Portland IMC Responds to SF Indymedia Conflict

Can you tell us, the local readers of PDX Indymedia, more about this?

i dont understand whats going on.
is there anything else to this story?
ive read it 3 time and i dont think there is enough information

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/01/277978.shtml

The problem with dissent, is the fact that there is no unity of spirit. Ashcroft and the rulers of darkness love it when we scratch each other's eyes out.

It is, at best, politically inastute for any activist to draw conclusions from, and/or base actions upon, hearsay.

For journalists, it is inexcusable.

People who can't distinguish between fact and hearsay has no business trying to pass themself off as journalists. They aren't qualified.

We may not have every possible fact that is relevant to the dispute in question, afterall, we don't live in SF. But what we do know is disturbing, and it's highly appropriate that we make our views known on what has every appearance of being a very unfortunate abuse of power. Unfortunately, the person who is most implicated in this abuse has been fairly cagey, so we don't really know all the facts and extenuating circumstances that they might adduce to justify their actions. But here's what we know, and why we felt it justified and necessary to speak up:

One person in San Francisco had a dispute with another person, who apparently was once their significant other with whom they'd broken up. Both were involved in imc there. The breakup was ugly, and one of the parties decided they were unwilling to work in imc as long as the other was also participating. This person then took control of the servers, simply because they had it in their power to do so, locking out both most of the others in the collective, as well as other uninvolved bystanders who were also using the same resources. This person also shepherded their own application to form a new imc through the new-imc process, acting as their own sponsor, a clear conflict of interest.

Why are we speaking up now? Because we are afraid that an abuse of power is about to be made a fait accompli without any adverses consequences for the one committing the abuse, in the face of the silence and acquiescence of other people in indymedia. This raises profound questions about our ability to advocate fairness and justice in the world, if we can't even insist on fairness and justice in our own ranks.

All we are asking for is that the status quo ante should be respected, and that the splitup of SF-IMC into two collectives be put on hold, until these important concerns are satisfactorily addressed. After this has occurred, and a fair and impartial consideration has been given to these concerns by the new-imc working group, we will respect whatever conclusions they come to.

We may not have every possible fact that is relevant to the dispute in question, afterall, we don't live in SF. But what we do know is disturbing, and it's highly appropriate that we make our views known on what has every appearance of being a very unfortunate abuse of power. Unfortunately, the person who is most implicated in this abuse has been fairly cagey

This is total absurdity! Not only do you not live in San Francisco, but you also apparently do not know any of the people involved, you don't even know what the story is, you don't even know what the SFBAY side of the story is! You honestly expect to base your decision on splitting Global Indymedia by not recognizing a legitimate IMC that went through new-imc process, imc-process without any dissent by anyone globally (not even the SFBAY people, who enthusiastically supported it because they consensed on the expansion) ... you base this on some ridiculous story about a dispute between two people who were breaking up? What about me? What about all the other people involved who aren't part of this supposed "relationship spat"? My decision to go with SF-IMC rather than SFBAY is based on their complete failure to respect consensus process which led to months of a fractured Indymedia. The expansion was the best and only solution to keep Indymedia going in the Bay Area. Where is your consideration of this? Where do you even MENTION this? Or do you just "not know" and thus you make broad announcements across Global IMC?

I'm sorry, Portland IMC is a shame on everyone. Stole a server? Come on. Get the facts first, then open your mouth later. You'll get more respect that way. Until then, Portland IMC is a disgrace to the Indymedia network and everyone should be made aware of it.

I applaud in the strongest way the actions of Portland IMC. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR SHARING SOLIDARITY WITH THE WOMEN OF IMC AND INDYBAY! As a regular contributor to PDX imc I was nervous that we would do nothing to support indybay. As I have stated earlier I have worked with the folks of Indybay but I have not worked with SF. Therefore I can not vouch for SF. I don't think that anyone in PDX can but being an active collective we can vouch for Indybay. I believe this is why you all made the descion that you did.

