Sheffield New IMC

This is somewhere to document the progress that Sheffield IMC makes through the global new-imc process, see the NewImcHowTo

Sheffield New Imc Application

On 18 January 2011 Sheffield applied to the global New Imc process.

On 22 January 2011 Jimdog replied to the application email to ask:

We do however wish to ask that something is taken into consideration with your application which we feel stands in the way of a harmonious working relationship, and that is material written within the imc Sheffield area of the docs.indymedia.org wiki here:

https://docs.indymedia.org/Local/ImcUkSheffieldNorthern

https://docs.indymedia.org/Local/ImcUkSheffieldDisinfo

...

We therefore would like to ask once again that a gesture of solidarity is made in the spirit of the principles of unity, and that these documents are removed in their entirety to allow a normal working relationship to exist between our collectives.

To be clear, we are not intending to block this application, this request is made in the spirit of friendship and unity. We are taking the irregular step of cc'ing this request to the new imc list so that people are aware of unresolved issues relevant to the application, but we do not intend to follow this up on a global list.

On 1 Feburary 2011 Chris replied:

This proposal has been discussed and rejected by Sheffield IMC:

Northern IMC's Proposal about the Docs pages, (to remove the two pages and their history from the server at docs.indymedia.org) was rejected by consensus. It was felt that the questions and accusations raised have never been answered, and in the interests of openness it was best to leave the story online.

http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-sheffield/2010-December/1208-6d.html

Also on 1 Feburary 2011 ftp replied:

http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2011-January/0122-lv.html

JimDog wrote :

We therefore would like to ask once again that a gesture of solidarity is made in the spirit of the principles of unity, and that these documents are removed in their entirety to allow a normal working relationship to exist between our collectives.
To be clear, we are not intending to block this application, this request is made in the spirit of friendship and unity. We are taking the irregular step of cc'ing this request to the new imc list so that people are aware of unresolved issues relevant to the application, but we do not intend to follow this up on a global list.

The problem with this request is that its claim of wishing to "offer you our full support both now and in the future" and for "a harmonious working relationship" are not borne out by recent statements from the author on other publicly archived Indymedia lists:

Speaking of a group of imcistas including the author of the documents on the wiki, JimDog writes:

"The question now is what to do with these individuals, since working with them is no longer an option if consensus decision making is not going to be respected. As I see it the options are:

• Do nothing and allow this behaviour to continue
• Ask the global IMC community for these individuals to be excluded from further part in the Indymedia decision making process and it's working groups
• exclude these individuals from further part in Indymedia in the UK but without bringing it to global attention"

http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-northern/2011-January/0123-u1.html

Again, speaking of the same people, he writes:

"I have serious doubts after what has been done that the reputation of indymedia in the UK can ever recover now that a small disgruntled group of the soiled underpants and to foil hat brigade has hit their own self destruct button, and now seem hell bent on bringing the whole global network with them."

http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-northern/2011-January/0125-i0.html

He then goes on to describe the self same group in these terms:

"I agree that indymedia UK is irrelevant, but if the global network lacks the capacity to deal with these Fuckers then is it a project we should be part of."

http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-northern/2011-January/0125-0d.html

Furthermore, whilst denying authorship of the article at http://northern-indymedia.org/articles/1313, which contains these demands:

"The Imc volunteers who participated in this abuse of power and privilege need to be asked to step down. All Indymedia sites have to come up with clear privacy policies. We have to hold those people who are invested with the responsibility, privilege and power over our infrastructure accountable for their actions."

He has called for it to be a feature:

http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2011-January/0127-i9.html

The documents he wish to have removed from the wiki are a collection of links which outline previous behaviour where JimDog has not been "accountable" for his actions, and should he pursue the threats I've outlined above, (which seriously undermine his claims of support and a desire to co-exist harmoniously) would be used to put the matter into context.

If he were to remove the emails linked to above from the northern archives and to apologise for the language he used, his claims of support and a desire to work harmoniously in the future could be taken a little more seriously.

In the meantime I support Sheffield's decision not to delete the wiki pages.

On the same day Bartolomeo wrote:

I understand the request to delete those documents. I think it is a problem if a new IMC starts out with such an infamous legacy of defamatory hate mails neatly organised in a public wiki.

And Chris replied "which emails do you consider to be "hate mails"? Could you point them out?" to which he replied:

I agree, "hate mails" is not the right word, rather "hate pages in a public IMC wiki" - at least from the outside, this looks like an attempt to carve the lines of conflict in stone.

In my opinion, the transparency of the whole conflict is already provided by the public mail archives (although I don't understand how private mails end up in public archives).

