feel it even more so. I bet this contributes to the feeling that many women have that they are treated meanly.

Editors should not have carte blanche to ridicule people who speak up. For people who spend their time removing abusive posts to not apply the same standards to their own posts when they engage in discussion with people on the lists or on this thread is hypocrisy.

by Makhoite Midget Wed Sep 13, 2006 17:14

" It's pathetic behaviour and its why we need to tighten up the running of the lists. "

You sound just like John Reid: You must take away our liberties in order to keep us free. How will you tighten it up, will it now in the interests of IMC Security be illegal to disagree with an editor?

by pat c Wed Sep 13, 2006 17:10

I agree with it in principle. But see some problems. There are those who would register with multiple email addresses. Unfortunately this would happen. Would you ban an ip address from having more than one user? That would rule out internet cafes, posting from work through a proxy, and even wf broadband in some cases.

To deal with the multiple email address problem the Fortean Times Message Board* now doesnt accept free email address registrations. There were some really nasty troll wars and on the FTMB you get real Trolls. Dont know if it would be a good idea for Indy to go down that road.

Maybe a plain registration system. It would make it that bit more difficult for those who have totally destructive intent.

* http://www.forteantimes.com

by Chekov Wed Sep 13, 2006 17:00

Incidentally, to anybody who is still reading this sorry sorry thread. For once we have relaxed our editorial guidelines on the site. This has enabled indymedia readers to see for themselves the sort of shit that we have to put up with on the editorial lists. The various attacks on indymedia and its editors on this page come from 4 people who are habitual posters to the editorial lists. The only real difference is that on the lists they are mostly confined to a single identity, whereas here they are posting under various different names, and even talking to their own sock puppets. It's pathetic behaviour and its why we need to tighten up the running of the lists.

by wtf Wed Sep 13, 2006 16:59

u WANT ME SOCIAL security number as well wageslave?

hehe

nah i think that makes sense really, but you might actually be creating more work there not less, i dunno maybe some IT person can advise on the process?

by Another Robot Wed Sep 13, 2006 16:58

fuzziness in rules allows for wide interpretation and hence abuse.
There's little fuzziness in the editorial guidelines. They're pretty specific. Too much verbiage can cause confusion. How much of legal practise is understandable by people that have not trained in it extensively? Entire university departments make a living out of interpretation of e.g. the constitution of the USA.

IMHO such abuses have occurred.
Luckily there's a redress for that. You get to be able to post to the editorial list specifics of that and then they make a decision. Unless they're all monsters that are very different from other people then there'll be a variety of opinion there about whether or not an abuse has occurred. It all takes place in the open and there's no way that a secret hiding by one editor can happen. If they don't agree with you then you'd just have to accept that all those other people that have spent time thinking about it and have tried to come up with fair interpretations all disagree with you and they may be wrong, but it is more likely that you are.

Such clarification of the "spirit " of the guideline might be helpful.
Or it could open up further problems and lead to very complicated discussions over the impact of the placement of particular commas. Any rules, guidelines, clarifications etc will always be interpreted by an advanced monkey trying to do the best they can. If the current group of monkeys seems to biased one way or another TO YOU, then YOU should enter the group and change it. Don't expect to just walk in and say "Hey I disagree and I don't know what I'm doing and I haven't read any of the debates about interpretation of the guidelines and I can't read or write emails anyway and I can't ....". Make an effort to learn how to work the machine, how to communicate and take time to make sure that you aren't just shouting at other people. If you do that then you'll be competent and no one can reasonably deny you what could be an important role in changing how things are done.

Otherwise it's all just waffle and expecting to be privileged just because you disagree.

by wageslave Wed Sep 13, 2006 16:52

I suggest that it be made mandatory to register before you are allowed to post comments This might ultimately cut out lots of crap, and ease the workload

you register
an automated email is sent out to the email you gave containing a confirming link
you click the link and you are registered along with your email address

The site could be read without registering but to post comments would require you to register

this system seems to work well for other online communities and cuts down on abuses. persistent trolls and spammers can be banned outright rather doing it on a per wonky post basis. Also, It makes it difficult to masquerade as another user

what do people think??

by The Truth - Throw Jean out Wed Sep 13, 2006 16:36

First of all I am not an editor, I am on the editorial list. It is very easy to subscribe to this list and all the emails to this list are archived. You haven't bothered to either subscribe to the list or to check through the archives despite requests to do so, and you are still refusing to do so. Yet despite this you continue to throw out false allegations, this is called trolling. Go and sign up, check the archives and then come forward with any problems you have. I doubt you will do this as you seem only intent on trolling.

by Selfish Jean - Give The Boys Some New Toys Wed Sep 13, 2006 16:29

"it is you who are making outrageous and completely false allegations."

What false allegations? The editor in question for no discernable reason blocked Paula from becoming an editor. No other editor openly did so at the time. He had only just been confirmed as editor and his first action was to prevent Paula from becoming an editor. Even those who defend him do not deny that this happened.

by wageslave Wed Sep 13, 2006 16:22

what would you both think of the idea of adding a few paragraphs to explain the "sense and spirit" of each of the guidelines to assist editors in their application.

Sometimes guidelines are applied in ways that I would have thought are not in the true spirit which was originally intended.

fuzziness in rules allows for wide interpretation and hence abuse. IMHO such abuses have occurred.

Such clarification of the "spirit " of the guideline might be helpful.

by The Truth Wed Sep 13, 2006 16:20

I am on the editorial list and I have followed all the emails, unlike yourself. I am therfore more informed then you are on the subject, yet it is you who are making outrageous and completely false allegations. You are a crank, a troll and haven't even bothered to research anything that you are talking about. You should be ashamed of yourself, indymedia is not a boys club yet you outrageously call it such in your name/organisation. People like you are the problem with indymedia. There is a gender issue with indymedia alright but it is being used by you and a small number of others in false allegations of sexism. If people like you became an editor this site would fall to pieces as nobody would want to engage in a site with cranks such as yourself. Now go and do the most basic thing like sign up and read the archives before trolling.

by Seán Ryan Wed Sep 13, 2006 16:09

Fed up, I don't think you are engaging in character assassinations here. I think you are engaging in masturbation. You are only furthering your own ends and adding nothing to the debate.

by Seán Ryan Wed Sep 13, 2006 16:03

I see where you're coming from Terrence and I agree with you to a point.

I think folks should have to register in order to use the list. I think all anonymous posting to the list (other than reports that highlight abusive posts) should be stopped.

I don't want to comment on actual examples because I don't want to continue arguments from the list itself to the newswire. But I will say this: If guidelines and the way they have been applied recently were applied to older news items and comments - most of Indy would dissappear.

I understand that the guidelines have evolved over the years and that they represent the collective and the collective mindset. But it is individuals who must apply them.

If I had my way I'd allow for only one rule. An editior some time back gave an excellent definition of Indymedia. He called it a tool for activists. My rule would be: If a post is truthful and furthers the cause of activists (yeah I know there'd have to be a big debate as to what defines an activist) and is news then it stays, if it hinders activists and has no news content or is untruthful it gets hidden (peer review could discern untruthful posts and then the lie and subsequent review could be hidden). Please note my reference to news content, this allows for an activist to be challenged. And it allows that only news remains on Indymedia. I think the guidelines go some way to achieving this, but we still have a long way to go. I'm pretty sure also that 'my' rule would have to be fleshed out a lot before we arrived at a working model. I don't want to write a mini novel on this thread to do so. But I will suggest this: Decide the purpose of Indymedia and then backward engineer this into a set of working rules. I believe the guidelines have derrived from working Indy and have allowed us to define it. I reckon it's now time to make Indy consistant.

by fed up Wed Sep 13, 2006 16:00

You're wrong. There is no serious problem. This is a couple of people stirring the shit. They represent nobody other than themselves - two or three people - and imho are head cases. Don't believe me? Do a search on Chris Murrays and Sean Ryans varied contributions to this site - Sean's "philosophical" ramblings (under 'Opinion', I believe) are well worth a squint.

This is not a crisis in indymedia. It's a couple of cranks disrespecting the integrity and hard work of the editors. The issue regarding women's participation is a very serious one but is being used by Chris to pursue God knows what vendetta. There's no coherent sense to her arguments.

Am I engaging in character assassination here? Totally guilty. I put my hands up to it. I think these people, from long experience with them, are cranks.

by Selfish Jean - Wendyhouse Wed Sep 13, 2006 15:59

At least I am attempting to make some contribution to this debate. You are just knocking anyone who exposes the Boys Club. Why not address the questions I raised instead of abusing me. If I am wrong then show me why I am wrong.

by Truth Wed Sep 13, 2006 15:54

So here we have Selfish Jean who has openly admitted to not reading the email archive spouting nonsense yet again. Why don't you stop wasting people's time and read the archives or is it one law for the Selfish Jean. Another for the little people.

by Plato Wed Sep 13, 2006 15:53

'A rule on the otherhand, if it is logically constructed, and a product of agreement between those who use it, allows a logical conclusion to be arrived at with no hinderence offered by opinion.'

But the person acting as an editor will use her/his opinion as to whether or not a certain comment us in breach of the rules. Another editor might well have another opinion on the subject. You will have the same situation as at present: if 2 editors think a comment should be unhidden and the original editor thinks it should stat hidden, then the majority prevail.

There will never be absolute agreement on what a rule means. In any case the Rules will be decided upon in the first place by a relatively small number of people. It is doubtful that even they would absolutely agree on what a rule means. The thousands who use Indymedia ertainly would not.

by gob'd Wed Sep 13, 2006 15:53

the following dialogue occurs many screens above.....

'toe-tape' offers link to imc-womyn mailing list

'mother' says 'kids will do that... run around and scream. thats what they do, brilliantly.'

'chris murray' writes back to 'toe-tape' and 'mother':
'toe-tape provvided a link to the imc womyn site. mother cos I have two kids and one is playing by me feet. with my jewellery box. other questions esp the above, written by a man. can be answered at what sounds like a very interesting meeting.'

by omg Wed Sep 13, 2006 15:52

THIS IS GAS, im relatively new here myself and im stunned at the shovelling of shit all over the shop

y dont you just take a vote, majority wins only, new editors installed on a majority only

that way if something fails by 1 vote with some1 objecting they wont be the subject of hatred and payback

you have a serious flaw at the moment as i see it

by wageslave Wed Sep 13, 2006 15:49

I have to take issue with your earlier assertion that women with children just have to accept that they will not be allowed or able to participate in media to the same extent as men. That is tantamount to telling us to get back in the kitchen where we belong. This whole thing is supposed to be about the message, not the medium and every effort should be made to recognise the circumstances of every potential sort of editor - elderly people, people with disability, young adults, people with language difficulties, men and women. It is much to smug just to sit back and accept a status quo predicated on what the average white male is able to contribute (whether by time, inclination or aptitude) and then measure all other involvement against that standard. But that is exactly what is happening.


Aargh!! All I am saying is that Indy can't be expected to send around / hire a childminder / housekeeper / office temp so people can make posts.

of course indy RECOGNISES the lopsidedness of society but what do you suggest indy DO about that apart from write articles on it to highlight it??

Women end up doing more in the home. Thats not indy's fault. That's your marriage. Kick your husbands lazy ass and get him to do some housework and make some more free time for you!!

If you don't really have time to participate because of your own life choices ( job / family) , whether you are a man or a woman, then thats life. You make choices then deal with the consequences of your choices. It's not for others to facilitate it so you can have your cake and eat it. That's a selfish outlook

There are people you mentioned like the disabled who are special cases, in that they didn't choose to be disabled and need help to physically get their contributions on to indy. I have far more sympathy with them as it's not a case of life choices or just "wanting it all", it's an actual need.

So If your chosen life keeps you very busy then my advice is just Contribute what you can with the time available

If you want to contribute more then either rearrange things and make time if it's important to you or don't. However it's not fair to expect indy to sort that problem out for you.

There are people who make different life choices have more indy time as a result but they have none of the joys and compensations of a family / job / relationship whatever. Should they expect indy to arrange a life and a family for them too?I

by Selfish Jean - Break Into The Clubhouse Wed Sep 13, 2006 15:47

"I do recall two editors giving general support to Robbie’s assessment of that thread, but would have to analyse it more fully before I’d say more."

My understanding is that while the editors in question did not have much sympathy for the comments hidden, they still disagreed with Robbie being the one to do the hiding.

" In general it’s probably a good principle for editors to not edit a story they are involved in and I think that’s what was agreed from that thread. "

But even after that he went on to hide more comments which disagreed with his views. One law for the editors. Another for the little people.

Regarding Paula, why didn't the other editors nominate her? Why didn't the Anti Sexist Libertarian Editors propose Paula? If there was no longer a block what was stopping them? After the way she was humiliated you could hardly expect her to nominate herself.

You say Cdot also opposed Paula. Did he oppose Robbies nomination? Apparently not.

by Seán Ryan Wed Sep 13, 2006 15:39

A guideline is used to help arrive at a logical conclusion, but is, in its final determination down to the discretion of its user.

A rule on the otherhand, if it is logically constructed, and a product of agreement between those who use it, allows a logical conclusion to be arrived at with no hinderence offered by opinion.

In this debate so far, the only part my opinion has played, has been in my choice of words and the order that I presented my argument with.

by Chris Murray - the unmans Wed Sep 13, 2006 15:33

I have been called and asked a variety of questions re use of anons, so:

I have not engaged with this thread since yesterday.
I am sorry about some of the attacks on the editorial collective, by other people.
the 14 comments that I made (toe-tape, mother, chris murray) and maybe one other...
were directed at eliciting discussion on a serious issue, which I personally feel very strongly about.

I have found myself provoked and attacked, (on a few levels) and I never
wanted anyone attacked, but to seek clarification and debate on gender.

So will not engage with this thread again because it is getting negative.
I suggest people with concerns about issues of gender ake em to the meeting.
I have privately contacted the collective with a similar note.

by Terence Wed Sep 13, 2006 15:31

The present guidelines have evolved over the last 4 or 5 years. They are generally good and I can't recall any disagreement with any of the guidelines per se.

Interpretation of the guidelines is a different matter. But the same is true of 'concrete' laws, since judges after all essentially do that even if you don't agree with them in particular cases. The difference here is that we have a set of editors or should I call them administrators who through their numbers give greater diversity than one person alone. Decisions can of course be queried and appealed and often are, but as it stands it is the editors who make the decision. Now it might be suggested that this power should be devolved further and wider, but there are practicalities of actually trying to run the site. And as this is devolved further what mechanism should be used. Email or the website? How how deep should investigations go? And if email, how many are willing to follow the discussion? Do people want to deal with 50, 100 even 200 emails a day? And if a website, how do we know who isn't commenting on a decision using 3 or 4 different names. This would then mean you have to register and login to cut out this problem. Already now we would lose a lot of people on that transition?