I, for one, hope that other collectives will follow suit and also implement this policy. A collective that is so destructive as to disable two radio stations, upset indy book distributors and generally censor important news (election night radio) should be heavily watched. Especailly one in which women are being pushed around. It is amazing to me that PDX indymedia responded so well but decided to make a collective descion on this before posting it. I think your actions are well done, very thoughful, and i hope that we will continue to work with indybay to the highest extent working to rebuild them into a stronger news source than ever!!!

Indybay, you rock! And you have shown great patience in the face of slander, doubts, misdeeds, and assault! You continue to do great work and your page looks better than ever! Thanks for the perserverence and continuing your great volunteer work!

Maybe I can find a The Daily Poetry Movement that would suit you and your struggle. : )

It takes a lot of guts to use your real name and come out and sign a letter detailing your concerns publicly. I know some of the people who have signed their names to the letter. They don't seem like airheads or trouble makers to me. They seem like worthy people, and it's hard for me to believe that their concerns are all hot air. I haven't yet seen the people associated with sf-imc yet be willing to reply to this with their real names in a respectful manner. This is troubling. I get a sense that the campaign on their behalf is all anonymous and unaccountable. I hope I'm proven wrong.

Why don't you tell your side of the story, then?

"You honestly expect to base your decision on splitting Global Indymedia by not recognizing a legitimate IMC that went through new-imc process, imc-process without any dissent by anyone globally (not even the SFBAY people, who enthusiastically supported it because they consensed on the expansion)"

Looking at the mediation agreement ( link to lists.indymedia.org) in Section 1, a), regarding sf.indymedia.org's new imc application, it appears that Gekked's group was preparing themselves to fasttrack the application: "The SF Bay Area IMC will not block or impede their new IMC application, and the new IMC will be recognized by the SF Bay Area IMC."

"Stole a server? Come on. Get the facts first, then open your mouth later. You'll get more respect that way."

As you can read on indybay.org's open letter ( link to lists.indymedia.org):
"Also, immediately after the mediation, they locked out the group that was now sfbay.indymedia.org (indybay.org) from access to sf.indymedia.org. In combination, these actions left the rest of the group without a website for over a month."

Stir the shit!

more scandal!

more disunity!

take it to a higher level!

lets have the whole network taking sides. I know both groups have partisans. maybe we can have a global split.

seriously, folks, let it sit a while and lets see if something can get mediated.

in the long run, the situation with two similarly branded groups in one area is inherently unstable.

just back off.

In the past year there have been reports of people at a Frisco "indymedia" site siccing the Feds on posters with whom they disagreed. Does anyone know which of the two Frisco sites engaged in this behavior? Also there were statements from Frisco drones along the lines of "I'll delete any post I don't agree with", somewhat like the censorship discussions about the drones here but a lot worse.

Personally am completely ignorant about who did or said what to whom on SF/SFBAY and honestly don't give a fuck. There is too much else going on in the world to waste time with petty disputes between activists. For people outside of SF (Humboldt, Mendo, Sac Valley, etc.) dependent on SF IMC, this split is confusing and frustrating..

Am not going to take sides with one or the other, would like to see the conflict resolved soon. Other people depend on SF/SFBAY IMC for info and news..

Glad that Portland IMC is taking a stance and calling for an end to the rift in SF/SFBAY. We need an alternative media that is reliable and not consuming itself with petty bickering about who knows what..

Indymedia activists here in Portland, myself included, have made a statement expressing what they feel regarding the situation. Quite a bit of deliberation went into it. You all are free to carry on as you will. Portland has no power, nor wishes to have any power to enforce any future path upon the SF indymedia community. That said, any individual is free to express themselves regarding the actions of others and so pdx indy activists have done so.

Personally, I think it a wrong choice to have two imc websites in one urban area. Especially since there is no positive reason to do it. Doing so out of reaction and inability to work together is a failure, and a loss. Doing so because of ego plays and misuse of power should raise the question of whether such misuse should readily be recognized.