I do take the mail by IMC Northern England as a sign that IMC Sheffield won't feel the need to collect any more mails from members of IMC Northern England in a public wiki in the future.

Therefore, I think IMC Sheffield should delete these pages to clear the way for a peaceful coexistence with IMC Northern England.

On 2nd Feb 2011 Nab from Northern replied:

I would suggest that we take this discussion onto our local lists as it is probably more involved than the new-imc list wants to read all about. If we can't resolve it then maybe you need to get a new-imc person to help.

On 21st March 2011 a email which had been agreed at the March Sheffield Indymedia meeting was sent to the list:

It is the consensus of Sheffield IMC that the pages remain, and a process begun to resolve the issue locally. This was discussed again at a meeting last night and is still the position of Sheffield IMC.

Perhaps you should respect the consensus of IMC Sheffield in this matter and trust that we are working to resolve it. An attempt was made to resolve the matter through mediation, Sheffield were willing, but the process was rejected by the other party.

You seem to be taking sides and don't appear objective, those pages exist to document the 'affront' of unfounded accusations and slurs on the hard working members of our collective. Those pages will remain until the parties making those false accusations and slurs account for their actions. This, we feel is reasonable.

On the 5th April Chris sent the following to the list:

Myself and a number of other UK Indymedia activists have endured numerous unsubstantiated public attacks and personal abuse over the last few years from a number of Northern Indymedia activists.

This is on-going, in the last few months we have been called "Fuckers" and refered to as "the soiled underpants and to foil hat brigade" [1], previous baseless accusations have included ones of "personal off-list abuse, spamming and mounting a denial of service attack" [2].

The unsubstantiated allegations have not been withdrawn, explained or apologised for and, as a form of self-defence, I started documenting these attacks on a couple of wiki pages [3].

Attempts at mediation with the people making the unsubstantiated public attacks has failed, most notably when a supporter of IMC Northern started a process in March 2010 [4] which was supported by myself and the others who were suffering from the attacks.

At the Bristol UK Indymedia meeting in April 2010, in reference to this, it was noted that there "is also a mediation process ongoing dealing with more personal issues" [5].

However the two people, from Northern Indymedia, who had been making the bulk of the unsubstantiated public attacks, refused to take part in this process [6].

Sheffield Indymedia has discussed this matter over many meetings, at our meeting in December 2010 we agreed that "the questions and accusations raised have never been answered, and in the interests of openness it was best to leave the story online" [7] and in March 2011 that:

Those pages will remain until the parties making those false accusations and slurs account for their actions. This, we feel is reasonable. [8]

That numerous unsubstantiated attacks on other activists have originated from Northern Indymedia was known at the time of their New IMC application and one of the wiki pages was pointed to [9], yet they passed the process.

There seems no reason therefore, that the two IMC's whos supporters were the victims of the unsubstantiated attacks should have their New IMC applications delayed because Sheffield Indymedia has agreed that the documentation of the attacks from the Northern Indymedia activists shouldn't be deleted.

So, can things please be progressed with the Sheffield Indymedia application, this was submitted on 18th January 2011 [10] and there appears to be no issues raised with it apart from the matter of the wiki pages, but nobody has said they will block because we have chosen to document the attacks we have suffered.

Furthermore can those who think that the Sheffield wiki pages should hold back the progress of the Mayday Indymedia New IMC application please respect the autonomy of Sheffield Indymedia and address your concerns to Sheffield Indymedia not the Mayday Collective.

All the best

Chris

[1] http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2011-February/0213-az.html

[2] https://docs.indymedia.org/Local/ImcUkSheffieldNorthern#Crazy_summer_days

[3] https://docs.indymedia.org/Local/ImcUkSheffieldNorthern https://docs.indymedia.org/Local/ImcUkSheffieldDisinfo

[4] http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-northern/2010-March/0326-69.html http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-northern/2010-March/0326-hw.html

[5] https://we.riseup.net/imc-uk/imc-uk-network-meeting-17-april-2010-minutes#northern-indymedia-new-imc-application

[6] http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-network/2010-July/0712-i1.html http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-network/2010-July/0712-f3.html

[7] http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-sheffield/2010-December/1208-6d.html

[8] http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2011-March/0321-fe.html

[9] http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2010-March/0301-yj.html

[10] http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2011-January/0118-u4.html

There was no response on New IMC to the 5th April 2011 email from Chris, however it did start a thread on the imc-northern list.

This thread was started by Nab on 6th April 2011 and his email about it contained a proposal to block the Sheffield New IMC application:

Northern England would most certainly block any application from sheffield with the wiki still intact.