An appeal to have a set of concrete rules based on logic is simply not going to work. What we have is pretty general principles. The more focused you become, then the more detail comes into sight and the set of rules to deal with all the real-life situations increases the number of them greatly. It has often been said that the more rules you have the more you need and this would be a classic example of it.

The appeal to apply logic should also be considered? What sort of logic? The logic of common sense? The logic of fairness or some kind of mathematical logic? Regarding the latter, I think it is a fair assumption that human affairs do not always follow this type of logic.

Thus the point I am making is that any proposal to scrap the guidelines with a new set of guidelines called rules or someother word, would also have to simultaneously look at the mechanism for applying them. And if we want improvement, then surely that system would have to be better than the current one?

by gob smacked Wed Sep 13, 2006 15:29

Chris M writes to the IMC-Ireland Mailing List
Sep 13 06:16

'I am writing to tell you that people have called me asking me if I am this or that pseudonom. I have used three and I hope positively, toe-tape, mother and my own name.

I try to provoke discussion and am genuinely concerned at lack of women. I never meant to be destructive or cause havoc, a lot of reaction to what I wrote was negative and I alos tried not to take it on. so am no longer and have not since yesterday printed on that thread.

I did 14 comments- reactions, clarifications and links. we may not agree, but I tried not to apart from concerns about hides etc not to be reactive. so apologies for what looks like a heavy workload.'

https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

by Another Robot Wed Sep 13, 2006 15:25

I also sent an email to Madam K and the editorial list earlier this evening in response to an abuse report that she made regarding Little Bird's accusation that Madam K was bending the truth. In it I stated that as a rule people should never presume malice as the motive for somebody else's actions or statements when the answer is more often than not simpler and more benign. IMO such a presumption says more about the accuser than the accusee.

The presumption of innocence does you credit. However, if Madam K or anyone else was not at the meeting then they shouldn't be asserting as truth something that they don't know. There are many types of lying and an assertion that you know that X happened when you weren't there is one of the ways of doing it. You can call it confusion or misunderstanding if you like, but I'd state it as a rule that if someone asserts knowlege they don't actually have then they are lying. Pretty typical of most of this thread.

by Selfish Jean Wed Sep 13, 2006 15:11

But you are expressing opinions and I can only answer them with my opinions. Unless you believe that your opinions are possessed of an inner logic which defeats all other views expressed?

Even if there are rules they will still be interpeted differently by different people. Again there is no iron law of logic which proves that one persons interpetation of a rule is superior to anothers. It will just make it easier for the small minded to suppress debate.

by fed up Wed Sep 13, 2006 15:11

Indymedia is not dysfunctional.

Let's call a spade a spade, the two or three people carping - esp Sean Ryan and Chris Murray - are flakes who would wreck indymedia if they ever donned an editorial cap. To be blunt, Sean has a cheek calling anyone or anything dysfunctional.

What's sad is that indymedia editors doing their best are being subjected to this harassment by a couple of flakes and cranks.

by James Wed Sep 13, 2006 15:04

Okay, in order to reply properly, I’m going to look at the small print.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selfish Jean: It is true. Robbie blocked Paula. No other editor openly did so. Please do not accuse me of lieing.

I think you’re mistaken, not lying. Anthony said above that it’d be good if folks could try not to look for the worst interpretation of what the other person is saying. I accept you’re genuine on this, but not that you’re correct.

Robbie blocked (past tense) Paula. You had written that He is the one editor who is blocking Paula Geraghty from becoming an editor. . That is the part which is not correct. He is not currently blocking her (present tense).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why haven't the other male editors proposed Paula to be an editor in the meantime? Is the Boys Club sticking together, not wanting to upset Robbie?

I don’t know, I don't think it hasn’t come up on the list recently. She could nominate herself, if she wished. A proposal was passed recently about new editors contributing a certain amount of work on the lists, including participation in discussion, reporting posts, proposing features and the like. If she fulfils that, then she’ll probably have a lot of support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How in the name of rationality are we supposed to know whether someone else opposed Paula? They didnt openly do so at the time. Would you care to name this editor? Otherwise I must insist that it is indeed fair to "pick out Robbie".

Seedot, on the list, as well Anthony were wary of creating new editors when it wasn’t clear what they would do as an editor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He did not give any real reasons for blocking Paula therefore I am entitled to presume he acted arbitrarily.

That’s your opinion, maybe it’s valid and you’re entitled to it. But it is only fair to acknowledge that others take a different view. The fact that people did agree with him undermines the argument that he acted arbitrarily.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He also hides posts which are critical of him, something which no other editor does. Even other editors have criticised him on the list for doing this. Hes certainly not infallible. Do you support him on the hiding of posts?

My knowledge of that particular thread is limited so it’s not very useful for me to express strong opinions about it. I do recall two editors giving general support to Robbie’s assessment of that thread, but would have to analyse it more fully before I’d say more. In general it’s probably a good principle for editors to not edit a story they are involved in and I think that’s what was agreed from that thread.

by Seán Ryan Wed Sep 13, 2006 14:59

Hi Jean.

The very reason I'm proposing rules replacing guidlines is because guidelines are curbing debate. Opinion overrules logic at times, because guidlines are rooted in opinion and not logic. Because of this an editor can end a DEBATE because of his opinion on a particular guideline. Of course this sometimes causes argument, flamewars and 'bad blood.'

So if you wish to show me the error of my ways Jean, I suggest you use logic rather than opinion to do so, that's what debating is about - proof - not conjecture.

by Billie Jean - Is Not My Lover Wed Sep 13, 2006 14:59

Selfish Jean - Break Into The Boys Club said
"James If you go to that url then it demands a password. Is it only open to members of the Boys Club?"

Selfish Jean is either just taking the piss here or is entirely unfamiliar with Indymedia and its mailing list system.

if Jean was truly interested and involved in indymedia he/she would not have made this comment

by Selfish Jean Wed Sep 13, 2006 14:49

"I'd like to propose that part of the upcoming meeting be devoted to burying the guidlines that filter posting to Indymedia and replacing them with concrete rules."

The last thing we need are immutable rules which can used as an excuse to curb debate. Sean seems to be unaware that the whole Open Publishing project is based on openness and inclusion rather than having rules carved in stone which limits freedom of expession.

Fair application of the existing GUIDELINES administered by fair editors will keep Indymedia safe from trolls.

by Seán Ryan Wed Sep 13, 2006 14:43

I don't want to get involved in any of the arguments that are going on here. I've been following this thread with interest and have noted that Chekov and others have asked for suggestions that might make Indymedia.ie more inclusive for women.

I think Indymedia.ie is currently like a disfunctional family. This thread bears this reasoning out. We need new blood and lots of it.

The poster ban has supposedly been lifted. Let's see some posters on lampposts. If we increase our Irish readership, we'll increase our number of contributers.

I'd be very happy to sling up some posters, but I'd like some ideas from current contributers before I do so. Indymeda is and should be more than just my view and definition of it. I'm afraid I cannot attend the upcoming meeting (Am in the middle of moving to Dublin - God help ye), and I'm sure this thread will put many people off from attending. So please let's set an agenda that can be realised. Let's make the meeting about improving and expanding Indymedia.ie and not about ourselves individually.

Okay, that's the sensible part of my post completed.

I'd like to propose that part of the upcoming meeting be devoted to burying the guidlines that filter posting to Indymedia and replacing them with concrete rules. I'm not going to refer to guidelines or posts that have been effected by them here, but I'm sure folks will know what I mean. I think that because the guidelines are open to personal interpretation, that they are legitimitely open to challenge. I think this is responsible for much of the 'bad blood' witnessed on this particular thread and I'm convinced that it's responsible for most of the longevity, the frustration encountered and the inability to solve some issues satisfactorally on the list itself.

Regards,
Seán

by Troothy Wed Sep 13, 2006 14:31

I would be of the opinion that it would be healthy for the site and for editors and everybody if a self-selecting group of women already involved in indymedia ireland in some way

I'm of the opinion that this is typical of the racism inherent in ex-editors. You show absolutely no interest in meeting the needs of non-white people and concentrate on pushing the agenda of women, to the exclusion of the most marginalised voices. I have other weighty opinions which I won't bother to back up if you wish to hear them too. (I once sat beside an ex editor)

by Troothy Wed Sep 13, 2006 14:25

"I have to take issue with your earlier assertion that women with children just have to accept that they will not be allowed "

Who exactly are you addressing there? And are they someone that is on the editorial collective. Looking through this thread I can't see anyone voicing that opinion and would completely condemn it. It seems that you're very eager to put words into people's mouths and create an impression that there's sexism when in fact you're just making it up and using it as a weapon to attack people.

by pat c Wed Sep 13, 2006 14:15

You dont have to be a member of the Boys Club to access the list which James mentioned.

Just go to:

http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-ireland...orial

You may subscribe there.

by Selfish Jean - Break Into The Boys Club Wed Sep 13, 2006 14:01

"That’s not true."

It is true. Robbie blocked Paula. No other editor openly did so. Please do not accuse me of lieing.

"Paula was blocked until May. The block expired then. "

Why haven't the other male editors proposed Paula to be an editor in the meantime? Is the Boys Club sticking together, not wanting to upset Robbie?

"It’s not very fair to pick out Robbie as the sole reason for Paula not being an editor. At least one other editor agreed with him, but there is a tendency in the “veto” system for the others to remain silent and to have one editor to be left caring the can on unpopular issues. "

How in the name of rationality are we supposed to know whether someone else opposed Paula? They didnt openly do so at the time. Would you care to name this editor? Otherwise I must insist that it is indeed fair to "pick out Robbie".

"There is a considerable background debate about criteria for being an editor which was resurrected about that time. Now you may have strong opinions on that in general, and on Paula’s case in particular, but it isn’t fair to imply that he acted arbitrarily."

He did not give any real reasons for blocking Paula therefore I am entitled to presume he acted arbitarily. The fact that he had only just become an editor himself is also relevant. With awe inspiring arrogance his first editorial action was to prevent a woman from becoming an editor.

"For those interested in following this particular discussion the most relevant thread in the archives begins at https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html. "

James If you go to that url then it demands a password. Is it only open to members of the Boys Club?

"I think Robbie has done a terrific amount work for indymedia. It’s not very encouraging for people thinking about becoming an editor, if they are likely to be subject to such relentless criticism from a small number of people. That’s not to say he’s infallible, anymore than the rest of us – editors or not – but a sense of proportion should be kept."

Robbie has blocked a woman from becoming an editor. He also hides posts which are critical of him, something which no other editor does. Even other editors have criticised him on the list for doing this. Hes certainly not infallible. Do you support him on the hiding of posts?

by James O'B. - The 6th Non-Editors' International (Makhnovite) Wed Sep 13, 2006 13:30

Sorry for posting repeatedly, but when questions are raised on an open thread, they deserve a reply.

Selfish Jean: Why? He is the one editor who is blocking Paula Geraghty from becoming an editor. If it wasn't for Robbie there would a female editor. He is also the only editor who hides comments which are critical of him.

That’s not true. Paula was blocked until May. The block expired then. It’s not very fair to pick out Robbie as the sole reason for Paula not being an editor. At least one other editor agreed with him, but there is a tendency in the “veto” system for the others to remain silent and to have one editor to be left caring the can on unpopular issues. When the likelihood that the criticism will be personal, this isn’t a surprise, though it is disappointing.

There is a considerable background debate about criteria for being an editor which was resurrected about that time. Now you may have strong opinions on that in general, and on Paula’s case in particular, but it isn’t fair to imply that he acted arbitrarily. For those interested in following this particular discussion the most relevant thread in the archives begins at https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html.

I think Robbie has done a terrific amount work for indymedia. It’s not very encouraging for people thinking about becoming an editor, if they are likely to be subject to such relentless criticism from a small number of people. That’s not to say he’s infallible, anymore than the rest of us – editors or not – but a sense of proportion should be kept.

by James O'B. Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:11

It is worth noting that there is no reason to think wageslave’s argument about the time women have is one that the editorial collective share.
----------------------

The biggest crime of all is to insist on having the debate. You are told that the editorial list is where you can discuss the running of the site, but that is only true to a limited extent. You are supposed to shut up and suffer what you feel is wrong and/or condense your thoughts into two or three line posts for their convenience. Any substantial rationale offered on the editorial list that is over two paragraphs long is conventionally shouted down as disruptive and time consuming.

I think this is very inaccurate. There is every indication that long contributions are welcome on the editorial list. There is in fact no moderation on the editorial list so as of now people can post as much as they like. And some do post an awful lot. In addition, there was no attempt whatsoever to restrict people’s arguments if they are at odds with some of the editors. For example, if you follow the thread “women and indymedia”* one can see that there are 62 emails in that thread, with roughly 20 from one contributor in particular. That isn’t the hallmark of minority voices being shouted down.

*https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html

People probably couldn’t have more of an opportunity to express their views. However, that doesn’t mean that one’s views are accepted all the time. However, quantity of contributions aren’t the same as quality. If editors are do their job, they will have to, at some stage, make a judgment on what they agree with. Otherwise very little will ever get done. They will from time to time disagree with pretty much everybody, themselves included. That’s to be expected and not to be exaggerated as equivalent to being “shouted down as disruptive and time consuming”.

If there is a specific decision which you feel is unjustified, then it can be revisited later. Sometimes, people like to try one approach and if it doesn’t work then the case for an alternative is even stronger. There is rarely, if ever, any maliciousness involved. If there is, I for one, would be interested in it being pointed out.

by eeekkkkk (an ex ed) Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:11

http://publication.nodel.org/node/100/print
The Packet Gang
Essential reading to understand the pre fifth birthday of imc irl blues.

I would be of the opinion that it would be healthy for the site and for editors and everybody if a self-selecting group of women already involved in indymedia ireland in some way (5/6 people) formed and asked for the running of the site to be turned over to them wholesale for a fixed period of time - say 2 months.

I think it's important too to keep in mind that it is a level of success that is breeding scrutiny and discontent. If the site were a failure then nobody would give a shit about any of this.

As an ex editor I can also say with some confidence that it's the people who contribute articles and media and who script features that really run the site - that's what the phrase 'dictatorship of the doers' means imo. Nobody needs to be an editor to do that stuff.

It's healthier to think of editors as the equivalent of those who turn up at 6am and clean up the office rather than thinking of them as the management.

by Selfish Jean Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:32

"I can now sympathise much better with Robbie"

Why? He is the one editor who is blocking Paula Geraghty from becoming an editor. If it wasn't for Robbie there would a female editor. He is also the only editor who hides comments which are critical of him. All other editors report such comments (which are in breach of the guidelines) to the list.