New-IMC process was fast tracked through. There are stories from people involved saying that they were locked out of admin, that resources are being used as a means of exerting control, that important posts were hidden simply because of the personal conflicts between the controllers of admin and the person posting who was then locked out. This is betraying the work, which should take precedent over such conflicts.

New-IMC process for the new SF-IMC was pushed through with the person who many allegations have been made against being the one sponsoring it! Here is the person sponsoring who is in part, supposed to raise such questions. No such questions were asked. After the fact, New-IMC process people have themselves recognized this conflict of interest. This is not just people in Portland saying so.

I believe there should be some consideration of what is good for furthering this work and some justification made for two sites. Some justification that addresses a positive vision of how it will enhance the work of making a stronger activist resource and a better world. In developing such a resource as an IMC of the stature of SF, there then comes a responsibility that is bigger than the egos of a few people. In the tension of 'he did this, she did that' conflict, is this greater vision being forgotten?

Is justice being served? Is truth being heard? Is the course, set by the power games of a few individuals, really the right choice for the broader SF Bay indymedia community and all the activists in other organizations who use these resources?

I believe it is my responsibility to voice my concerns in these regards, just like it is my responsibility to voice my concerns regarding US Imperialism. I stand by the statement collectively issued by Portland IMC activists.

"I applaud in the strongest way the actions of Portland IMC. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR SHARING SOLIDARITY WITH THE WOMEN OF IMC AND INDYBAY!"

As a womyn of IMC I am greatly offended by the generalization that the womyn of IMC stands in solidarity with pdx.

"Indybay, you rock! And you have shown great patience in the face of slander, doubts, misdeeds, and assault!"

Indybay - you rock the integrity of IMCistas, You have shown great pettiness in the face of truth, conflict, and responsibility.

The fact the pdx and indybay have posted globally on IMC's thir issue and stance Is sickening. Newswire is not the place for this discussion.

It has infected the the global network.
Read up on COINTELPRO - thir is a patern within the IMC network -

The only thing that matters is whether we do what makes us stronger. A process that fails to hold people accountable for their actions, especially when it comes to taking control of a server, and refusing to even question such actions is a failed process in my opinion. We need to make something that is stronger and that is what this statement encourages. There is no need to take this personally. The individuals involved are not what concerns me (and I won't speak for others). I'm not interested in portraying one group as "good guys" and the other as "bad guys". The questions and issues raised by this statement are specific to the actions taken, not the people. We need to know that people in positions of power (like those with the power to lock people out of servers) are going to be accountable for their actions, and at the very least will offer a justification for why they chose a particular course of action. There's nothing wrong if others do not agree, and there is nothing wrong with admitting mistakes were made, and there is also nothing wrong with deciding that a split is the best course of action. But we should consider that there is something wrong with allowing a couple of individuals to decide the course of action through wielding the power that they hold.

This doesn't have to be ugliness, it doesn't have to be arguing, it doesn't have to be worrying about a split. It can be a rational discussion with the understanding that all that are contributing to indymedia as a tactic have something positive to offer and finding those ways of interacting that make us impervious to infiltration and provocateurism. Consider that the actions taken by the individuals composing sf-imc (who I'm sure are just doing what they think is best) taken without protest or even questioning have shown how easy it would be to split an IMC. Shouldn't we be stronger than that, if not to change the situation in sf, then to at least to prevent something like this from happening in the future?

It would be nice to hear the facts from both sides. Not insenuation or pointers to the facts, but the blow by blow from both sides, in detail.

I think there are much more important things to be focusing social justice effort on, but if there was a violation of unity here. It should be nipped in the bud. It could be worse than just backing off. Hard to say.

People from both sides should speak up clearly, in detail, and 100% truthfully so this will be finished. Admitting their failures and successes.