On 6th April James replied to the proposal to block:

Personally I don't think their application should be blocked even if the wiki remains. TBH it seems petty and childish to make that threat. I think it would be better to just let them go through the process and to stay out of it. I would be willing to put my previous stated reservations aside to attend a meeting and to block the block proposal; that's if I know in which meeting you intend to put such a proposal forward.

Protag replied the same day to point out that:

AFAIK the collective position is as per this email, unless it's changed sometime and I haven't noticed:

http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2011-January/0122-lv.html

"We are writing as a collective... [snippity snip] To be clear, we are not intending to block this application..."

The same day James then asked:

Cheers for the clarification. If this is the case, that as a collective you don't intend to block, then how should I interpret what nab has said? I know what the meetings are like and that things are discussed outside of meetings and that often not everything is minuted in a meeting.

To be more clear, often what is stated in public differs from what is said in private, if I can be allwoed to make such a crude division. What inclines me towards such a line of thought is that Nab's email reads as if he is certain that the block would occur if said demands were not met. I imagine jimdog would share a similar sentiment?

Regardless of the facts for the matter above, and if I assume that the collective's position is as you say, nab's email raises again issues regarding the working practices that I have been trying to get clarification and closure on. This is not the first time that an individual has made a comment with the power of the collective voice which, when questioned as I have done here, has turned out not to be a consensus generated utterance; this, of course, assuming that what you (jen and protag) say is true.

The same day Nab clarified the position regarding a potential block

I made a mistake, Northern's position is in the email protag linked, sorry if that caused confusion. Any indervidual on the new-imc list can raise concerns and I would have to see a very strong change in attitude to stop me raising very similar concerns to Bart.

On the 7th April James replied to Nab:

Nab, stating the consensus decision makign model being used and making known in a salient manner on the site the associated working practices and procedures, is not really that much extra work. In fact the last time this came up it was the case of simply adding a link in the right section, with the strap line 'how we work'? Given that such an act and admission is so fundamental to being able to say 'we are a transparent, consensus based working group', one would think this small task would have been completed by now. If I had access to the web server I would be more than happy to make such changes, but you and I know that such access would never be granted. Please note the words 'access' and 'granted' and what this entails in terms of hierarchies and power differentials.

I would like to add that it is a bit disingenuous of you to say that I "[...] seem to jump at the opportunity to turn up simply to block something!". As you may be aware, when I did attend meetings I disagreed strongly with direction, motives working practices and the mission statement. Indeed, my perspective was that northern should at some point dissolve once more independent local structures had been established and that, given that northern is mainly people from Leeds and Bradford (though this might have changed?), that northern return to being Leeds/Bradford. Did I at any point jump at the oppertunity to block? Did I ever voice a block? The answer is no. Instead I stopped attending and got on with my own activities whilst commenting from the sidelines.

The reason why I would attend a meeting to block is because I feel strongly about the stance you implied in your email. Your email shows me that you are playing the politics game in the same manner that, well, the establishment plays it. It is not only you though, I see politics being played quite a lot within indymedia more generally that, in method and application, are the same type of games played by our local and national politicians. I am not immune here and sometime lapse in to such pettiness. I feel strongly about this lingering conflict particularly as northern (which as a collective could force the issue onto the individuals concerned), refuse any attempt at mediation.

Making the threat that you did to Chris et al is not really a small mistake, if we are to be honest with ourselves. To what extent does that act contribute to the principals of unity? To what extent does refusing to engage in mediation contribute to the principals of unity? The irony here, to my mind at least, is humorous. On the one hand in the email protag linked it is asked, with call to the principals of untiy, that the wiki be removed but at the same time, those asking for such removal refuse to come to the table for mediation. One would think that if such mediation was entered into with a genuine desire for resolution, that this would be the forum through which the wiki could be raised and petitioned to be removed.

Four long paragraphs, I'll stop here.

And the only responce this got was from Protag 21 minutes later:

Too long didn't read.

Can you do this somewhere else? Get a blog, make a wiki?

On 19th April 2011 Chris sent a further email to the list:

On Mon 18-Apr-2011 at 04:58:43PM +0200, Bartolomeo wrote:

mails [1] which suggest to brazenly disregard the New-IMC process:

I'd like to suggest we also attempt to bypass the non-functional new-imc group by asking imc-process to approve us before 1st May.

Is the New IMC group functional?

The Sheffield application [1] was made 4 month ago and although Sheffield Indymedia has been up and running almost 8 years now there has been no progress made with this application as no New IMC member has come forward to be a liaison. The process doesn't appear to be working for Sheffield.