You should be more careful of who you sympathise with, readers might start to think that the editorial collective is a Boys Club

by lost cause Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:58

I didnt misinterpret what you personally intended by the expression, but 'keeping the troublemakers' out is so apt for what is happening. There is of course an issue about people who are not genuine about indymedia and who would want to change its core ethos of open publishing and participation. Sadly some of the existing editors themselves seem intent on undermining that exact principle - they label genuine and committed contributors as abusers and disruptive because they dont see eye to eye with them in every way or because they have the 'nerve' to challenge them about prejudicial behaviour. The biggest crime of all is to insist on having the debate. You are told that the editorial list is where you can discuss the running of the site, but that is only true to a limited extent. You are supposed to shut up and suffer what you feel is wrong and/or condense your thoughts into two or three line posts for their convenience. Any substantial rationale offered on the editorial list that is over two paragraphs long is conventionally shouted down as disruptive and time consuming. Shut up and like us or lump is really what is being said. So that 'get involved' invite has a strictly limited meaning, in reality.

On that point however, I appreciate the courage of the collective in putting this thread up here and letting everyone take ownership of this debate for once. It is a first and I really hope that they will be prepared to do this with other issues to, however uncomfortable it may feel. Another bone of contention for many people is the application of the editorial guidelines. Most of the anger which users feel about that seems to arise from misunderstanding and not from censorship, which editors are so often wrongly accused of. But there are times when hides ought to be openly justified. That would be a real departure in news reporting and editing in Ireland. The only mistakes the MSM acknowledge are things like 'We apologise for saying in our report yesterday that the Rufton Tuftons were holding their daughter Priscilla's engagement party at the Burlington. We should, of course, have said The Shelbourne. Our apologies for any distress caused.'

I have to take issue with your earlier assertion that women with children just have to accept that they will not be allowed or able to participate in media to the same extent as men. That is tantamount to telling us to get back in the kitchen where we belong. This whole thing is supposed to be about the message, not the medium and every effort should be made to recognise the circumstances of every potential sort of editor - elderly people, people with disability, young adults, people with language difficulties, men and women. It is much to smug just to sit back and accept a status quo predicated on what the average white male is able to contribute (whether by time, inclination or aptitude) and then measure all other involvement against that standard. But that is exactly what is happening. Of course the whole of society is predicated on the white male standard, so Indymedia does not deserve to be singled out in that context. It was perhaps unrealistic to imagine that it would be different. To the extent that it is trying to do that, extending the scope of decision making to include a wider group of people is welcome.

When it comes to editing the site's contents, it is done by and large very fairly - and certainly more fairly and openly than anything else available in Ireland. I also support the idea that it ought not to be a free for all. Even with the close attention that is paid to trolling, bb chat and abusive comments, the site still has too much, imo, unnecessary and not particularly interesting commentary. I've been as guilty as anyone - its so easy to do and users should be encouraged to be disciplined/considerate in this respect. When you first find Indymedia it is almost like a form of therapy to be able, for once, to say what you think and have it out there. It beats the frustration of reading newspapers that never have anything in them that reflects your actual experience or views, or even the facts. But that is a sensation that ought not to be over-indulged.

The bottom line for this contributor is that my newswire contributions are welcome but me and my views about how things might be done, are not, it seems. Once I understood that, I stopped helping out with the 'housekeeping'. Sulking it may be, but that is about the only form of protest I can make unless I stop writing for the site altogether.

by Anthony Wed Sep 13, 2006 04:17

I'm just after getting the chance to have a proper read of this article - aside from a few quick glances as time allows. I'm shocked at what's being written about those of us who who have put in a huge effort in building up this site over the years.

It seems that it's the season for making up accusations against any active Indymedia editorial volunteer and I'm not so surprised that my own turn would come eventually. I have to admit, it is more annoying when baseless but very serious allegations are made against oneself rather than a colleague. I can now sympathise much better with Robbie, RIsible and Chekov.

an editor of Barcelona indymedia who is spending increasing time in Dublin and has been making contact with political groups in Ireland since Springtime asked to join the list. She was refused / removed.
The only person to be refused.
We never took any democratic decision to allow such a thing to occur. did we? Who is going to take the responsibility for that? We did talk about removing the druid from the list during the Summer - that's something else. SO at end there are many issues of illegitimate decision making & non democratic behaviour in the indymedia ireland world as it is currently shaped

As the active list administrator of the imc-ireland lists over the past few years (a non-glamourous job dealing with spam mails so that other list subscribers don't have to), the above allegation is being made against myself despite the fact that it doesn't mention me by name. Iosaf presents no evidence for his allegation - just states it as if it were fact - though he's not even clear on whether it was a refusal or a removal. The reality is that the editor from Barcelona Indymedia joined the imc-ireland list and posted her first message (as nú) on the 24th August. She was responded to with a welcoming and informative email by myself and another friendly one from jd. The global listwork people are carrying out maintenance at the moment so the archives of the list aren't available at this time but if anyone searches through the posts on the 24th and 25th August when normal service resumes, they can verify for themselves that I speak the truth. I never received a reply from nú and she hasn't posted on the lists since her first message to the list but that's par for the course when new people contact the lists. As of today, she's still listed as a subscriber to the imc-ireland list.

This then provides the flimsy basis for Iosaf's assertion that "there are many issues of illegitimate decision making & non democratic behaviour in the indymedia ireland world".



There are many other misrepresentations and false allegations on this article but at this time I don't have the time and energy to deal with them at this late hour. I'll just deal with the ones that mention my own good name. Madam K kindly mentions me in relation to my offer to help out anyone who wanted to learn more HTML at a meet-up in June. All the people subscribed to the real world list would have received the minutes as I sent them to the list two days later (13th June) for review and they are normally available in the imc-ireland archives. Since the list archives are temporarily down, I'll post the minutes on the relevant newswire event notice - along with my own personal thoughts - so that non-list subscribers can read them.

I also sent an email to Madam K and the editorial list earlier this evening in response to an abuse report that she made regarding Little Bird's accusation that Madam K was bending the truth. In it I stated that as a rule people should never presume malice as the motive for somebody else's actions or statements when the answer is more often than not simpler and more benign. IMO such a presumption says more about the accuser than the accusee.

I also stated that "A Little Bird" is actually correct in "that the indy meeting that you talk about had no decision making power and this was explained at the meeting". However if I remember correcly this clarification had happened before Madam K arrived at the meeting so it's well out of order calling her a liar. I also remember that the "indicative" vote as proposed by Jon G who had missed the earlier - and more constructive part of the 'get-together' - as being painfully embarrassing as the person in question was present in the room and I personally thought that it was a stupid, pointless and tactless gesture since it had already been clarfied that such a vote carried no weight and that the editorial list is - and always was - the primary decision making forum for editorial matters.

by Little Bird Wed Sep 13, 2006 02:03

You obviously weren't in attendance either.

From what I hear JonG did suggest a vote at the meeting proposing PaulaG and Elaine as editors and he was told there was no point because the meeting was not a decision making body. He wanted to go ahead anyway just to see and his bluff was called because there was no unaimty in favour of it. But they can't have been blocked because the meeting had no blocking power.

I'd say there's lots of plucking going on indeed my downy friend.

by Madam K Wed Sep 13, 2006 00:30

" I've included that in one of my proposals
- introduce a recall mechanism (using similar criteria as to appointment)
- automatic lapse in editorship after one month of non-activity"

Grand

Madam K

by wageslave Tue Sep 12, 2006 23:43

First of all, I am not an editor and am as interested in seeing changes as the next man or woman. I was just offering my 2c worth

I was the one who used the term troublesome. It was meant, for the purposes of the discussion, to refer to someone who prevented the smooth running of the site and acted in a disruptive fashion that was obvious to all.

You missed the point of the suggestion that it be made easier for editors to get rid of bad editors.

The logic being that if people with power knew they could get rid of a disastrous editor easily and without too many reprocussions then they might relax a bit and let new people in as editors with less resistance. In other words, it was actually meant to help encourage the system to open up.

My belief that this is a key point came when Chekov made what I thought was a crucial observation that people felt they had to be very "careful" allowing an editor in because they were in practice very difficult to remove once in and when in they could cause a lot of trouble if they chose to.

In an effort to get people to address this "paranoia" which IMHO seemed to be part of the reason for the systemic unwillingness to admit new blood and women to the collective, I tried to discuss it further and suggested the idea of a secret ballot as one approach.

My intention in all this was to get people talking , trying to get a handle on the issue and offering suggestions so that some good ideas might bubble to the surface, (not necessarily mine.) before the meeting

by Lost Cause Tue Sep 12, 2006 23:10

"...and the troublesome people (I wouldn't use that phrase) have all been outside of the collective so far"

Aint that just the truth, eh?

But troublesome is the phrase thats used and thats how everyone who has a fundamental/principled disagreement with the collective is eventually defined, one way or another. Either you go under, apologise and show your contrition over a period of repentance or you are 'troublesome, bullying, abusive' etc - all applied without a trace of irony or self-consciousness about the possibility that maybe, even just sometimes, the behaviour of some members of the collective might deserve to be described as 'troublesome, bullying, abusive etc'. Unthinkable. The collective is infallible. Its own anger is always fully justified but it's an outrage when other people reflect their sense of injustice back at it, in eqaully strong terms. My God, what foot stamping goes on then! Classic bullying, in fact. No, the collective is always and in every way perfect, it never mistreats anyone, it is always a victim of 'abusers', there is no variation on that. It is an eternal little victim which nevertheless still manages to retain all the power and control to itself, amongst the same group of people. How to keep potentially 'troublesome' editors out. How to get rid of them, should someone who is admitted to the inner sanctum turn out not to be as agreeable as was wanted. Free personality and character assessments for all! Queue here now to find out if your are a good person or a bad person. Broadening the franchise? I dont think so. The franchise includes bolshy women, people of the left and right, good, bad and ugly, people of no particular persuasion - the whole gamut. Where are we all on this collective? There you have it guys and girls:

"so far all of the 'troublesome' people have been outside [the collective]." What a happy coincidence!

Anarchists? Not that ,certainly. 5 Years. 15 people. No women. Daily readership 20-50K, right? Even The Independent can say better than that. Just about any other news media could.

Broadening the franchise? How to look and feel as though you are doing that without actually doing it, you mean. What a knotty problem that is and how infuriating it is to have people around who are prepared to make the point forcefully. Well round and round you go in circles. Your meeting will be a hoot, Im sure. Seriously, I hope you work something out. Nice people, but you really, urgently need to stand well back from what you are doing for a bit. You are doing some great work here with this newswire but if it is going to burn itself out, it will burn itself out for lack of oxygen, not because of the fresh air that some people have been trying to blow on it. It is still the best, the most exciting, the most needed source of news and media in Ireland, imo. But it has major flaws like anything else and signs are it is not going to recognise those flaws, not in the short term at least. A great pity.

by jaysus Tue Sep 12, 2006 22:04

what the feck is this shit-

please look at the site JD. a dictatorship of the doers-is precisely right. am now going to check out the archive for editors /contributors and see who the doers are.

The image is appalling, your budapest is far prettier and more relaxing than that image and the offensiveness of the whole comment is too tiring to even begin with.

I know btw a lot of women doers-they are too busy doing to be fecked with your vision of socialism-looks like reichstag anti-kunst art as well.

kunst art was degenerate art. anti - kunst(cunt) means that a specific vision is propagated to achieve a propagandist projection of ideality. De Valera did it, O donoghue is doing it. in your image above the woman is an equal. hahahahahahahahahahahahaha ha.

the image is idealised.

by redjade Tue Sep 12, 2006 21:45

I look forward to reading Chekov's Proposal fleshed out and specific - I will reserve final judgment for later.

But I will now offer some of my reservations ahead of time.

Any proposal that empowers - by vote or whatever - people that are not active media makers and/or Oscailt 'house cleaners' (people hiding trolls etc) is probably going to get a no vote from me.

Indymedia is not a parliament, it is not the 'United Nations' of the Irish Left, its internal structure should not be a talk shop for anything other than how to make indymedia better serve the larger community.

All this talk I read about 51% vs 75%, Mandates vs Electoral Colleges and so on is giving me the creeps just thinking about it.

Obviously the editors should 'look like' the broader community as much as possible yadda yadda yadda [insert prerequisite concern and outrage that there are no women editors, even though previously mentioned repeatedly, here] - but I am much more concerned that people who make good media are appreciated for it and, if they wish, have a 'voting seat' or whatever representation they think necessary.

For example, the Revolt Video people - what are their needs from Indymedia? Is one of these Electoral Collages really going to understand Revolt Video? apologies for dragging Revolt Vid into this debate, just as an example

'Dictatorship of the Doers' is a phrase that I helped to inject into the Indy .ie ethos a long time ago - more recently I have been regretting that as some people have chosen to misinterpret its meaning. Misinterpreted to mean exclusion of voices rather than empowering the important voices.

Indymedia is about Making Media, first and foremost.

Readers, participants, commenters, trolls and even nazi spammers are welcome to add their comments about what they think of how Indymedia.ie should be - but without the Media Makers there is no Indymedia.ie.

All Power to The Media Makers!

All Power to The Media Makers! (apologies to ex-Pioneer)

by wageslave Tue Sep 12, 2006 21:07

I agree, in an ideal world, people are brave and good and everything is wonderful but alas we're not in one of those. You said yourself that any solution has to take into account game theory and human psychology. Humans suck and many don't appreciate true freedom and don't know what to do with it. Life sucks , get a helmet!! But Indy is still a worthwhile endeavour.

I was not at all implying reducing the majority below 75%. I meant the procedure as a whole as per the guidelines where there is blocking/disagreement if it is applied to getting rid of someone. Such a system may work well on impersonal matters but you have to look someone in the eye (or suffer their email wrath) when you are kicking them out and in practice thats difficult for humans. Sometimes it's easier to do the right thing in such cases if you know they will not easily be able to pin the blame on you for their demise. Humans want other humans to like them. Also, Nobody likes a nutter out to get them, virtual or otherwise. :)

I really don't think the odd secret ballot to get rid of a miscreant will turn indy into a stalinist nightmare. In general I think humans join things like indy because they believe in the ideals that it represents. Such people will try to do the right thing most of the time.

by Another Robot Tue Sep 12, 2006 20:25

AnotherRobot, you make some good points. However, the fact remains that there is a problem with the current status quo.
Thanks. I think they're pretty lame points actually. I agree that a problem remains with the status quo, which is why I'm suggesting that the editorial group tries two things: 1) implement the actual rules they agreed on (after a lengthy fucking discussion); 2) does not tolerate abuse of the mailing lists (e.g. Chekov's proposals). All these things require a change in people's behaviour and more people becoming involved actively in editorial by following the basic, minimal and easy self-enabling suggestions I made above.