Although we generally oppose the willy-nilly reposting of content onto multiple sites, in this case, we felt the situation in San Francisco to be exceptional, and to warrant a timely, widely distributed statement, because we felt that, otherwise, a wrong within the broad IMC community's ranks could not be righted, and would silently become a fait accompli without the pressure of widely publicizing our stance on the matter. The rules against reposting content carelessly to multiple IMCs and the principle of not meddling in the affairs of other autonomous IMCs still stand, but there are occasions, when even more fundamental principles are at stake, where we maintain that these rules have exceptions.

[Disclaimer: Please note that none of my statements, notwithstanding my use of the pronoun "we" here, are official. These comments are NOT officially consensed statements by pdx imc people, only my interpretation of the sentiments of we share. Others may see things differently.]

...they should be happy about this statement. It gives them a legitimate chance to explain their actions and their side of the story to those who may doubt them - something they have been reluctant to do up until this point. If SF IMC is truly justified in their actions, as they have claimed, then there is no reason for them to find this statement so threatening. It creates an opportunity for their voice to be heard, for them to be seen as accountable, and for their IMC to be re-recognized in a way that is transparent and that no other IMC could question in the future. Isn't this what they would want?
The more I see SF attack this statement and PDX rather than using it as an opportunity to accomplish these things, the more I have to wonder about their motives. Do they really want to have their voice heard and be seen as legitimate, or do they want to keep everything quiet and swept under the rug until it all blows over so that their actions never have to be justified? I think how they proceed from this point on will answer those questions for me. And I truly hope that SF can use this as a chance to build something legitimate and positive.

Please remove the link to the Hawaii IMC site. I think that site is dead (RIP), but at any rate, the link takes me to a casino site. Thanks.

1) Everyone in SFBAY and SFIMC consensed to split the group.
2) Everyone in SFBAY and SFIMC consensed that Gek would be the new-imc liaison.
3) At the 2nd mediation meeting, everyone consensed that the server situation would not affect the split. At no time did anyone make any decision regarding the server that was not directly from consensus process.
4) All of this is backed up extensively by mailing list archives.
5) Portland IMC did not bother to find these things out before making their statement.

Unfortunately as a SF bayarea based person with ties to indymedia, this split is very hard to be around. It is tearing people apart both literally and figuratively. Each side has their own rationalized victim mentality. But the SF breakaway group is still holding power over the original collective. Until they make ends to end this, like give Indybay the URLs and create a link (acknowledge Indybay's existance), this conflict is just going to go on and on. Somebody needs to step up and end this, and let each collectiv get back to what they do best.

Thanks for the heads up.

COINTELPRO was never statements made publicly, discussed publicly, and proven or disproven publicly.

COINTELPRO was always poison-pen letters, private evidence, accusations made in 'confidence', laundry not washed in public -- indeed never washed, never discussed, never proven.

Those who survived COINTELPRO have often remarked that, if only someobody had said something, the betrayals were so flimsy as to disintegrate upon examination. As indeed they eventually did.

The oppressors' agents work in darkness.


One SF group has made fairly specific statements and accusations, in public, where they can be challenged. They may be false or deluded; however, they have given me the possibility to test their claims. They have also attached their names and reputations to their statements.

Others have, at best, declared that I do not understand; and they have assured that I continue not to understand. For example, "The Facts" posted above at 16.Jan.2004 13:13 does not include any facts not posted in the 'Bay Area' "Open Letter", nor does it address any charges made therein.


Those, who raise the spectre of COINTELPRO against honest inquiry, ask us to put out the light.