The suggestion to go straight to imc-process was originally made due to fustration with the lack of progress for Indymedia Cairo who didn't have a liasion. their application was submitted on 13th March 2011 [2] and on 7th April they wrote to new-imc:

It seems since no one jumped forward to be our liaison, I see no other way than following the steps ourselves without a "helper", so we will be writing to IMC-Process and IMC-Communication and waiting for their response.

http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2011-April/0407-ou.html

The quote Bart forwarded to the New IMC list was written in this context -- if no progress can be made on new-imc with New IMC applications then perhaps the New IMC process isn't working.

All the best

Chris

[1] http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2011-January/0118-u4.html

[2] http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2011-March/0314-gb.html

On the 4th May 2011 Chris asked in a PS at the end of an email which was about another matter:

Is there any chance of the Sheffield application being progressed?

On 5th May 2011 Chris replied to a email from Jimdog, the email Chris replied to wasn't let through to the list by the moderators:

On Wed 04-May-2011 at 05:02:30PM +0100, JimDog wrote:

Since there is a current proposal on the imc-process list that members of your group be suspended from all access to indymedia resources whilst investigation into the acquisition of all of the UK network assets is taking place, I feel it would be inappropriate to assess the application of Sheffield (consisting primarily of the same members as the mayday collective) at this time, though other members of this working group may feel differently of course.

Can you clarify if you are now blocking the Sheffield IMC New IMC application before we even have a liasion?

Jimdog has yet to clarify if Sheffield's application is to be blocked by him before we even have a liasion.

On 6th May Bart emailed imc-process on behalf of IMC Linksunten proposing a permanent block on ImcMaydayNewImc and Sheffield ever being allowed through the global New IMC process, with a 2 week deadline:

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

[6] http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2011-April/0421-qh.html

[7] https://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/PrinciplesOfUnity

On 9th May 2011 Chris emailed the New IMC list:

The Sheffield New IMC application was submitted to New IMC on 18th January [1], almost 5 months ago. We still have no liasion for this application.

One member of the New IMC working group, Jimdog has said:

I feel it would be inappropriate to assess the application of Sheffield [2]

Another member of the working group has said, on behalf of his IMC:

There have been doubts about the commitment of Mayday and Sheffield collectives to POU6... Therefore we don't think those collectives should become affiliated IMCs. [3]

Is Sheffield Indymedia to take it that there is a consensus on the working group that Sheffield Indymedia should never be allowed to pass through the New IMC process?

If this is the case may we ask by what process we may appeal this decision and by what process this decision was taken?

Or is there a problem with the New IMC process / working group?

On 19th April I asked:

Is the New IMC group functional?

if no progress can be made on new-imc with New IMC applications then perhaps the New IMC process isn't working. [4]

[1] http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2011-January/0118-u4.html

[2] http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2011-May/0505-28.html

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

[4] http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2011-April/0419-l4.html

And a PS:

Ps. Sorry I forgot to mention that we have taken time to document our progress through the New IMC application so that anyone who wished to be take on the liasion role may quickly get upto speed regarding where it has got to:

Sheffield New Imc Application https://docs.indymedia.org/Local/ImcSheffieldNewImc#Sheffield_New_Imc_Application

Jimdog replied the same day:

A proposal has passed consensus on the imc-process list for you and your group (the mayday collective) to hand the DNS entry for indymedia.org.uk to the global dns working group. It is my understanding that most if not all members of the Sheffield collective are also members of the mayday collective. This based on the list archives, though please correct me if I am mistaken.

Another proposal has been made setting out a definitive deadline for this handover to have happened by.

You personally are the person holding this record, and so your actions in the next week will indicate your groups adherence to POU6 which all new imc's must agree to respect.

I repeat my assertion that it would be inappropriate to proceed with this application whilst these very serious matters are still ongoing, and would like to point out that the situation and its resolution is still very much in your own hands.

Again, other members of this working group may have an opinion that differs from mine and I would welcome their input.

To which Chris replied:

On Mon 09-May-2011 at 12:42:17PM +0100, JimDog wrote:

You personally are the person holding this record, and so your actions in the next week will indicate your groups adherence to POU6 which all new imc's must agree to respect.

If Mayday Indymedia complied with your demands then what would happen to the UK Indymedia Newswire?

I expect you will reply, "it can live on another non-indymedia domain name".