Personally, I agree consensus is a good thing except that people in practice are often afraid to confront and dislodge a bully and the current process is rather impractical for doing so, no matter what you say.
Then people in practice are fucked and doomed to living in fear of bullies and being controlled because bullies will adapt to new situations and find new ways of bullying. As far as I can see consensus in some form is the only truly democratic way of making decisions. In order to determine that it had failed the indy.ie collective would have to actually apply it whenever a contentious issue came up and would also have to do things such as mandating specific actions to be taken by specific people by specific times.

I totally agree with your suggestions about tightening up things and that concerned people "self educate" and help out with a view to becoming editors and will try to do so myself. However that in itself does not solve the problems altogether.
I don't think that on its own would solve all the problems. I think the editors also have to stop pussy footing around the issues of dealing with disruptors.

However, I also think Chekov is correct that the rules re: 75% majority etc, while sounding good, in practice do not work well for getting rid of troublesome people.
They've never even been tried, and the troublesome people (I wouldn't use that phrase) have all been outside of the collective so far. The waste of time has been long email wars with abusive bullies demanding that things be done their way. Also, are you suggesting that less then 75% of people should be allowed to expel someone from the collective? What's the magic number? 51%?

If the process of dislodging a bully or miscreant is made easier (perhaps by using a simple secret ballot with option to appeal) then people will know it is easy to be kicked out if other editors have a problem with them so they will tend to behave better.
God, I don't know. Its starting to sound like a horrible Stalinist dictatorship with career-minded crowd-pleasers hewing to the middle line afraid of being seen as "troublemakers" and then 5 years down the line the "faction" becomes obvious after it has seized the reins of power.

Fundamentally there's nothing that can be done if the majority of participants stand idly by and wait while abuses take place. Unfortunately the best lack all conviction etc.

by wageslave Tue Sep 12, 2006 19:43

AnotherRobot, you make some good points. However, the fact remains that there is a problem with the current status quo.

Personally, I agree consensus is a good thing except that people in practice are often afraid to confront and dislodge a bully and the current process is rather impractical for doing so, no matter what you say.

I totally agree with your suggestions about tightening up things and that concerned people "self educate" and help out with a view to becoming editors and will try to do so myself. However that in itself does not solve the problems altogether.

However, I also think Chekov is correct that the rules re: 75% majority etc, while sounding good, in practice do not work well for getting rid of troublesome people.

If the process of dislodging a bully or miscreant is made easier (perhaps by using a simple secret ballot with option to appeal) then people will know it is easy to be kicked out if other editors have a problem with them so they will tend to behave better.

Also, accepting new people will be less of a problem as you can get rid of them easily, so you do not have to be as "careful" in allowing people onboard. This does not mean that most other business cannot be by consensus. Just the process of getting rid of people needs changing to make it easier. (There is still a problem with factions but if they emerge and start kicking others out then I imagine its likely to become pretty obvious)

I think this is the nub of the problem of exclusivity and blocking of new blood be they men or women. Over time I think this will help the m/f balance.

Have any good ideas on how to avoid abuses while using secret ballots?

again just my 2c

by Madam k Tue Sep 12, 2006 19:25

You were obviously not in attendance, Jon G Proposed a show of hands regarding Paula G and Elaine as proposed editorsBoth have contributed vast amounts of great work .They were both blocked much to surprise of many .

Now if you are dealing with hearsay and accusing people of lying may i surgest you pluck off

by Another Robot Tue Sep 12, 2006 19:25

Okay, I think I see what you are saying.
At this stage that's more than I can be sure of. All I am sure of is:

1) Indy.ie should have a lot more good features and would consolidate it's position as a way of getting non-government, non-corporate information to loads of people.

2) I want women to be involved as editors as much as I want men to be involved as editors

3) I want more people to be involved as editors

4) Things are not working and too much time is being spent on dealing with fights

5) Editors are not trying to work by consensus. They go straight to conflicts and blocks.

6) Any solution has to account for game-theory and human psychology

7) This isn't easy

8) There are trolls

9) There are mentally ill people

10) The internet allows a lot of bullshit without repercussion.

11) Good luck.

by Info Tue Sep 12, 2006 19:16

is here

by James R Tue Sep 12, 2006 19:16

Any power hungry nutjob would have to be brain-dead not to see that this is an attempt to retain control within the collective while at the same time giving a grudging, "non swamping" input to other groups. Hence, I, as a nutjob will still want to be an editor.

Okay, I think I see what you are saying. At the minute power does reside with the editorial collective. I think this is more a consequence of a decline in behind the scenes participation in the site over the past few years than design. The editorial list originally gained its mandate from real life meetings, as these whittled away the mandate came to reside in the editorial group and list. With even film screenings being organised through it whereas orignally all discussions to do with anything other than editorial process were meant to occur on the IMC-Ireland list. I think the expanding the franchise suggestion is aiming to explore how this can be reversed, what this means is looking at a away of implementing a structure where the editors have their mandate and guidelines defined elsewhere and then act on the back. Thus returing the editorial list to the working site and functionary role it was originally intended as as opposed to being imbued with any other power.

by Another Robot Tue Sep 12, 2006 18:54

My suggestion is that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the voting structures. I'd suggest that the solution to all these problems is for concerned people to 1) read and understand the editorial guidelines; 2) read and understand the operating rules; 3) spend a couple of weeks with an XHTML textbook; 4) read wikipedia on netiquette; 5) figure out how to use a mail client; 6) spend at least 3 months trying to help in reporting editorial problems.

There's obviously a crying need for more people to be editors and for women especially to get involved, but no one wants to do the actual work.

Add to this that once an "electoral college" (which I can't claim to be an expert in either) model is created we're still talking about majority voting rules. Any power hungry nutjob would have to be brain-dead not to see that this is an attempt to retain control within the collective while at the same time giving a grudging, "non swamping" input to other groups. Hence, I, as a nutjob will still want to be an editor.

I just don't see how it solves the central problem. I appreciate your contribution and questions in the spirit that you offer them and have never thought otherwise.

by Another Robot Tue Sep 12, 2006 18:44

But who decides which groups are "real groups" and how much of a say they get? Why should specific groups be privileged in this way?

by James R Tue Sep 12, 2006 18:43

First on the "guilt by association": I think that it's worth remembering that electoral colleges were specifically created as a means to control democracy. Sorry for appearing to be silly, but I think those are clear examples of why electoral colleges suck. They're fundamentally anti-democratic. It's gerrymandering institutionalised. Apologies for any seeming hyperbole, but I can't see that either simple majority voting or electoral-colleges are good things.

Now I can't really claim to be any expert on electroral colleges, but going on the original proposal provoking this discussion it struck me as an effort to expand the franchise without opening the site to the sort of swamping by organised groups you mention. Currently voting resides with editors. The system discussed is looking at a method of expanding voting to a contributers group as well as a public meeting where people possibly register themselves in advance for attendance. I'm a bit confused by your opinion on this. On one hand you have a problem with the current set up that you characterise as elite, but on the other you think the mooted attempt to extend the franchise is simply the elite trying to protect its tentacles by the illusion of extending democracy. The only alternative I read from you is keep things as they are. I share your concern that it should not become 'possible for any numerically superior political or ideological group to easily gain control' of the site - but outside of what has been suggested I can't see what you are advancing as a solution? I'm not putting words in your mouth here, I'm just trying to figure out what you are getting at!

by jimmy Tue Sep 12, 2006 18:39

The idea with the electoral is actually to give more people a say.

At the moment the only people who really have decision making powers are the editors.

An electoral college would allow different groups i.e. contributors, people doing screenings, outreach groups etc to all have a say in what goes on.

by Another Robot Tue Sep 12, 2006 18:32

First on the "guilt by association": I think that it's worth remembering that electoral colleges were specifically created as a means to control democracy. Sorry for appearing to be silly, but I think those are clear examples of why electoral colleges suck. They're fundamentally anti-democratic. It's gerrymandering institutionalised. Apologies for any seeming hyperbole, but I can't see that either simple majority voting or electoral-colleges are good things.

Second: You've also got to define what you mean by "work". I think we'd all agree with the anodyne statement that "we want what works". For me "works" means that it is not possible for any numerically superior political or ideological group to easily gain control of Ireland's only independent media outlet by sheer virtue of numbers. I think that minority positions should be capable of expressing disagreement with the majority, but that there should be a significantly negative affect on their ability to continue doing so should they be shown to be frivolous or malicious. The fundamental problem with indymedia.ie as I see it, is a lenience given to people that are demonstrably unwilling or unable to co-operate. Some editors and participants have embraced a "openness means do anything you like" philosophy and (in some cases actively and in others passively) encouraged this. Now we're running to the other extreme and talking about apparently a non-democratic structure modelled upon early attempts to preserve a facade of democracy but retain control in the hands of an elite.

Third, on the IMC-Venezuela example: That sounds like "if we all agree on something then that's consensus otherwise we vote on it". If that's really what is proposed then that is a bastardisation of the concept of consensus which involves a specific process (see link below).

Fourth, on heads in sand: I agree with your conclusions that there's a problem but I think it's to do with people's behaviour, not the mechanism.

You may be completely right and your proposed solution or parts of it may be the only way to continue publishing material not produced by the corporate media. I remain unconvinced, but am not going to vote on it.

The whole thing is a completely depressing recapitulation of the apparent problems of democracy and openness and leaves me wondering whether or not I should just pack the whole thing in, subscribe to FOX, CNN and accept that there are enough complete shitheads in the world that they can't be given freedom and dignity as they don't know what to do with it and will happily trample over the rest of us. I'm off to join the PDs. It "works" for them.

by Chekov Tue Sep 12, 2006 17:53

It is easy enough to remove an editor. One of the problems is that a large proportion of the current editors appear not to know their own operating rules. I wouldn't mind betting a good proportion of them couldn't restate them in their own words without having a look at them first.

Unfortunately, the rules as they were concocted for decision making have never really worked. Much of this has been to do with the total lack of organisation on the lists caused by the deluge of reported posts and the flame wars caused by trolls and narcissists. However, without a sizeable group of people devoted to organising and managing the decision making process, I feel that they are too unwieldy to work as they are (and I wrote them originally so I can't be accused of not understanding them or being biased against them). Also, if it is the case that most editors don't understand the processes then this is a problem - they should be clear enough to be easily understood by active editors.

Even relatively minor uncontroversial proposals are routinely getting lost as soon as somebody voices any sort of objection.

If the collective is to operate by consensus, which is an Indymedia core value, then what Chekov appears to be suggesting is a problem.
Nah, not really. As long as the decision making mechanism aims for consensus where possible there shouldn't be any problem. For example, IMC venezuela was approved by the new imc list just a couple of days ago. From it's principles: "Decisions are made by consensus. If consensus didn't happen. Decision will be democratically made by the majority." Nobody has objected to this thusfar on the global process list (the only real global indymedia decision making list).

Simply put, all it requires is for 3/4 of the editors to vote to expel an editorial collective member. That doesn't seem particularly hard if someone is as egregious as suggested. See Default Method for Decision Making, item 9.
If we can't even agree to organise a survey as it stands I think a recall is way too much for us.

Other possible alternative structures include simple majority voting and electoral colleges (so beloved by racists in the USA and Trinity/UCD graduates and divines).
Such guilt by association is a bit silly. We want whatever decision making mechanism will work and will bring us forward and will give a say to as many involved people as possible.

To my mind the alternatives suck more and will lead to factionalism and politicisation of the collective.

Unfortunately, I think that the status quo is a serious case of sticking our heads in the sand. If we go on like this we won't exist in a year. There are serious doses of burn out around.

by Another Robot Tue Sep 12, 2006 17:10

Chekov has said that the nature of the structure means they have to be careful because once in, it is difficult to remove editors and they can do a lot of harm. So this situation has generated a kind of paranoia which might affect the selection process in a very negative fashion.

It is easy enough to remove an editor. One of the problems is that a large proportion of the current editors appear not to know their own operating rules. I wouldn't mind betting a good proportion of them couldn't restate them in their own words without having a look at them first.

If the collective is to operate by consensus, which is an Indymedia core value, then what Chekov appears to be suggesting is a problem.

Simply put, all it requires is for 3/4 of the editors to vote to expel an editorial collective member. That doesn't seem particularly hard if someone is as egregious as suggested. See Default Method for Decision Making, item 9.

Other possible alternative structures include simple majority voting and electoral colleges (so beloved by racists in the USA and Trinity/UCD graduates and divines).

To my mind the alternatives suck more and will lead to factionalism and politicisation of the collective.

Describing caution as "paranoia" is not useful. Paranoia is an irrational mental condition.

by James Tue Sep 12, 2006 17:07

mother: run around and scream. thats what they do, brilliantly.
am sure the collective can organise something, all being gender-sensitive. it is they
who are organising this meeting.

Hi Chris, from way back towards the start of the thread: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78329?author_name=James...66486

The original proposal for the meeting suggested that attendees contribute €5, which partly goes towards contributing towards the cost of attendees paying somebody to mind their child for the afternoon. Probably this figure can be revised as appropriate.

The idea is that parents organise care for the child as they think fit and that attendees at the meeting will contribute towards the cost of that. Other practical suggestions, especially those which can be organised by those suggesting them, would of course be welcome.

Finally, as above, It would be handy to know in advance if people with kids will be wanting to avail of this, so we know how much, if anything, is needed. You can do this via the imc-ireland list or by the ordinary contact form.

by Truth Tue Sep 12, 2006 16:59

So Chris according to more paranoia from you Sarah is a man pretending to be a woman because she disagree's with you and points out the facts since you joined the editorial list. She is right, you should have gotten the same treatment that the druid from tara got.

by wageslave Tue Sep 12, 2006 16:55

IMHO The article was not particularly good or relevant. However I agree that you have to be careful when making a judgement call on whether someone is playing a cardl. However in many cases its pretty clear cut that someone is just being manipulative.

I am NOT saying that women do not do more care/house work than men. They do.
Im saying that if they are too busy doing that then they don't really have time to spend on stuff like being an editor on indy anyway. If they DO have time to be indy editors then the technical requirements are not going to be the problem timewise or otherwise.
While I sympathise on this lopsided state of affairs, it is a societal problem not one that indy can change (although they can highlight it!)

Indy needs editors who are women.
editing takes time.
Women are often busier than men

Those three facts cut down the range of women who can apply. I agree. But the fact is, either you have time to spare or you don't. if you do, the tech stuff will not be the problem timewise. Thats all I'm saying. Please Don't put words in my mouth or attribute beliefs to me which I don't hold.

I have NOT dismissed your arguments, merely stated that IMHO there is not as much evidence of sexism ON THIS THREAD as you are convinced there is. Regarding the lists, I said I will research it further. I will (and if you can suggest some good places to start I would be grateful). I don't think thats an unreasonable position.