SFIMC has put out a proposal that aims to end this conflict, addresses BOTH SIDES of the conflict's concerns (instead of just one side), and they are doing it through acceptable process means, not spamming every single website and mailing list they can find. I applaud SFIMC for this -- if someone had trashed my name on every single IMC, I don't think I would be so nice in return. Let's hope that SFBAY goes along with this proposal rather than creating more conflict in the global network. As for Portland IMC, I think it is terrible that they would jump to take sides in this without getting all the facts first.

sf-imc person/sfimc activist, we did in fact talk to many people from both sf-imc and indybay and discussed the matter extensively and worked diligantly on this stament. We know all of the facts you pointed out and much more that you've chosen to omit. Of course, point 5 is a baseless accusation, but I'm sure you're just upset with this statement. Don't take it personally, and look for ways in which you can respond to calls of accountability. As most people that have studied power relationships can tell you, once an individual or group has exercised their power over another individual or group talking about what is consensed to after that point is highly questionable. That doesn't mean that the course of action was a bad one, only that we need to have some mechanism from preventing anyone with a server password from locking out everyone else and assuming control of an imc. What's done is done and I for one am not interested in dealing with egos. The question for all sf-imc poeple is how do they want to move forward from here. It seems fairly easy to simply provide a justification for the actions that were taken and present it to the larger community. Perhaps to listen to the concerns that an individual who was involved in assuming control of an imc was also allowed to be his own sponsor in the new-imc process and address them. There is much that can be done and we'll all be that much better for it.

If we all truly want peace, we must start with sustaining the peace within ourselves.

Thank you for the fix. Glad to see that our Hawaii brothers and sisters are still getting it done. Is there a way for you to spread the message to the other IMCs? I noticed that global has the same problem.

Uh, these have been sent out to the lists. This has been discussed ad nauseum for 9 months now. For instance, the server move was a decision made collectively by imc-sf-tech, it was consensed to on that list, with a solild consensus minus one structure. It was all done in the open, on a list with open archives, all still there for anyone to look at. The problem is that SFBAY people want to get their own way even when the fair process we all agreed to doesnt go their way. Dealing with consensus process or any process means that you accept the fairness of it and move on.

As for anything else, there is a reconciliation proposal by SFIMC on the floor. As people who have dealt with this for almost a year now, we want to be done and get back to doing indymedia work. We already are doing that, and Portland coming in out of nowhere, asserting an opinion without knowing everything is nuts and isnt productive to anyone.

You may think you know all the facts, but who did you talk to? For SFIMC, I know you sent 2-3 emails to Gek and that's it. What about the rest of the people in SFIMC? Did you talk with them? What about the people in SFIMC who can't afford to get on email every day, did you talk with them?

The best solution right now is that SFBAY agrees to the proposal outstanding and we can all get on with our lives. Arguing about all this shit all over again is nothing but destructive.

It's interesting that the sf-imc people don't seem to deny that they effectively hijacked a server. It's good I suppose that they are not resorting to lying, but by their omission it does seem like a serious breach of trust occurred. In any activist organization in which I've worked these issues must always be called out and addressed. People always get defensive but the best thing you can do is keep treating them with respect while staying true to yourself and your principles. I have faith that whatever happens in this resolution it will be for the best. Good luck and best wishes to all.

If you "knew all these facts," I'm curious how you can still write what is in your statement. Is Portland IMC against consensus-made decisions?

As stated on global mailing lists:
1) The entire SFIMC group consensed to move the server.
2) The entire SFIMC group consensed that some people would work on this project.
3) The SFIMC Tech group consensed on moving the server, using consensus minus one, with no blocks.
4) The server was moved.
5) Ultimately, the entire SFIMC group had jurisdiction over the server.
6) Any consensed-upon decision was respected by imc-sf-tech, as always.
7) At the 2nd mediation meeting, it was consensed and re-affirmed that imc-sf-tech would respect consensus decisions of the larger group.
8) This was never violated.

These are the facts.

Do people have a problem with process? Would you care to explain why decisions made through accepted process are to be overturned? Is it whoever yells the loudest or spams the most sites who wins? Or does process win?

I don't think the point being raised is whether or not consensus was reached, but whether it was valid.

Can consensus be considered valid if one party is wielding power over another?

I can walk into any consensus based group with a gun and have a good chance of gettin gall my ideas consensed to; would those decisions be valid?

Be straight with people sf, did you guys really lock everyone out of the server prior to the split? If yes, than provide your justification. If not explain where the misunderstanding comes from.