To that I would like to point out an email sent in response to the "Indymedia UK Forked" email from London [1], which contained:

it seems to me that the Bradford consensus decision is invalid on two counts if it was the intention, deliberate or otherwise, to expel Group A from the global network.

a) If it was always the intention of the Bradford consensus to denounce Group A and expel its members from the Indymedia network then Group A would never have agreed to this and therefore the so-called "consensus decision" is insecure, or

b) if it was never the intention to excommunicate Group A then the "consensus decision" must also now be invalidated (as moving forward will result in the proscription of Group A), and the global network needs to work quickly to establish the Mayday collective as a new IMC.

I believe that either of the above options calls into question the validity of the decision reached in Bradford.

A fork signifies - by the very image suggested by the implement if nothing else - that two projects would go forward. A fork without two halves is merely a spike, to labour the metaphor. [2]

This email was sent by long standing member of Sheffield Indymedia, who also happens to be a moderator on imc-communication, can you please explain what you consider to be incorrect in this email?

I would also like to ask the New IMC working group if they feel that it is within their remit to, in effect, expel a long running national Indymedia web site from the global network?

Where was a consensus reached to revove the UK Indymedia site from the global Indymedia Network? This is something that was clearly never agreed to.

[1] http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-process/2011-April/0430-n7.html

[2] http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-process/2011-April/0430-cr.html

Jimdog sent a reply to this:

I don't really feel that this list is the appropriate forum for the questions you are asking, I would suggest imc-communication is the place for such a discussion, since the proposal has been made on imc-process not new-imc.

And so did Bart:

I'd like to politely remind you that you agreed to stop flooding this list. Please stop to send further emails to this list for a couple of days to give people a chance to think about your well-thought-out arguments, maybe read a couple of your elaborate features or even work through your well-documented wiki pages and then consider once again if they would like to become your liaison to new-imc and help the Sheffield collective to become an affiliated IMC.

The same day Chip from Sheffield, emailed imc-uk-process:

Subject: [IMC-Process] PROPOSAL: Deadline Sunday 15th May 5.00pm GMT - UK DNS handover
Date: Sun, 08 May 2011 16:32:40 +0100
From: IMC Northern England <imc-northern-contact at lists.indymedia.org>

[...]

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

A few points:

0. http://maydaymedia.org.uk != http://sheffield.indymedia.org.uk

There are a number of people affiliated with Sheffield Indymedia who have no particular affiliation to the Mayday Collective - such as myself. I do not have an active logon to moderate the current implementation of IMC UK.

1. I do not see how denying any active IMC access to "global Indymedia resources" is going to foster an environment in which dialogue can occur to resolve this dispute. Technically, I'm not sure how this can be done effectively - but that's not for me to worry about.

2. I do not see how IMC Sheffield's application to become a new IMC will be assisted by this measure if Mayday members, who also happen to be members of IMC Sheffield, are denied access to the wiki documenting progress (or lack thereof) through the New IMC process [0].

3. In common with Penguin's recent post [1], I intend to work with both the BTM and MD collectives via the media mailing lists with which I am involved (imc-uk-radio, imc-uk-video and imc-audio). For all sides in the dispute I would counsel that 'the best revenge is a life well-lived' - energy is better spent developing radical online content than arguing.

4. For anybody still in doubt as to which side of the fence I sit on regarding the Mayday collective, I took lengthy issue with a number of the protagonists of the then nascent "Group A" nearly five years ago over their stance on 9/11 [2]. My views on the matter are unchanged.

5. However I still hold the view that the "Bradford consensus" was unsound as not all information about Group B's motives was made clear to Group A. Consensus can only be valid when all parties to the agreement have the full set of information in front of them.

[0] https://docs.indymedia.org/Local/ImcSheffieldNewImc#Sheffield_New_Imc_Application

[1] http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-moderation/2011-May/0505-a9.html

[2] http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-sheffield/2006-September/0914-14.html

On 12th May 2011 AB emailed the list:

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

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

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

I have problems with both the proposals. The techie especially has been working hard since 2003 for indymedia putting a whole lot of time, money, energy and resources into the project, especially during times of crisis. I believe denying him server access is a revenge act more than the stated "inability to trust" as neither imc london or imc northern nor any other indymedia site -even imc uk original website - have been changed in any way.

Secondly this is only going to harm the indymedia project as a whole and in particular the people who have now got more workload to do as they have to take over the work from him additionally.

Thirdly, I believe blackmailing somebody into submission is never a good way to solve a dispute, but should be in particular discouraged in what I believed to be progressive, anti-capitalist and alternative politics.

It also seems to me that anybody who is declaring sympathy or membership or support for the mayday collective is also endangered to get sanctioned in a way, therefore creating even fear to voice any supportive opinion within the network.