IMHO The cause of women being discriminated against is not helped by the fact that some of the people supposedly fighting for it are also a bit daft and are a liability.

In my opinion such people leave you open to having the baby thrown out with the bathwater and as such they do your cause no good.

However if you highlighted the great willingness of men to use such people as justification for their extreme caution in allowing new people into the editorial then I would have to stand back and say, you might have a point there.

But why is this the case? Is it just plain old ugly sexism, or is it something else?

IMHO the editorial list is quite exclusive and defensive. but not just to women. To any outsiders, male or female. Chekov has said that the nature of the structure means they have to be careful because once in, it is difficult to remove editors and they can do a lot of harm. So this situation has generated a kind of paranoia which might affect the selection process in a very negative fashion.

I think chekov has hit the nail on the head. There is a systemic paranoia as a result of the structure. I believe the solution of making it much easier for editors to collectively expel a bad editor should have a very positive effect on the willingness of current editors to accept new blood, female or male and should result in a much healthier m/f balance on the editorial team and far less defensive attitudes from those on the list.

Lets not confuse systemic paranoia with sexism. However that said, I will leave the jury out on whether there really is a culture of sexism on indy until I research the matter further. Those links would help.

This thread was indeed a bit of a head exploder. However, I can't often say talking to "myself " was constructive but in this case I think it was! :) Thanks for your input.

by chris Tue Sep 12, 2006 16:53

I meant Patc, that sarah is a man.
thus am now going to cook.

by chris murray Tue Sep 12, 2006 16:50

toe-tape provvided a link to the imc womyn site. mother cos I have two kids and one is playing by me feet. with my jewellery box.
other questions esp the above, written by a man. can be answered at what sounds like a very interesting meeting.

by pat c Tue Sep 12, 2006 16:49

i dont know yoy. certainly not on the list as sarah. if you had problems with my posting practise then all you had to do was comment on the list. thats what its for.

i have been in disputes on the list but it takes two to tango. i'm not aware of any problem with my formatting style i always attempt to ost clearly . i participate in the editing process. so that means i post more to the list.
as i say i have no idea as to who you are so i'll let it at that.

by Sarah P Tue Sep 12, 2006 16:38

I don't have regular net access but have been on the indy lists for most of this year. I'm always too busy to spend much time in Internet Cafes and only get to catch up on the list discussions less than once a week . Usually discussions have moved on by the time I get the chance to catch up so rarely contribute as I feel that it wouldn't be constructive in resurrecting issues from the past - even if it is the very recent past. An abuse report or two is the height of my contribution so far.

However one issue keeps coming up. Chris Murray continues to repeat the exact same or similar allegations about posts of hers. I'm actually very surprosed at the courtesy shown towards her by editors and others on the lists. She was posting since the start of the year but she never actually listens when anyone takes the time to respond to her. When she first started on the lists, a few people on the list pointed out nicely how to format their emails so that they're readable. She blithely ignored them and continued to post in her barely coherent style.

She still doesn't seemed to have grasped the basics of how open publishing works She recently objected to the fact that an aonymous person posted to a thread that she had been 'monitoring since June'. Worse, she just doesn't bother making any effort to back up her claims with specifics and details - even though it has been pointed out many times to her where the newswire archives are and how the Oscailt search engine can be used to locate posts. Apparently, the search box isn't woman friendly. I wondered at the time if she was implying that Oscailt itself is sexist.

What's even more annoying is that she keeps repeating the same accusations. This article is the third time she's accused editors of "tampering" with her story about the Strategic Infrastructure Bill despite it having been carefully pointed out to her with linkw to Indy articles and newswire list posts. The facts of the case don't seem to matter in Chris's world.

She talks about abuse and bullying and harassment on the lists but anyone who takes the time to look through the archives can see that she is the one who is relentless in attacking the editors with her vague accusations based on her own confusion and misunderstandings and with no regard for other list subscribers who have limited Inboxes and limited time to sort through their emails. The editors and others take the time to give her the courtesy of well written replies. God knows why.

So far, she's relied on editors and others on the list not calling her on her bad behaviour and taking her to task on her wilful ignoring of the basics in communicating using text. It's unlikely that such behaviour would be tolerated if she was somebody with a penis. Another male contributor to the lists a fellow Tara campaigner whose contributions were equally as useful to the running of the site was shown the door fairly sharpish. Chris also makes all sorts of threats such as seeking legal advice on her SIB thread and reporting the irish collective to some higher global list. I presume now that she was referring to the womens list mentioned further up.

Unfortunately, I won’t be able to make the meeting as I don't live in Dublin and don't have the time to travel but I'm glad that list posting guidelines is on the agenda. Those with regular access to the lists should have been putting Chris straight as soon as she started. Unfortunately, she wasn't the only one on the list who had no regard for netiquette or those of us without regular net access. Pat C and Iosaf come to mind. It was regularly pointed out to Dunk another male contributor to the list whenever his messages were in breach of netiquette and the same standards should have been applied to all the list contributors

Speaking of Iosaf, it seems that he's decided to join in on the unsubstantiated allegations. I distincly remember a woman from Barcelona posting on imc-ireland a couple of months ago to introduce herself to the list and she received two friendly and welcoming response from a couple of the current editors.

by Fake name 2 Tue Sep 12, 2006 16:29

Chris, how many different user names are using on this thread. It is a common courteousy to just use one.

by mother Tue Sep 12, 2006 16:27

run around and scream. thats what they do, brilliantly.
am sure the collective can organise something, all being gender-sensitive. it is they
who are organising this meeting.

by James Tue Sep 12, 2006 16:24

They can be read at https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-ireland....html. You may need to subscribe to the list in order to access the archives.

It's worth noting that different people had different ideas of what that meeting was for. As the intro to the minutes says, some weren't “expecting the occasion to be anything more than an informal face-to-face chat over a few drinks…. However others wanted a proper meeting to discuss certain issues and in the end, we had something which fell between the two.

by Carnosaur Tue Sep 12, 2006 16:22

"4. A meeting wherein everyone is welocme (incl, child friendly)"

I presume you mean that childcare should be provided. A meeting is not a place for children to be running around or screaming. Not if you want to have any serious discussion or get any busuness concluded.

by A big bird - . Tue Sep 12, 2006 15:38

Anthony took them, though he had to leave early.
btw: madamk like the IMC quote.
I presume another 'minute' taker was appointed.

by A Little Bird Tue Sep 12, 2006 15:22

"they were blocked and the question of their HTML skills were cited as a reason amounst others"

I hear a different story. And the one I hear seems to be based in reality. The first interesting part is that the indy meeting that you talk about had no decision making power and this was explained at the meeting. So it sounds like youre not telling the truth.

So if there was no decision making power of this meeting then no one can have been blocked at the meeting.

Another thing I hear is that one of the people proposed as an editor had no history of editorial activity. The other person did not say why she wanted to be an editor or if she did want to be an editor or what she thought an editor did.

I also hear as a final point that it was suggested that anyone that wanted to be an editor should obtain training from Anthony in how to make a feature and all that and to spend some time partaking in the identifying of editorial problems on the list.

I wonder has anyone done the above two things? And I dont mean just arguing why our own posts are the best thing since sliced bread.

Still nothing like a bit of lying to help clear things up.

by Chekov Tue Sep 12, 2006 15:16

It was stated that editors were chosen on "merit " There also needs to be a system to expell those found to be in abuse of the ideals of indymedia...

First of all, thanks for being constructive. If you look above, I've included that in one of my proposals

" - introduce a recall mechanism (using similar criteria as to appointment)
- automatic lapse in editorship after one month of non-activity"

I welcome any comments, disagreements or suggestions on this or any alternative suggestions.

When it comes down to it, the problem of editorial privileges boils down to the fact that we have a seriously unwieldy decision making mechanism which essentially gives each editor a 'black ball' ability to block any and all collective agreements. This means, in practice that it is impossible to remove editors and that we have to be very, very sure that all editors will operate in a collectively constructive manner before election - because if they are not willing or capable of keeping to our collective agreements they would have the ability to completely block all work.

I've been highlighting this problem for a long time now, long before any woman put herself forward as an editor (and indeed more men than women have been blocked as a result). However, hopefully now that things have descended to a low point we have the impetus to agree some much needed reforms.

My thinking is that as long as there is a reaonsably efficient and practical way to remove editors who don't respect the collective agreement, then people should be much less wary about accepting new members. I also support the general idea of "extending the franchise" to give more people a say in policy matters without them having to have editorial passwords or technical skills. Many general policy issues are only tangentially related to their technical implementations and there's no reason that people without technical skills shouldn't have a say in them (if, of course, they are committed to the indymedia goals). However, the practical matter of implementing this in a workable way is not a trivial problem.

However, all of this depends upon us finding people who are willing and able to carry out the list moderation functions as one of our biggest problems has been keeping track of discussions, collating decisions etc in a situation where various people wantonly and repeatedly ignore all the standard rules for interacting on email lists.

So, if anybody is reading this who is interested in getting involved in the running of indymedia, there is a pressing need for your volunteer services (that is as long as your head hasn't exploded after reading through this thread).

by pat c Tue Sep 12, 2006 15:10

regarding an independent woman mediator i would suggest you approach SIPTU or ICTU. they are certainly used to dealing with these sort of situations in the trade union movement where there are sexist structures or where structures are perceived to be sexist.

by Miriam Cotton Tue Sep 12, 2006 15:05

The anger of your last post and its character assassination on me and Chris does you no favours here. You are tone deaf to what we are saying. I have on many occasions readily accepted decisions and outcomes on Indymedia in good faith and in good humour. I have no idea who on earth you are talking about in reference to other female campaigners - you know something about me that I do not know about myself. What on earth are you talking about? I am not aware of having fallen out with any of the Indymedia editors personally bar two of the 15 men concerned - both of whom were extraordinarily abusive and rude in their responses to me. Chris has actually been told to 'shut up'. I have certainly expressed my frustration with some of the men's opinions on this issue (sexism) but it was never a matter of personal dislike for me. And they say women are the ones who get personal and emotional! For what its worth, I very much like most of the men on the editorial list although I have realised that good will is not reciprocated. As for one-sidedness, I would welcome any newcomer here going over the archives - they will find angry emails from me, certainly, but they will be hard pressed to find the fairness which I was arguing for where women are concerned. In so far as I have shown some of these exchanges to others already, that has certainly been the case. You are so much more ready to be angry, dismissive and judgmental with us. And whether you see it or not it stands out to others very clearly.

You ridicule my lack of expertise and yet scorn the fact of my having asked questions about tecnical issues in an attempt to improve my knowledge of those matters. I cant win. Damned if I do and damned if I dont. What you are now implying on top of everything else, is that not only must we aquire the knowledge you want to see but we must do it in an approved way that doesnt cause you a nuisance. And you clearly do regard inexperienced women as a nuisance in this respect. The website has a clear invitation to 'get involved'. That's what I did and I meant well in doing so, delighted by the Indymedia.ie initiative as I was. But that wasnt good enough. You are being truly horrible.

I have had a number of messages of support for the attempt I made to challenge the sexism on this site - none of those people felt they could do it on the list itself however. Why is that Chekov? What do you suppose they were anxious about? The sort of attack that you have just made on me here, perhaps?

I am deeply offended by what you have written.

by redjade - dear chris Tue Sep 12, 2006 15:00

'An independent minutes taker'
The upcoming meeting will be open to the public - I doubt anyone would object if you or your 'independent minutes taker' takes notes.

simple solution: bring your 'independent minutes taker' to the meeting.

you are going to the meeting, right?

by pat c Tue Sep 12, 2006 14:55

"And paula g should be editor Chris says, I would suggest paula g as a editor tomorrow, definitly for her high quality photos reports. but I never ever got the slightest impression she wanted to be an editor. This is a perfect example of the situation with women and Imc ireland. "

Thats not correct. Paula did want to be an editor. One male editor blocked her. This editor had only just been appointed and he immediately threw his weight around and dragged the ladder up after him.

by Madam K Tue Sep 12, 2006 14:55

"The idea that women can't do tech and are inherently worse/better than men is sexist crap... " Exactly i couldn`t agree more.
... and the people advancing that idea are mostly the ones that claim to be excluded somehow." Hold on a mo !

I dont know if your were at the indy meeting at the lord Ed ,i was and i recall a fun and lively debate with two individuals being put forward as Ed`s ,they were blocked and the question of their HTML skills were cited as a reason amounst others . I belive the point no bolloxs was making was this has not been an obsticule in the past for those HTML illiterate to become editors.A few on the night had no problem admitting that this was the case. Also it was stated that there are only about 15 tags that would be needed to write a feature and Anthony kindly said he would facilitate those wishing to learn more. (Maybe minutes of that meeting would help )

Now i dont care if you are male, female or a spanish hermaphrodite... woops intersexed one rule should apply to all.

It was stated that editors were chosen on "merit " There also needs to be a system to expell those found to be in abuse of the ideals of indymedia...

"IMC Network is a network of collectively run media outlets for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of the truth. We work out of a love and inspiration for people who continue to work for a better world"

Madam K

by Andrew Tue Sep 12, 2006 13:45

Yeah the document at http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/IMCEireFeatures does seem to be what I was suggesting, just as well I included the disclaimer!

by chris - dear chekov Tue Sep 12, 2006 13:45

1. An independent minutes taker.
2.A mediator. Grass-roots or not, with experience in gender issues.
3. Strategies for dealing with serious complaints of bullying/harassment.
This is about initial reaction to a complaint, which has happened recently, and I am asked not
to speak for that woman.
4. A meeting wherein everyone is welocme (incl, child friendly)

scroll up to the first two comments please.

by Chekov Tue Sep 12, 2006 13:36

Miriam once again completely rewrites history in her account of her departure from editorial discussions. She left voluntarily after the latest in a long line of personalised attacks on list contributors - in this case it was a woman who was the target of her abuse, but pretty much everybody who has ever disagreed with her has been the target of lengthy and bitter missives. It's all in the public record. Incidentally, a percursory count of posting frequency and volumes will also put to bed the wrong-headed notion that she was at a disadvantage when it came to time to spend on the lists. In the various disputes which she was involved in she posted much more frequently than anybody else and in the latest version I recall that she posted more often, and at greater length than the entire rest of the contributors combined. I personally gave up contributing to that dispute due to the fact that I didn't have time to read all the posts, never mind respond.

There is a vast store of documentation about tech matters, laboriously put together by me and others at: http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/IndymediaIreland

It includes a detailed description of how to make a feature: http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/IMCEireFeatures

Miriam's falling out with pretty much all of the editors had nothing to do with tech matters. Although, several people did previously express frustration with her propensity to ask technical questions on the list rather than either:
a) typing the question into google / wikipedia
b) looking up the answer from the last time that she asked the question and an editor took the trouble to respond.
c) looking up the documentation.