I see, thats easy, consensus is void depending on how people "feel" months afterwards? Please.

Of course, the case could easily be made that SFIMC people felt physically threatened by the power held against them -- in the form of harrassment at their work and home, physical intimidation, etc. Where does that figure in?

And no, no one was "locked out of a server" ... in fact, SFBAY got the database, all the files they need, etc without any intervention from us whatsoever. How is this possible if they were "locked out of the server" with no power whatsoever? Again, its just bullshit being used to create conflict and you Portland IMC people bought it lock, stock and barrel.

That server is wide open with people from all over the world who have root access on it. If anything shady were to happen (which it didnt), any number of lists could be petitioned to rectify it: imc-tech, imc-sysadmin, etc. But the fact is that never happened. They got everything. Any number of people have full root access on that box from all over the world, South America, Europe, etc.

So again, its hard to stomach that anything wrong occurred. Everything was within consensus, with MANY checks and balances available if group consensus was violated, which never happened anyway. Now months later, Portland IMC has an opinion on a hypothetical situation which might have happened in the past which actually didnt?

Amazing.

it is not true that the sf-imc consensed to move the server. when concerns were brought up that our server was to be taken care of by a new sf-active global tech working group thereby removing it from local control, the group was told by gekked that it would not be discussed with the entire collective and it was not the entire collectives decision to make, and that it was only an sf-imc tech working group decision to make.

also, admin access to sf.indymedia.org was taken away from those of us that are now with sfbay-imc *before* we even had a site up and running (contrary to our agreement). and when we posted comments on sf.indymedia.org in protest of what was happening, or trying to explain that the editorial collective that was updating sf.indymedia.org was no longer the same people, our comments were deleted from the site by sf.indymedia.org admins.

1. SFIMC did, in fact, consense to move the server from a donation we had in Oakland, California. It was intended to be moved to Hurricane Electric. Unfortunately, one member of SFBAY decided that the person we were receiving a donation from was "interested" in another member of the group. She then proceeded to harrass this person until she was no longer interested in working with the group. She also instigated this woman's ex who is violent with women to go after her, even going so far as to meet in person with this violent ex.

2. Undeterred by these actions which should exclude someone from participation in Indymedia, the tech group found another place that met the same criteria: it was a free donation at Hurricane Electric.

3. The imc-sf-tech group agreed to this proposal. This proposal was brought to a general meeting, where again it was agreed upon.

Again, these are all facts verifiable by eyewitnesses, meeting notes, and mailing list archives.

Regarding "admin access," yes, we agreed to split the group into two sites. SFBAY had their site online and running, and were using the editorial power they had on our site to put promotional material for themselves on the center column, remove legitimate stories about an important SF election that was happening, etc. We did not have any editorial access on their site. Thus, shortly after SFBAY decided to move ahead with the mediation agreement by locking people out of the space 3 weeks before they were supposed to, and we saw that their site was online, we went ahead and protected our site from further editorial admin abuse by them.

the facts as stated by sfimc activist are not true.

there was concern about having our site on a server that barely anyone in the collective had access to. this was voiced at a meeting. gekked said at the meeting that it wasn't the collectives decision, it was only a decision of the
sf-tech working group.

people that had been admining the sf.indymedia.org site for years had their passwords taken away before the new site was launched, and had any comments they posted to sf.indymedia.org deleted - this is true!!

two members of the sf.indymedia..org group were told they were no longer welcome in the imc space because gekked threatened to take down the network there. the space contains many other groups besides imc that would have been negatively affected by that., therefore the suite manager told the two members that they were not welcome in the space anymore, but they were encouraged to make an appointment with the suite manager to come and pick up their equipment.

You noted the following, and I am curious for more specifics. Could you please list in each of these cases how many people consensed to these decisions? How many people constitute the SFIMC group? How many of them would "work on this project?" How many people constitue the SFIMC Tech group? And how many people constitute the SFBAY IMC? Thanks.