Fifth I do believe that Imc Birmingham, Imc Sheffield and the Mayday collective with their websites have been valid indymedia projects in all but name only, with Sheffield existing since 2003 and Birmingham at least since about 2005, longer in existance than imc northern and imc linksunten who seem to be now the main dogmatic blockers. Both imc sheffield and imc birmingham collectives believed so much in imc uk project that they never bothered to go through the imc global approval process. To exclude them from imc-process decision- making process and block their approval by new-imc is in my opinion open discrimination.

The following day, 13th May Bart sent a reply which contained:

I was disturbed when I learned that the techie who later stole indymedia.org.uk switched on anti-abuse measures to flag postings from a certain IP without informing his collective, namely IMC UK. But I was shocked when he told me that he believed that the motto "the ends justify the means" was also valid for means that violate consensus decision making if only the ends are important enough. I personally cannot trust him any more as he made this mess deliberately and I certainly don't want to see him in a position in which he has access to private data.

Two days later, 15th May, Chris replied:

On Fri 13-May-2011 at 10:43:22PM +0200, Bartolomeo wrote:

the techie who... switched on anti-abuse measures to flag postings from a certain IP without informing his collective, namely IMC UK.

Could you explain where you heard this from?

I was shocked when he told me that he believed that the motto "the ends justify the means" was also valid for means that violate consensus decision making if only the ends are important enough.

What evidence do you have to substiantiate this?

To which Bart replied that day

the techie who... switched on anti-abuse measures to flag postings from a certain IP without informing his collective, namely IMC UK.

Could you explain where you heard this from?

you told me on 13.01.2011, 13:35 CET.

On 17th May Chris replied:

On Sun 15-May-2011 at 08:54:21PM +0200, Bartolomeo wrote:

the techie who... switched on anti-abuse measures to flag postings from a certain IP without informing his collective, namely IMC UK.

Could you explain where you heard this from?

you told me on 13.01.2011, 13:35 CET.

Sorry, you seem to have misunderstood the question, I'll try again.

Where did you hear from, that filters were installed for the Police gateways, without the collective being informed?

You have also not answered my other question:

On Fri 13-May-2011 at 10:43:22PM +0200, Bartolomeo wrote:

I was shocked when he told me that he believed that the motto "the ends justify the means" was also valid for means that violate consensus decision making if only the ends are important enough.

What evidence do you have to substiantiate this?

Bart replied the same day:

I've already answered all your questions. You can find the answers by reading the public archives of this list. I won't discuss anything with you as you have stolen from your comrades. Now unsubscribe from this mailing list as you are part of the Mayday collective which has no longer the right to use Indymedia resources.

To which Chris replied:

On Tue 17-May-2011 at 10:52:50AM +0200, Bartolomeo wrote:

I've already answered all your questions.

No you haven't. the questions you haven't answered are in this email:

• http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2011-May/0517-95.html

You can find the answers by reading the public archives of this list.

No I can't.

Where did I claim that "the ends justify the means"?

And which email on the New IMC list well tell me why you think the UK Collective was unaware that the Police 303 posts were being filtered?

Who could claim this when an internal note was left in the Mir admin interface at the time they were added:

  id:           656 
  date:         2009-06-24 11:07 
  title:        netcu filters
  text:         a load of flagging filters have been set
                for uk govt gateways to catch the netcu 
                trolls

https://publish.archive.indymedia.org.uk/mayday/servlet/Mir?module=Message&do=edit&id=656 https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/mayday/servlet/Mir?module=Message&do=edit&id=656

The first match for the filters was 2 days later when they caught the police blatently acting like agent provocateurs, see this comment for more on this story:

• An anecdote http://sheffield.indymedia.org.uk/2011/01/472575.html?c=on#c263459

The filters left notes like this in the admin interface, which all site admins could read, this is the one for the Miliband article:

  2009-06-26 07:29 netcu gateway-303.energis.gsi.gov.uk

https://publish.archive.indymedia.org.uk/mayday/servlet/Mir?module=Content&do=edit&id=433178 https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/mayday/servlet/Mir?module=Content&do=edit&id=433178

So all admins could see what was happening, furthermore it was discussed at every netwwork meeting as I recall and also there was a thread about it on imc-uk-legal list starting in August 2009 -- 2 months after the filters were put in place.

There is a lot more I could say about the history of the filters and their use and misuse by IMC UK, but perhaps this email and my previous ones are enough?

• http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2011-April/0419-2k.html
• http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2011-April/0419-lr.html

Now unsubscribe from this mailing list as you are part of the Mayday collective which has no longer the right to use Indymedia resources.

Am I to understand that I have been in effect expelled from the global Indymedia network? If this is the case could you tell me what the proceedure is to appeal this expulsion?