As far as I know none of the people who have complained about tech barriers have bothered to read the documentation.

Incidentally, the flagrant abuse of iosaf, chris, miriam and others on the list is one of the major reasons that several indymedia editors have become burnt out recently. Over the last year we have been spending an increasing amount of our time in trying to dampen down flame wars and ridiculous disputes. This is one of the reasons that I am proposing strict guidelines for the running of the lists.

The problem of a lack of female involvement in indymedia is another matter and in my opinion is not at all related to any of the issues with chris or miriam. If they were both male, haemaphrodites or aliens the problems would be exactly the same. As this thread exhibits extremely well, chris is unwilling or incapable of listening to anybody's explanations and persists in repeating untruths and paranoid fantasies about people doctoring her work. The fact that miriam has also clashed bitterly with the only two other female contributors to the editorial list, as well as having fallen out with various real world (female) campaigners, illustrates the fact that her problems are not down to her gender. However, her capacity for rewriting history and completely and consistently ignoring requests for evidence means that it requires a long and painful trawl through the lists in order to understand just how disruptive and abusive she has been. I invite anybody to engage in such a trawl and to form their own conclusions.

Still, I do accept that I could be blinded by my gender. I invite anybody and everybody to put forward practical solutions to increasing the involvement of females in indymedia. I have repeatedly made such requests on the lists but nobody has even tried to come up with practical solutions. Finally, I should note that any proposed solutions will not work if they require people to accept bullying and abusive behaviour from certain people based upon their gender.

by James O'B. Tue Sep 12, 2006 13:02

Chris: Two of my articles were suppressed.
One should have been left alone, but was embedded in another writers piece
under a different category.

Hi Chris, it’s very difficult to know what articles you are talking about when you don’t give the specific names of articles or url addresses from the notification list.

In this case I think you are referring to your SIB article, which is here: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76678

I find it difficult to understand your point, but it sounds like you think that your article on the SIB Bill was “embedded” into Anarchaeologist’s article on the SIB Bill. It wasn’t, unless you include linking to an article as embedding (and therefore a bad thing).

As I said above in this thread, your article is completely different to Anarchaeologist’s. He wrote a completely new article. It has nothing to do with yours, other than it covers the same subject matter. Your article is not embedded in any meaningful sense in his article. Your article remains unmoved, unedited, and in its original state and category. Nothing has happened to it.

I hope this is clear.
Thanks.

by Andrew - WSM - personal capacity Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:58

Well first off I think this thread itself shows why the existing collective may well think some people were not suitable for holding editorial power. Its pretty obvious that the ability to understand and be held to a collectively agreed editorial document would be vital. Likewise a record of accurate interpretation of facts in relation to what happens on the site. Someone who refused both of these could obviously do a lot of damage if they had editorial power.

That said I am quite worried about the technical issue as it is discussed. There are two observable facts here
1. Indymedia.ie has a problem in terms of the gendar composition of the editorial group. This in turn is almost certain to have some impact on some decisions related to gendar including the question of what sub topics are needed.
2. In general there are a lot more male tech geeks around then female ones - particularly when you consider the self taught rather than doing it just for a living type. So a tech requirement is going to make a further impact on the gender ratio of suitable editors. If your ratio is starting at 13:0 this is going to be bad news.

The existing collective which is overworked and often has to deal with users too lazy to read the guidelines provided or who expect all sort of services is perhaps understandably reluctant to respond to the tech question with more than 'it is not difficult to learn this stuff'. While this statement is true indymedia.ie has a problem and the statement tends towards washing your hands of one probable cause of this problem. Also if you don't know how to do HTML already it is not clear either what 'not difficult' means (will it take an hour, a month, a year?). Nor where you would start such a process. Easons sell 500 page HTML manuals, would I need to work through that may not be an unreasonable thought.

A partial solution would be to produce a simple document outlining how to make a feature (the main tech issue I think). I did something similar for Anarkismo.net (which also runs off oscalt). Using this someone can learn what they need to in less than an hour - and if someone wants to be an editor this seems like a reasonable 'proof' of willingness to put some effort into what is required. The tech requirement for becoming an editor could then be reduced to a very simple test of use this document to produce a sample feature for the site. This would also be a very transparent tech tech test Disclaimer: It may be this already exists I am unaware of it

BTW a useful background article on the issue is 'Men are from Earth, and So are Women' at http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=3708

by redjade Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:52

'It is unprecedented to have no female editors.'
unprecedented where? I believe there have been other IMCs in this same situation - and this IMC (I believe) will solve this too in time - yes, I agree that this should have been solved a long time ago.

There is much debate about what criteria there should be for someone to become editor - by the way, you have yet to acknowledge the fact that two men have also been rejected/delayed as well. But there's no reason for you to mention the whole truth when it does not suit you needs.

'Two of my articles were suppressed.'
one more time.... Chris, please read the reasons spelled out to you at
http://indymedia.ie/article/78329#comment166564
Those posts violated the editorial guidelines [ http://indymedia.ie/editorial ]
either these guidelines 1) apply to everyone, or 2) special exceptions be made just for you, or 3) you should make specific proposals for amending the editorial guidelines.

Which should it be?

'One should have been left alone, but was embedded in another writers piece under a different category.'
What Chris here is referring to (I think) is that an article she wrote was included in a feature by linking to it. A blatant example of patriarchal behaviour if there ever was one! [embedded=linking to her article]

'there are no transparent methods for dealing with harassment /abuse in indy.ie'

Chris, you know this is not true, because you have, at times, belonged to the editorial list - that's where the work takes place, that's where concerns are addressed, and you send an email to it almost daily - the list's archives are also public and transparent. You know this is a fact - why do you say otherwise?

editorial list - open to all to join:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-ireland...orial

'issues of complaint are reacted to and having re-read the thread completely this morning I have questions about a rigmarole which is couched as a reply by one editor. These I will not address to the collective but to a mediator.'

ok fine.

by Rose Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:47

which truth has not.

by Truth Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:34

Yet again Chris you make a completely false allegation. The comment was not removed and it is still there. Not only that you did not bother to check it up first, you just threw out a completely false allegation. You are nothing more than a burden to indymedia users and subscribers to the editorial list.

by chris Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:15

so remove the response or replace the question. it makes sense.

by Chris - the unmanageables Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:13

I most certainly would not speak for her, she is her own woman.

re-read the thread, please. it was not I who named Paula G.

I only speak from my experience also-which all the unmanageables do.

I stated for de record and I will say it again.

It is unprecedented to have no female editors.
Two of my articles were suppressed.
One should have been left alone, but was embedded in another writers piece
under a different category.
there are no transparent methods for dealing with harassment /abuse in indy.ie
issues of complaint are reacted to and having re-read the thread completely this morning
I have questions about a rigmarole which is couched as a reply by one editor.

These I will not address to the collective but to a mediator.

by Rose - unwilling Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:05

The above thread with this link:

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76486

by reader Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:02

Some people have the stereotypical chip on the shoulder,

someone was blocked for having a disagreement with an editor not for being a woman.

And paula g should be editor Chris says, I would suggest paula g as a editor tomorrow, definitly for her high quality photos reports. but I never ever got the slightest impression she wanted to be an editor. This is a perfect example of the situation with women and Imc ireland.

Well chris

by myself Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:47

Look, the point of the article was not to say that you are sexist and therefore a bad person, it was about accusing people of playing cards, of dismissing their arguments in one sweep and not looking at any real issues that might lie underneath,
I wasn’t trying to insult you.
I think the tone of your response is way over the top.
You explain to me then why indymedia is all men. Tell me it is just coincidence.
Try and tell me this has no impact on how the site operates.

Women do more carework and housework then men. Are you really arguing that they don’t? Women do have less time on their hands. I would direct you to an article or two but you don’t seem to like that and I hate when people do that to me about political theory so…

In my experience sexism still prevails among the most 'enlightened' people (whatever the gender) and by pretending it doesn't exist you do no one any favours.
No one is asking you to feel guilty or saying you’re a big bad sexist man, It's about taking this seriously and looking at ways to change things without lashing out at individuals.
I'm just saying that dismissing women who try and point out sexism as 'playing a card' is not constructive.
Women and men need to work together to combat sexism. It does need to be taken seriously even if it is found in places you don’t want to see it like in indymedia. The attacks on chris and m.cotton on this thread are pretty shocking in my eyes, regardless of their gender, but especially because they seem to be the ones criticizing the way things are around here.

Good luck with the meeting and I hope it goes well, I'm really happy to see all this being discussed and I hope it can move from personal bickering to constructive debate.

by barra Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:05

Under this topic I think it would be a good idea to discuss ways of getting more indymedia contributors from around the country and giving the site more of a national perspective.

Potential ways of doing this:

Contacting small local papers to and explain by e-mail the benefits of indymedia and how it could help local issues they are concerned about.

As editors might be too busy too do this work maybe an e-mail list could be set up of people willing to contact local papers.

by M Cotton Tue Sep 12, 2006 07:01

I have NOT said that women are naturally technophobic or innately less able for technical work. What I have said is that because of sexism in the way we were/are educated and socialised many of us have been directed away from this sort of area of work and experience. A phobia or worry about it has been induced in lots of women this way. Science and technology were not even on the curriculum of many girls schools when I was growing up. There are thousands of women around IMC for whom this is not the case and who can hold their own perfectly well, being just as able as any man - given the chance and inclination. Also many women with children simply do not have the time to spend experimenting with computers to bring themselves up to the same level of expertise as many more men have. This has been a big issue for women all over the world where IMC is concerned. It is not just me saying it, and it is not sexist for me to point out the reality that many women are faced with, including myself. I find some of the attitudeds shown here extraordinarly mean and unkind. Some of you say how simple it is to learn how to do some of this stuff, but I dont find it so, for one. On the other hand, I do a lot of writing for Indymedia, and without the writing and visual contributions your technical expertise is pointless. Nobody is forcing you to define the editorial role as exclusively or even predominently technical. You are doing that yourselves and making unnecessary difficulty by not being more inclusive. I used to help out a lot on the editorial side with abusive posts/trolling until I was more or less told get lost, that I wasn't a very nice person, nor well behaved enough (I had opinions) to have in what turns out to be your club.

It is thoroughly disingenous for those who have been approved as editors to try to make out that you dont have control over what is happening on this site, that its all just incidental donkey work. If its no big deal then why are you so afraid of opening the role up to other people?

You decied what gets hidden and you alone
You decide what is made into a feature
You decide what categories may or may not be included
You decide what gets featurised
You have far more control over the work of contributors than the contributors themselves

That is a substantial power base and you are all men

Im off now to write up a news report. It's 5.30am, the time of day in which I mainly have to do my writing because the kids will be awake by 7.00. I have to get a million chores and other stuff done during school hours plus occasional employment. That short window finishes at 2.30 when I have to go and collect the kids and its generally all over after that with homework, meals,therapy for my son and other stuff until they go to bed. The voluntary/activist work I do is also a big draw on my time - mornings or nights and weekends. I have no time to do what you are insisting I must do with tech stuff. If I give more time to it, our homelife suffers, it has suffered enough since discovering Indymedia anyway. Do you have any idea the effort that has been involved in submitting the contributions I have? You discriminate against women on the de facto grounds of the realities of our lives. There are laws against doing that in the 'real' world - amazing that Indymedia.ie should be trailing behind even the inadequate legislation in its operation.

by Dollard Tue Sep 12, 2006 03:20

That above post is not making a point at all. From reading the thread it seems the people running the site are trying to define the editorial role. From reading the above its also apparent there's a group of people insisting on not going along with this and sticking to the ways of the past. Whats the value of the site taking on editors with no HTML experience or willingness to spend a few hours familiarising themselves with it? Some of you seem too happy to continue with dodgy past precedents as long as you get your own way through them.

by Unperson Tue Sep 12, 2006 03:15

There is no tech barrier. Anyone halfway serious can learn to script basic HTML, work a web-browser, follow netiquette, work with other people. The idea that women can't do tech and are inherently worse/better than men is sexist crap and the people advancing that idea are mostly the ones that claim to be excluded somehow. This is like a fucking Breughels nightmare with people walking around with giant sex organs where their heads should be.

breughel (c) someone at http://www.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/gret.jpg

by no bolloxs Tue Sep 12, 2006 02:51

"The tech barrier needed to be an editor is just that, it isnt anything to do with your gender,if being
an editor requires you to do html then that is what you need to learn."

Yet i know males who became ed`s without any HTML skills at all.

by wageslave Tue Sep 12, 2006 00:40

First of all, stop insulting me. I'm on your side.
I am not trying to silence you. we are having a discussion from which hopefully we will both benefit.
I will research the matter further but what has happened on this particular thread IMHO is not that terribly sexist.

The technical know how argument is largely nonsense and IS ungrounded IMHO. No great technical expertise is required for the job.

of course nobody is completely objective but some people have a certain clarity of thought and tend to distort reality a lot less than others

My idea of what makes a good editor is that they are balanced and competent. that's why i used that phrase.
by balanced, I mean they can see both sides of an argument without too much bias and that they don't let their personal convictions on certain topics cloud their judgement too much. Not unreasonable
By competent, i mean that they can express their ideas clearly , have good comprehenshion and communication skills, a certain clarity of thought and can use a computer. I'm not talking any great tech skills here, just basic computer literacy and the basic intelligence and willingness to learn.
I would apply exactly the same criteria to males and females in this regard If I were choosing an editor.

A vast knowledge of activist topics is a plus but a competent, person will learn about the topics as they read posts, edit stuff and chat with people on the lists. Indy is a good resource for learning

The fact that some women don't have as much time as men to spend at the computer because they do housework is a dubious argument at best, not least because to be an indy editor does not require much computer knowledge anyway.

I will make the obvious point that if you are really THAT busy then you probably don't have time to be an editor on indy either. If you have the time to be an indy editor then you probably have the time to learn basic computer literacy. (it's not a big deal)

Look, I want what you want but i just hate people pulling cards like sexism or anti-semitism when its not fair to do so. I don't respect that kind of thing.Perhaps you have experienced sexism on indy but I don't see as much of it as you say on this particular thread. I see people being vague and offering unsubstantiated arguments and other people afraid to challenge them for fear of being labelled sexist.
I'm in favour of more women and fairer elections and engage you as an equal here and all you do is point me to an article and imply that I'm a sexist. and act all offended by everything. Thats manipulative in my book. Tell me, how do you treat true sexists who hold women in actual contempt.? How do you differentiate between them and people like me ?

The fact is you have only one word for both of us. sexist. It's a bit like the little boy who cried wolf.