As stated on global mailing lists:
1) The entire SFIMC group consensed to move the server.
2) The entire SFIMC group consensed that some people would work on this project.
3) The SFIMC Tech group consensed on moving the server, using consensus minus one, with no blocks.
4) The server was moved.
5) Ultimately, the entire SFIMC group had jurisdiction over the server.
6) Any consensed-upon decision was respected by imc-sf-tech, as always.
7) At the 2nd mediation meeting, it was consensed and re-affirmed that imc-sf-tech would respect consensus decisions of the larger group.
8) This was never violated.

>seriously, folks, let it sit a while and lets see if something can get mediated.

Mediation is not a solution when miscommunication is not the problem.

If the problem is abuse of power, mediation just validates the abuse.

Thanks for sharing.

The fact that two radio stations were shut down has not been addressed in what I would believe to be a coherant manner by SF IMC.

This is the antithesis of indymedia.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Also the Women's Global was set up to discuss these male power issues within indymedia. I am of course committed to do everything I can to address these issues which I use with poetry. If you go to the discussion page on Global you can read more about this, and yes, they were in part formed to discuss what took place with SF IMC against indybay. Therefore my statement stands uncorrected and I again say

THANK YOU PORTLAND IMC for standing in solidarity with women's global indymedia! Yeah Indymedia rocks and we are doing it right!!!!

INDYBAY should be allowed to run the IMC for san francisco. thus far they have shown they have the ability and the maturity to conduct them selves in an "adult manner" without censoring opinions or any of the other childish pranks that go on there.

Portland, thank you for your help, we need to make a lot of changes down here.

There seems to be some misconception that the rift between the two IMCs has something to do with sex. I don't think that's it. San Francisco isn't really that redneck a place and I think gender issues are pretty complex in the Bay Area, so where does this crazy train of thought originate? San Francisco, the mythical city where the girls are strong and the men are pretty. Sexism has been gone a while now, the glass ceiling exists moreso in other parts of the orld, so let's talk about the rights of muslim or nigerian women. Claiming sexism to fuel a collective dispute is a second rate agenda, so please drop it. The men of SF-IMC seem to do Ok with both genders, and have references to that effect online in fact. I hate to say it but it seems kind of sissy to whine about being mistreated as a woman, gives the rest of us a bad name. Thanks for considering a critical view.

Gender is complicated, and others don't respect gender preferences, etc. I understand this, but this is the IMC, not San Francisco, not Portland, this is GLOBAL WOMEN OF THE IMC.

No one claimed sexism. What was said was that a woman was pushed by a man and then taunted that she couldn't call the police to do anything about it. This is a serious charge. As I know the dedicated activists in indybay- you a monikered female from SF, do not have the same resounance within me, and no we don't need to call the police, we don't need to press charges, and yes we will do something about this. Indyemdia is not going to be a haven for men and not women. It will be a haven for trannies, and all people, no matter what gender you align yourself with. No one will be raped, assaulted, or harmed without serious open dialogue and some kind of results coming through.

Your attempt to address only one side of what I said and to make it a silly blanket stement is awful. Hey SF, why did you shut down the radio? Why did you shut down two radio stations?

Was it ego? That probably is to complex for us to understand, I know...

Migratory Bird: You are either not for real or you aren't following the whole story.

A member of Indybay is a reknowned woman abuser and is currently charged with rape. When things don't go Indybay's way, this person suddenly makes appearances to intimidate women who work with SFIMC. Last year, another person with Indybay met with this person, explained to him that they don't want certain women working with SFIMC, and one of the women had been involved with this abuser. Together, they harrassed and initimidated this woman (who also had 3 children) out of Indymedia. Now, a year later, this person is still charged with rape, still psychotically messes with women, and he's a full-fledged member of Indybay, they allow him to hang out on his IRC channel, and any attempts to suggest that MAYBE this person is intimidating to women in Indymedia, they don't care, they censor these posts on their website, etc.