The same day AB responded:

imc uk domain -ip logging

chris could not have "stolen" from his comrades as he paid for the domain for the last 8 years or so. Legally speaking thats not the correct term for stealing at all.

Anybody who has/had editorial access to imc uk has been aware of temporary ip logging or filters within imc uk. These anti-abuse measures have been working since 2003 since when we used the system, but could be switched on and off, with notification given on the internal editorial notice board and have been administered collectively with collective responsibility.

Now Bart could you apologise to chris please! After then Bartolomeo, you can unsubscribe for all the lies and unsubstantiated accusations you throw around!

And for the global war between indymedias which is your fault as you have been blocking the mayday application all alone.

Certainly it seems you do not even have a collective but are running imc linksunten all alone according to your email list. According to the new rules by Jim Dog that he has been introducing to enforce the close-down of imc york,leeds, manchester, that does not constitute a collective so you can not be a representative on a global list nor propose or block any decisions. I mean totally narrow-mindedly and bureaucratically speaking as you and Jim Dog are experts in this.

Pre-organising steps

There are some pre-organising steps on the NewImcHowTo#NEW_IMC_PROCESS_HOW_IT_WORKS and although Sheffield IMC has been working as a collective for some time already there are some things that should be done.

Makeup of the collective

Ask yourselves these questions:

(1A) How does the makeup of your collective reflect the diversity of the local community (e.g. in realtion to gender-, sexual-, spiritual-, and/or cultural-identity)?

(1B) If your group currently does not represent the diversity of the local community, particularly in relation to groups who are underrepresented in mainstream society and denied access to vehicles of expression, what steps will be taken to address this on an ongoing basis?

(1C) What steps will be taken to involve individuals in workfields new to them? What measures will be taken to overcome a gendered work division?

Network documents

We have read through the NewImcHowTo#PROVISIONAL_IMC_NETWORK_DOCUMENT

New IMC application form

We have completed the the NewIMCForm (see the notes NewIMCFormEn) and submitted it on 18 January 2011.

Proposed IMC Name (required)

Sheffield

Proposed Indymedia URL (required)

http://sheffield.indymedia.org/

Current URL (if any)

http://sheffield.indymedia.org.uk/

City

Sheffield

State/Province

South Yorkshire

Country

UK

Contact Name (required)

Sheffield Indymedia

Email (required)

sheffield@indymedia.org

Phone

Technical Contact Name

Chris

Email

chrisc@indymedia.org

Phone

Regional Focus?

yes

Issue Focus?

no

Event Focus?

no

Critical Dates?

none

Supporting Groups

• Alt-Sheff
• Sheffield Anarchist Federation
• Sheffield Communist Discussion Group
• Sheffield Humanist Society
• Sheffield Social Centre Collective
• Sheffield Anarchist Feminist Network
• We Want Our Buses Back
• Sheffield Animal Friends
• Sheffield Campaign against Climate Change
• We Love the Earth Centre
• Rotherham Anarchist Pixies
• Regather Co-operative

Please write an introductory statement about why you want to participate in the Indymedia Network.

To provide an alternative to the national and local corporate media.

To support people striving for social change in our communities by providing information and coverage that illuminates rather than diminishes the actions taken by people in local communities.

To support the wider global anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, class struggle movement.

To provide a means through which links can be made from local to national and global issues; and for global issues to be distilled into local perspectives.

To bring a DIY perspective to the communicating of news and stories in our communities and enable this communication to be, as far as possible, unmediated - speaking for ourselves to each other.

To maintain the radical history of Sheffield and enhance the radical future.

To be a resource that facilitates communication between local groups, and a means through which groups with common goals can make links.

What kind of resources can you contribute, in terms of server/bandwidth/technical and organizing skills?

Activists from Sheffield IMC are involved in various UK and global activist tech projects including a status.net site for interfacing with corporate social media sites.

What kind of outreach have you done to bring together a diverse group of people?

Open meetings are held once a month, see http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/ImcUkSheffieldMeetings for the dates. There is a a open email list http://lists.indymedia.org/imc-sheffield which has around 50 members. Outreach flyers, stalls and screenings have also been used.

Produced flyers and stickers that encourage people to be a part of Indymedia and how to access and use the website, see http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/ImcUkSheffieldLeaflets and a new one we have a lot of copied of that isn't on the web site.