If you want things to change at indy, you will be glad of the support of sympathetic males like myself so don't go alienating us by lumping us in with dyed in the wool misogynists under the all encompassing term SEXIST.at the drop of a hat.

by James R Tue Sep 12, 2006 00:34

an independent minutes taker and an agreed women's grassroot mediator.

Why grassroots? Why are you fixated on Indymedia as some sort of activistymedia.ie? Indymedia is not meant to be tied to any of the niches within the Irish social movement, this argument for a grassroots woman mediator has as much validity in my eye as someone calling for a SP/SWP female mediator.

the continous blocking of proposed female editors and strategies for dealing with harassment/abuse.

So tokenism is your answer? As it stands the site needs a mechenism to rid itself of editors who are not acting in their editorial role. One of the most valuable discussions to occur next weekend in my opinion is the clarifaction of what exactly it means to be an editor. Paul Baynes has done some work on this. Personally from my experience of being an editor it involves laying out features and editing the newswire. Unfortunately some people accredit editorial status with being in some sort of awarded clique, this is wrong and it largely has led to the sort of squabbles we have seen develop on the list. There should be a set critera outlining what editors do, those that wish to become editors and help the project should amply demonstrate a capability for the work. At the minute this can be done by engaging in constructive editorial discussion, doing up html for features, hitting the abusive post button and pointing out things that need editing. I think engaging in this sort of contribution to the site is an absolute preresequite to becoming an editor. How else do you think editors should emerge? Given the acrimonious abuse many of us are subjected to on the editorial list, yes I would think harassment and abuse of the lists will be discussed at the meeting.

As it happens, the meetings are all arranged exclusively to suit the people living in Dublin, with short enough notice for those who have to make child care arrangements and stay away over night in order to attend. How many on the collective (approved/not approved/rejected) are from outside Dublin?

This was on the lists for months as the other James has pointed out above. But don't let fact stand in the way of a good auld dig.

Just to clarify, the topic that has been added to indymedia. ie is called "gender and sexuality". While this is a welcome addition it must be recognised that although it may be some what related it is clearly different to the much needed topic on feminism/womens rights/anti-patriarchy.

Is it much needed? There was a long discussion on the list about this, gender and sexuality was the topic decided upon through a process of consensus. Feminism is a political/social ideology, if we have a feminism topic then should we have an anarchism/socialist topic? I have no idea why people think that if there is a topic addressing their particular concerns why they think that will lead to more content on that topic. As it stands the gender and sexuality topic is currently under utilised, what would be the point in splitting its content across multiple other topics? Gender and Sexuality is a topic title that deals with the gamuat of discussions that occur around patriarchy, liberation from set gender roles, sexism and advancing equal rights. These topics should be broad because the readersip of the site is broad and the way these discussions take place is broad. With that in mind how is your suggestion 'clearly different' to the existing category?

but maybe outreach and setting up local eds, rural eds and of course tech collaboration/outreach for womyn.

Chris, you do realise Indy is ran by volunteers who hold down jobs and lives yeah? Aside from your persistent patronising of female Indymedia users in advocating that the editors need to develop some sort of special relationship with them to protect them and encourage them along in their battles with nasty technology. Aside from your own reactionary view that women are inherantly technophobic, you should realise that as things stand there are very few people involved in the running of this site. These people do what they can, you seem to think we do this as a 24/7 task, while some may come close it is not the case. As it stands people do not have the time to be running the sort of regular educationals you seem so keen on. This isn't a conspiracy, it is the consequence of living busy lives. Have you tried reading any of the site's documentation on how to use the site? Have you ever looked at one of the zillion online html tutorials? I'd suggest these as a first step to anyone looking to develop their technical understanding of the site.

Sure it's open publishing but the lists system is very clunky, frustrating and unsatifsctory. The fact is, other indys don't censor and things work out ok for them.

Yeah, maybe so. But to be honest I feel as if my brain is being raped looking at some of the other Indys. The way persistent spammers can drag the overall quality of the site down is extraordinary. We barely get a taste of this here with contributers putting up their own original gobbledeegook that escapes editorial guidelines. If there was a 'playpen' area for these postings, I'd hope it would be well out of the view of the public as first impressions formed of Indymedia can be the key to wider involvement. Do we take ourselves seriously as a news outlet or do we allow misreadings of the open-publishing philosophy to cripple us by giving free reign to human spam bots and incoherant ranters?

A simple BBS system ( with logging )would be so much faster and more accessible. Even in parallell with the current system, it would be a good thing.

I totally agree. I'm sick of trying to do work on the editorial lists and I really think other editors are as well. There has been an obvious drop of in discussions and contributions. Quality proposals and the concerete work of the editorial collective is so often swamped by abusive post notifacitons and worse again paranoid little squabbles from those egos that shout the loudest. I'd prefer utilising the Oscailt code to create another backend to the site where editorial work can take place in a threaded format. It basically means if you want to do work you can gravitate to the threads where it takes place and ignore the persistent email spam from the egotistical nutters that get attracted to the site. It would also make the site more transparent by allowing easier public access to archvied discussions thus limiting the ability of some to construct discussion histories to suit their own viewpoint.

don't understand what is meant by "extending the indymedia franchise" Chekov.

Well this is an obvious one Iosaf. Surprising the way those who are making the wildest claims about lack of transparency also make remarks with the most insipid disregard for democractic discussions. As someone on the editoral list Iosaf, you should be well aware of a suggestion put forward by another editor back around March or April outlining a mechenism for creating distinct editorial and contributers groups with voting rights on the project, as well as another layer of democracy where public meetings are called, where those who have contributed as commentators and readers can register themselves in advance for votes at a public meeting.

Calling youself "sofia" like i do is not enough. Those who run the women's list are already a bit concerned at irish indymedia users - & irish men pretending to be women - so don't abuse their global space. Ireland has already attracted a bit of attention-

So the inhabitants on this list are concerned at Irish men pretending to be female to gain access to their autonomous discussions? Yet the only person to do this is you and you admit it Iosaf? This is pure comedy at this stage.

a suggestion I made in April on the lists that we ask people to introduce themselves on our lists. The adminstrator said he doubted such a usual indymedia practise would suit indymedia ireland users.

Do you want my social welfare number as well Iosaf? Why in gods name would people running a website that presents a significant torn to the state when it is at its best want to expose themselves for repurcussions for this work? Who are you anyway? Whats your obession with the personal background of IMC contributers? I think that as Chekov has suggested there should be some intorduction from new people on a list, but the problems you have raised with the use of handles on the list has no merit in my opinion.

Following that indymedia "netiquette" an editor of Barcelona indymedia who is spending increasing time in Dublin and has been making contact with political groups in Ireland since Springtime asked to join the list. She was refused / removed.

Eh, a nice little tale there. I actually met this person once on the back of your emails to the list. As far as I know she is on the editorial list, she sent in an email greeting and was cordially welcomed. Wheter or not she is still on the lists is beyond me. I've yet to hear anything from her other than this greeting on the lists. Swamped as we are with work, her contributions to the lists are more than welcome. Is it not a bit cynical of you to use other people as battering rams in your own little internet wars to be fair Iosaf, its landed other people on the list in trouble before. Don't worry the irony of your brave and chivilarious stand is not lost on some of us.

I have had people read them-guess what you made up the guidelines, not me. they breach nothing put 'em up

Chris, I have yet to see you proving yourself capable of working with other people in virtual space, so it is absolutely no surprise to me that you think guidelines agreed over years should be thrown out the window when it comes to you.

at this point am excerising my right to silence, since free-speech and self-expression do not fir into the rules

Again Chris your approach to Indymedia reminds me of a piece of graffitti I came across once 'its not anarchy unless a punk can shit in your face.' In your view its not indymedia until you can subject us all to your crap regardless of the guidelines.

I have spoken to anarchologist, he understood my anger.

That little spate of yours with anarchologist truly was bizarre, for all intents and purposes you were objecting to the fact that he covered something you wrote on first. This odd behaviour was replicated when somebody else commented on a piece you wrote about a referendum on the statutory rape laws. From where I'm sitting Chris it appears to me like you see Indymedia as your own personal little fiefdom, where you position yourself as an expert commenter on a set of topics and react negatively when anyone else uses the peer review comment function to argue any different. This is completely out of sorts with the spirits of the IMC project. Have you ever considered blogging? There'll be no one to tamper with your postings on your own blog.

Worse again as referred to by someone above is the repeated abusive comment postings you have sent into the lists alledging your material and comments have been edited by someone abusing editorial rights. In my brief time involved in the IMC project I have to say that this is the lowest form of abuse and manipulation yet on the lists. It would be easy for you to verify these claims by referring to the editorial notifactions that archive all such actions. When it was pointed out that no such action happened, and hence no such editorial notifaction for it exists you refused to offer an apology or withdraw your allegations.

What's so wrong with thinking women are just as good as men? We are.

Absolutely nothing is wrong with this view. But why do you insist on painting the whole Indymedia collective as holding this view?

by green immigrant Mon Sep 11, 2006 23:41

hi
well i might not be in Ireland and be able to come to the meeting in Dublin , i will move to Ireland soon ( jan 2007) and always thought i could somehow make a contribution to IMC-ireland. Untill today , reading all those comments of all those people somehow close connected to the editors or editor themself , i realise it's not just the trolls making it a sad reading. i have no clue about the ins and outs of the IMC-ireland and although i was i am no longer interested , i will still read the articles and yes they inform but telling me this: We want original comments that add information, or argue a point of view not re-heated bar-stool cliches. and doing the above......
p.s currently living in Sweden where AFA has hijacked the IMC , also not ideal.
enjoy the soup !

by redjade - speaking as one indy .ie editor Mon Sep 11, 2006 22:35

'Of course they have to be a good editor, but what makes a good editor?'

Thank you! Someone gets the essential point! :-)

And this is what the editorial list has been discussing (or trying to discuss) for quite sometime now - unfortunately the discussion gets sidetracked by the issue of what is between people's legs instead of what is between their ears.

If you, or anyone else reading this, wishes to discuss this question: but what makes a good editor?
please join the publically accessible, freely joinable indymedia editorial list:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-ireland...orial

by myself Mon Sep 11, 2006 22:20

Oh my.
There's a really good article here about accusing people (in this case it's about race) of "playing the race card". http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10157
I think you should think carefully before assuming women's complaints are ungrounded and they are just playing a card. Trying to silence people by throwing around accusations like that is not cool.

It's not about women having to prove themselves competent and balanced. No one is or can claim to be objective.
Of course they have to be a good editor, but what makes a good editor? There are certain traits which are considered important in this context, being a techie, etc. and these are not the be all and end all. What it seems to me the women here are saying is that there are other traits, ones which women are more likely to have, such as knowledge and understanding of certain areas, which are not valued by the indymedia editorial team.
Women may not have the same amount of time to spend at the computer as men do because unfortunately, women do most of the care work and house work. That desn't mean that we have nothing to contribute.

There's lots of weird comments going on here about feminists and I find it really offensive. What's so wrong with thinking women are just as good as men? We are.

by wageslave Mon Sep 11, 2006 20:23

I don't see much evidence of that here but I did see chris ignoring polite requests for evidence to back up her argument, until in frustration, someone (rightly or wrongly) called a spade a spade.

I apologise for using the epithet "ladies" if it is offensive.

I have joined the editorial list. IMHO Daft men seem to get the same ruthless treatment for dodgy posts as women. (I have gotten it myself!)

I AM in favour of equality on the basis of merit but I am dubious of too much positive discrimination. We are not all enemies of women y'know. I would really like to see 50/50 men / women on the editorial but only if it arrives that way on merit, not tokenism.

Having met many confident, competent and inspiring women in my time, I have every confidence that this is a goal that can be easily attained if women get their act together.

There obviously needs to be a proper discussion in meatspace on this issue and the ways indy could become more encouraging to women but women also need to earn the right to be editors by proving themselves balanced and competent. This shouldn't be too difficult providing the selection procedure is fair. This is the reason I tried to suggest a method which was largely independent of human bias

by real wageslave Mon Sep 11, 2006 19:52

dont come on here, wageslave, pretending to be a friend of feminists and anti-sexism while at the same time showing complete disregard for all the evidence that has been given here already. if you are concerned to understand what this is about - join the editorial list and read the archives, carefully, over the last 18 months at least. some of us are concerened not to air all of the dirty laundry in public because we respect the objectives of this newswire too much to do that.

and just so you know, feminists intensely dislike the expression 'ladies' - riddled with sexist, classist and racist connotations as it is.

by wageslave Mon Sep 11, 2006 19:34

Just because you are female does not mean you cannot be daft too.

Resorting to the sexism argument when anyone criticises the content of your post inevitably loses you respect..

Ladies, Don't do that. Gather good evidence and reply coherently and people will see the merit of your arguments.

As a man, nothing makes me respect a woman more than when she stands her ground and fights fair in a discussion without playing the sexism card or the waterworks card.

I have no respect for manipulative women who play both cards whenever it furthers their ends.

by robot Mon Sep 11, 2006 19:20

And I did not write the response to Chris above. I do agree with it though. Robots should display courtesy towards each other by using the URINs (Unique Robot Identification Numbers). I am #1. Thank you.

by NO ONE Mon Sep 11, 2006 19:12

Sexism is not established by searching only for evidence of crude sexism such as 'NO WOMAN MAY BE AND EDITOR', straightforward an example though that would be.

I dont believe that you are naive enough not to know that sexism operates, most often, more subtly than that.

It is not for you to declare, absolutely, that no woman has been made an editor because she is a woman. OF COURSE nobody has said 'well you gotta fanny, kid, so there's no way you're gonna be allowed to do this'.

The difference in treatment is evident in the ATTITUDES, THE DISCRIMINATORY STANDARDS and LOTS OF OTHER examples of how this shit plays out. OK? And the evidence with Irish IMC is CLASSIC sexism.

This thread is also clear cut evidence of what is going on, in fact.

by Dave Mon Sep 11, 2006 19:05

despite all the irrelevant points made by Miriam and Chris M regarding a non - existing sexist policy, i wonder do either of you read subsequent posts to your questions, as they have been answered or are ye so convinced of your own opinions that responses/answers to your questions dont matter?

anyway... my point is this, and i have wanted to say it for ages, but never found the relevant context: Chris M , your posts are rehashed copy and pastes that indicate you are more concerned about shouting out what you think as soon as you feel it as opposed to thinking and independently writing an article, they are often so rushed together that no one can decipher them. These ought to be deleted to a sin bin and are not sufficent for the newswire. I do not mean to be a snob about this, and i do not intend to offend you, but its true.

by pat c Mon Sep 11, 2006 19:04

"btw- have defended other's rights in this. so don't (whomever did) accuse me of falsity."