We haven't found time to document all the recent local outreach with local campaigns, which has included coverage of actions like the student protests and the recordings of meeting but all of this can be found on the web site. We have also been doing international audio outreach on The A-Infos Radio Project http://radio4all.net/index.php/search/?searchtext=sheffield+indymedia working with http://ecoshock.org/ and http://unwelcomeguests.net/ . Following is an list put together in 2006 when we started preparing this form for submission:

Outreach stalls at community festivals including:

Sharrow Festival

Abbeyfield Festival (from which we did live streaming of the event)

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2004/07/294713.html

Peace in the Park

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2003/06/272982.html

Presented IMC Radio shows during Sheffield's community radio 'Sheffield Live' on FM season.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2003/07/274250.html http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2004/07/294206.html

Supported the Sheffield Social Forum Launch by providing access to (and help with) indymedia website at the event.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2004/03/287906.html

Supported Sheffield PSC event with live streaming.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2004/11/301286.html

Supported Women Against Pit Closures, providing technical equipment and support for their event.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2004/09/298268.html

Hosted radical media/film nights:

Lost Film Festival

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2003/10/279757.html

SchNews

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2004/04/289828.html

Alternative Documentary Festival

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2004/10/300316.html $ Alt Doc Fest 2005

Film and artwork from the Balata Refuge camp

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2004/04/288526.html

Argentinan film night on the struggles at the Brukman textiles factory

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2004/02/285982.html

Screened Bhopal Express to raise funds for the Bophal Medical Appeal

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2004/12/302255.html

Screened 4th World War to coincide with the global mayday events

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2004/04/290153.html

Screened Uncovered the war in Iraq

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/10/325576.html

We Still Ride film screening with discussion with the directors

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2005/08/321861.html

Screened Zapatista films

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2005/11/327464.html

Films From the Frontlines Second Annual Documentary Film Festival

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2005/11/328184.html $ Summer of Truth $ Free School PSYWAR screening

The coverage of stories and issues aims to reach across all social struggles in Sheffield. For example we have covered and supported:

Local striking bus drivers

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2004/07/295498.html

Naseh Ghafor, a resident of who was on hunger strike to oppose his deportation to Iraq

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2004/08/296115.html

Nine ladies anti-quarry protest site and campaign

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2004/03/287954.html

Coverage of actions against loan sharks

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2004/05/290280.html

Skill sharing through assisiting hosting of Aktivix

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2004/08/295889.html

Supported the Anti-G8 actions and convergence centre in Sheffield with coverage of actions and provision of an media centre at the convergence centre

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2005/06/313578.html

Supported local family fighting deportation to Afghanistan

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2006/01/331000.html

Communities fighting for better bus services and for public control of them

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2005/11/328380.html $ Anarchist Book Fair 2010 $ Sheffield Palestine Solidarity Campaign $ Sheffield Humanists

Sheffield IMC were involved in the starting up the Matilda Social Centre, http://matilda.altivix.org/

The group actively contacts local campaign groups who may not be aware of Indymedia and help them contribute articles and newsire items. For example Parkwood community fight against landfill sites extensions; http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2005/05/310733.html ; families fighting the installation of a phone mast http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2004/10/298549.html

How does the makeup of your collective reflect the diversity of the local community (e.g. in realtion to gender-, sexual-, spiritual-, and/or cultural-identity)?

It doesn't much in terms of the people regularly attending meetings and hosting events (4-6 people). The diversity of the open email list is far greater.

If your group currently does not represent the diversity of the local community, particularly in relation to groups who are underrepresented in mainstream society and denied access to vehicles of expression, what steps will be taken to address this on an ongoing basis?

We will continue to cover stories of people fighting against deportations and others who's stories are not told by the corporate / mainstream media.

We will continue to do outreach to those who are under represented by the corporate / mainstream media, including working on making the site accessible to mobile devices to encourage younger activists who use corporate social media sites.

What steps will be taken to involve individuals in workfields new to them? What measures will be taken to overcome a gendered work division?

We have organised skill sharing sessions in the past and will put on more in the future. Eg. online activist security workshops at Sheffield Social Centre Free School Event 2010 and at Anarchist Book Fair 2010

Organising

The second section of the NewImcHowTo#NEW_IMC_PROCESS_HOW_IT_WORKS has 11 steps and we are on step 9.

Mission Statment

SheffieldMissionStatement is the Mission Statment as agreed at the Sheffield Indymedia meeting held on 23rd May 2005.

Editorial Policy

ImcUkSheffieldEditorial is the editorial policy and it was last amended at a meeting on 26th November 2010.

Membership Criteria

We need to reply to each of the MembershipCriteria points see ImcSheffieldMembershipCriteriaResponse

Principles of Unity

We need to confirm that we agreed with the PrinciplesOfUnity see ImcSheffieldPrinciplesOfUnity