When you didnt like what I was posting about the Preston case you demanded that my comments be deleted. You didnt give any reasons other than I should start my own story line If I wished to be critical of Prestons assertions.

You were posting comments under a pseudynom in support of Preston at the same time as you were demanding that my comments be deleted. Not evidence of a great committment to free speech on your part.

by robot Mon Sep 11, 2006 18:56

at this point am excerising my right to silence, since free-speech and self-expression do not fir into the rules
And I'm exercising my right to tell you how rude it is to repeatedly bring up points and then to ignore the explanations that you're given for them. Pretty much every specific complaint that you have raised here has been answered and you've just ignored the answers and repeated them and gone back to complaining about free speech.

by c murray - the unmans Mon Sep 11, 2006 18:40

yes there is a vast difference in the articles.

but thanks for the link, was looking for it for the Mc Dowell piece.

I have spoken to anarchologist, he understood my anger. at this point am excerising
my right to silence, since free-speech and self-expression do not fir into the rules

btw- have defended other's rights in this. so don't (whomever did) accuse me of falsity.

by James Mon Sep 11, 2006 18:13

Chris: I objected to a restructuring editorial interference on a SIB piece,
which re-positioned it from anti-capitalism to rights and freedoms.
I still do.

Chris, the article which you are referring to is here: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76678

As you will see it is still categorised under “anti-capitalism”. It always was, and always will. As was explained to you on the editorial list, you are confusing your article with one on the same topic by Anarchaeologist. It would be helpful if you would follow the link and confirm this for yourself.

Thanks.

Compare and contrast:
Chris Murray’s article on the SIB Bill: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76678
Anarchaeologist’s article on the SIB Bill: http://indymedia.ie/article/76680

by Truth Mon Sep 11, 2006 18:05

Chris why don't you type your comments/articles in a word document and then do a spell and grammar check on them. Trying to read your posts is extremely hard, apart from the aggressive paranoid and false stance that you usually take.

by Chekov Mon Sep 11, 2006 17:56

"Womyn and political structures:- its black and white and red all over"

And the fact that it broke the guidelines is entirely black and white (as detailled above). Why did you simply ignore the explanation that I went to the trouble of writing and simply restate the content-free claim above?

Do you accept that it broke the guidelines?

If so, why do you think that it should have remained?

by c Murray - the unmans Mon Sep 11, 2006 17:55

1. I went with 3 other women to the meeting which raised these issues.
I ststed then and now that a 15 male ed collective was unprecedented.
I am a writer opposed to censorship and discrimination on the basis of
disability. witness the amount of refs to my style or punctuation, am I dsylexic,
dispraxic, disfunctiona;?

I objected to a restructuring editorial interference on a SIB piece,
which re-positioned it from anti-capitalism to rights and freedoms.
I still do.

I am compiling a complaint not a dossier.
it is necessary.

by Tech Hurdler Mon Sep 11, 2006 17:25

I keep on hearing people talking about the "tech barrier". What is it? It seems that most of the job of being an indymedia editor involves clicking buttons that the people that can script/program created, and being able to express oneself in clear english and to read what other people write.

What is this "tech barrier"?

by chris - the unmanageables Mon Sep 11, 2006 17:23

Womyn and political structures:- its black and white and red all over

Erica Turgida:- revisiting the spectre of domestic abuse (subtitle)

as to the unmanageables. we all speak for ourselves, we often disagrre, but there is enough repsect there for disparity of opinion. we step back if we do not agree.

it is a collective of women from different groups. not an organisation with rules. they were anti-patriarchial and suppressed. one fleeting ref to indy which other writers do in other organisations, not interpreted aggressively. read yesterdays observor. women all over the world are complaining about political posturing and maschismo.

by redjade Mon Sep 11, 2006 17:19

Before this discussion gets too out of hand, let me say as one editor among 13, there are NO EDITORS that oppose women from becoming editors.

Absolutely NO ONE has said that women should not be editors
Absolutely NO ONE has blocked anyone from being an editor because they are a woman.
Absolutely NO ONE

What Miriam and Chris M, et al have neglected to mention is that while some women have been rejected or delayed (i hope only delayed) from become editors, there have ALSO BEEN MEN REJECTED AND DELAYED.
[i apologise for my all-caps]

and it is this 'forgetfullness' of Miriam's and Chris M's in 'reporting' their side of the story that is very much at the centre of this current problem.

Yes, there should be women editors.
And there will be - and, unfortunately not soon enough.

by Curious Mon Sep 11, 2006 17:18

Is Chris speaking on behalf of the Unmanageables when she posts on this thread? If not she should leave their name out or put in personal capacity.

by Nurse Mon Sep 11, 2006 17:18

'the tech barrier' ought not to be a barrier at all

that is the whole point

you may not intend it to be discrimination but it is discrimination when you ignore the effect it has on a lot of women (or anyone who aint very technically experienced)

you ignore the substantial contributions made by the women in other ways

this means you are placing techpertise above other forms of committment because that happens to be what you are good at and you think what you do is more important, apparently

it ignores the possibility of different sorts of editor

particiaption should be about the message not the medium, primarily

there is no reason not to train on the 'job' just like most of you did for those who want to learn tech stuff

there is still a lot of useful stuff like troll watching and other housekeeping that can be done

stop citing your volunteer status as a stick with which to beat people who you are at the same time refusing the possibility of helping out on the very things you say you need help with

you cant have it both ways

it may be a lot to ask, but how about writing a self-training module. or perhaps duplicate this site as it is and let learners loose on it (with passwords) so they can experiment with the tech stuff. maybe suggest exercises to do - from simple to less simple - to advanced - to very advanced. let other editors be available to answer specific queries learners might have with these exercises - via the tech list.

these are positive suggestions

most of the positive suggestions this contributor has made have been ignored

by Researcher Mon Sep 11, 2006 17:06

"the IMC research has shown this pehnomenon - the 'loyal' woman who comes out of the woodwork to 'proove' that concerns about sexism must be unfounded' is well known"

Where is this research and what page is this conclusion on? And who are you talkiing about? Who is the woman on the indymedia.ie collective that you talked about in an earlier comment?

by James O'B. Mon Sep 11, 2006 17:00

Iosaf: Now chekov if I suggested "extending the franchise" but not quite in those words - & I am as everyone knows in Barcelona whence I never come to Dublin
How can I explain what I meant at the meeting?

I collated this provisional agenda together and I took the topic of “extending the franchise” from ideas of Seedot and James R not from yourself, as a search through the lists will demonstrate.

Secondly, re blocking of a female editor. In this case one person blocked one nomination and he provided his reasons for it – again it is archived on the lists There was disagreement to be sure and maybe he was wrong, but it is not fair to say that he was alone in his views or without reason. Also, as afaik, that block has been lifted since May. It is worth noting that some men who were proposed as editors were also refused as not fitting the bill at that point. The decisions may have been sexist, but they may also have been fair decisions based on sound reasoning. I’d encourage interested readers to read the publicly available archives before making up their own mind.

by not PC Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:58

I get the impression there is a campaign in motion to get a particular female on the editorial. I agree with having women properly represented on the editorial but only if they are as balanced and competent as any of the other male editors

However I have to say, reading the comments and posts from this particular woman would-be editor, i question her objectivity and balance and in this particular case I would have to side with the "woman hating" (lovely balanced term!) editor who "blocked her"., just as I'd have reservations about a male editor who was not balanced. That's true equality. It's a double edged sword.

Lets have more women on the indy editorial team, but lets not put the wrong ones in for the sake of "tokenism"

No foaming ("man hating" :) radical feminist one issue people. Just normal sensible women who care about many issues, including the rights of women. There are plenty out there. Stand up and be counted ladies.

by Chekov Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:55

"The possibility of sexism among the men is completely denied "

Where?

And can you supply links to substantite your claims about being blocked on these grounds please?

by Truth Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:53

Frankly Chris a lot of your posts and articles should be hidden because they are gibberish. You refuse to use easily understandable punctuation and grammar. You have previously asked for posts to be deleted on the indymedia editorial list on the basis that you were covering a story and somebody had a different opinion then you. Anytime anybody questions or criticises you you call it sexist. You were not in anyway helpfull on the editorial list and your netiquette is terrible.

by dr Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:49

the tech barrier needed to be an editor is just that, it isnt anything to do with your gender.
if being an editor requires you to do html then that is what you need to learn.
there is no barrier to this. if you think there is one then you are just playing into the view that women arent technical. pick up a book and learn it. html tags take about an hour to learn and understand.
you can get any book on html in your local library.
it cant be compared to a company or a corporation position, its a non paying volunteer job.
put in a small bit of effort and help the collective.
learn and educate yourself and help run the website.
people who understand how to make features are needed.
people who can write clearly, coherently, and grammatically correct are needed. their writings generally get turned into features if people can understand them without wondering trying to decipher what a person is trying to say.
(sorry for my lack of punctuation!)
positive contributions are much better than negative ones.

by M Cotton Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:49

No, you're wrong there, Chekov. A certain retired editor, who you know I love very dearly, accused me of sexism when I posted the observation about women and tech expertise. He subsequently referred to it as an additional reason for blocking me when I was proposed as an editor for the second time. Nobody challenged him about that on the list -except me of course.

Witth regard to the other point you make - the IMC research has shown this pehnomenon - the 'loyal' woman who comes out of the woodwork to 'proove' that concerns about sexism must be unfounded' is well known and the examples I gave - there were two - were thought to be classic - the way they were expressed and the rationale given at the time plus their failure to examine the facts of what I and others had been put through before riding into the fray.

One of those women has since privately acknowledged that I was right to challenge the sexism. Again, when I expressed the view that these two women had been disloyal (not as politely as that, of course) I was accused of sexism and you have just walked right into that same loop yourself again. The possibility of sexism among the men is completely denied and, incredibly, thrown back on the very woman who was challenging the sexism in the first place. And then, even more incredibly that further allegation of sexism against me was also used an excuse to block me as an editor. It is so stereotypical of what happens, it should be in text books.

Im stunned by what happened to me and other women in a place where I really thought it couldnt happen. Paual G really should be there by now, too. Its hard to go on working with people who you feel have treated you so unfairly.

by Chekov Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:44

The very first line of the most recent article read as follows:

Today was notable on the newswire for the two sustained attacks on working women politicians, the crucified Harney photographic enhancement seems to have disappeared from the opinion and analysis section.

This alone breaks three guidelines. It refers to a hidden post (guideline 16). It is about editorial actions (guideline 15). And it is a comment on recent articles (guideline 1). You explicitly refered to an article having 'disappeared' and any familiarity with the guidelines would have led you to know that we always remove such content (for very good reason).

Rather than going to the trouble of seeking clarification on the editorial list, you just posted a threat that you were compiling a dossier. You didn't even bother to argue the point that your article was within the guidelines.

by pat c Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:38

You are not being very helpful by posting in unpunctuated sentences.

Also, would you please at least give the titles of the hidden articles and the reasons given for hiding them.

by Chekov Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:37

Iosaf. I don't believe that this woman was actually blocked from joining the list - if she was it was a very serious infraction by whoever carried it out and I for one would like to get to the bottom of it. Can you come up with evidence / details of her being blocked from joining? You will understand that since you have a long track record of spreading inaccurate smears about indymedia.ie and its editors I won't just take your word for it.

I sent these proposals to the editorial list and I intend to propose them at the meetings:

editorial lists
- people must post an introduction before they are allowed to sign up (they
should say why they are participating but do not have to divulge personal details)
- we will elect a group of moderators - wherever possible these moderators
will not be editors

posting rules
- no personal abuse / threats etc.
- it is a working list, all posts should be directly relevant to editorial /
policy matters
- no more than 3 posts in one day on any particular topic / 5 in total
- posts should be formatted according to standard email list norms (links to relevant posts, identifiable replys, no
top-posting, etc)
- it is the responsibility of posters to ensure that they obey the rules, not the moderators.

list abuse
- moderators will apply first a warning. Second a temporary ban, third a
permanent ban
- new subscribers will be on probation for 2 weeks - can be banned instantly
at discretion of moderators.

editors
- end the 'black ball' system of editorial appointment. Something like the
following: new editors need either:
a) 3 approvals and no objections (as currently)
or
b) approvals from 50% +1 of all editors
- introduce a recall mechanism (using similar criteria as to appointment)
- automatic lapse in editorship after one month of non-activity

wider collective
- introduce some sort of electoral college system to give a voice to groups
of contributors, moderators, real world groups, not-dublin groups, etc...

by Another Robot Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:34

Discussion of bullying and other disruptive behaviour, especially on the mailing lists, and specific ways to try and remedy this problem.

by chris - the unmans Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:33

The article was about two men taking on two women from the right.
the other was about domestic violence.

I have had people read them-guess what you made up the guidelines, not me.
they breach nothing put 'em up/

by Another Robot Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:33

Maybe what you see as bullying is merely disagreement. See your own comments below and check out the beam in your own eye.

That's possible. So it'd be really good for people to discuss what constitutes bullying behaviour at the meeting and to come with a way of dealing with it. That way, the individual idiosyncracies of you and me don't get to determine the behaviour that everyone on the list has to put up with.

by Chekov Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:25

iosaf: "How can I explain what I meant at the meeting?"

You can post a proposal to the editorial list as usual with as much explanation as you want. You could also find somebody who agrees with you and who will put forward the position for you. Or you could come up with some other method. Or do you want me to pay for your plane ticket?

chris:

You should know well that our editorial guidelines generally restrict discussion of the guidelines themselves to the lists. Just ignoring this fact and claiming that there is some special censorship going on against you is not at all constructive.

by iosaf Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:24

http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-women
You have to introduce yourself. You also must be a woman, grrrl or womyn. Calling youself "sofia" like i do is not enough. Those who run the women's list are already a bit concerned at irish indymedia users - & irish men pretending to be women - so don't abuse their global space. Ireland has already attracted a bit of attention-

which brings me to another thing I'd like to raise at the moment : a suggestion I made in April on the lists that we ask people to introduce themselves on our lists. The adminstrator said he doubted such a usual indymedia practise would suit indymedia ireland users. Following that indymedia "netiquette" an editor of Barcelona indymedia who is spending increasing time in Dublin and has been making contact with political groups in Ireland since Springtime asked to join the list. She was refused / removed.
The only person to be refused.
We never took any democratic decision to allow such a thing to occur. did we? Who is going to take the responsibility for that? We did talk about removing the druid from the list during the Summer - that's something else. SO at end there are many issues of illegitimate decision making & non democratic behaviour in the indymedia ireland world as it is currently shaped
We ( those who are prepared to work & set up a 2nd or 3rd side will have to deal with all these problems as well. But we're going to start from the very beginning the tabula rasa . Coz Sucking teeth just doesn't work. & then in time we'll have wee little indymedia groups all over Erin.