Where is the concern for women there? There are plenty of gender issues in Indymedia as a whole, but dont think for one second that Indybay doesnt have its share of them. There are at least two people in Indybay who have gone beyond politics and SERIOUSLY attacked women (something a little bit more than talking over someone in a meeting). When its safe and can be used as a process advantage, gender issues are talked about a lot. But when it is serious issues that require serious commitment, like opposing abusers and rapists in the activist community, where is Indybay? Accepting them into their fold. Its disgusting and hypocritical.

It is serious for SF Indybay.org to validate the unfounded rumor of sexual, verbal or physical assault against an individual, when it was not reported to medical or other authorities, but instead used a month after the fact as part of an "open petition" petition submitted surreptiously to the global IMC network, which has this incident and other fraudulent errors. The open letter I refer to the one that was sent to the global network in violation of the anti-defamation confidentiality portion of the mediation agreement. This is all documented online at sf.indymedia.org. About other serious problems with the open letter signed by Indybay, Kevin Keating and Ali have in fact stated publicly that they did not even agree to the use of their names on the open letter, calling the credibility of the whole letter and any other fake signers into question; but I don't want to post all the links over here if you haven't been keeping up on both sides. It's all there on the SF-IMC site, cross referenced to the Portland issue. I don't want to open this can of worms up and get Nessie started again.

Time was of the essence in reproting a serious problem. One version of the tragic incident, where apparently a toe may have been stubbed, is that a teenager stepped on a secret agent's toe but it wasn't bad enough to require a bandaid at the time. He didn't threaten that she would not call the police, as reported in the open letter, he instead asked if blocking his entrance to his office space to use equipment he had a right to use meant that she was police? A little different. But no report of this terrible incident was made to our knowledge at the time, some hyperventilating about how the tech wanted to use the recirder but it was hers! hers! hers! at the time. Had a report to 911 been made, I can pull it up via the Freedom of Information Act -- unless it's classified. But no police report was made on this alleged assault at the time. And no trip to the emergency room required as far as we know, and it was not taped, as far as we know, but a tape may of course emerge later - we are talking audio production here. There are two people at odds in the heat of the negotiations over the split: we have one biased witness, another signer to the open letter from which he hoped to gain by advancing the lie. The story of the incident thus apparently only surfaced in connection with leveraging the early eviction from the physical office, which SF_IMC had until December 31 per the mediation agreement, now also oinline, and the story is again gaining momentum through the "open letter" demand to the global network to further discredit one of the techs, whose name has been published along with the lie, globally.

Come meet the teenager who is so ferocious. He's a real menace to society. He is a major volunteer in the IMC network. He has no real other problems with IMC and is trying to work through this via the appropriate channels.

How does publicizing a weak assault case protect womyn's rights? I don't see that it does, since I work with womyn in real domestic crisis, women who must move to secret homes to avoid real abuse. If you have truly been harrassed or assaulted,stand up and be counted, report the incident at the time it happens when it can be proven, seek help, document and report the incident fully, take immediate action. Don't wait, or your bruise will vanish and you'll a rumor this old, your timeline said December 1, 2003, just looks bad. Did you audio people tape the incident? Can a tape be created?

--A Woman Who Could Have Talked to the Tech at the Time and Worked It Out, Probably

The SFBAY attacks in global are mostly the work of 4-5 vindictive people who have previously threatened to "get revenge through Indymedia" for all sorts of things not having to do with Indymedia. It is unfortunate that people like Portland IMC don't think to consider this is their motivation. For instance, Kevin Keating is a rather famous anarchist-communist writer, involved with the Mission Yuppie Eradication Project, has written countless articles for anarchist and radical left magazines, and a friend to many people in the SFIMC group (and possibly the SFBAY group, I dont know). His name appeared on the letter. You would think that if you were going to sign the name of a minor political celebrity to your letter, you would ask them first, right? Check it out:

I disavow any connection to this letter
by Kevin Keating ( one of the signatures above) Wednesday January 14, 2004 at 07:47 PM
 proletaire2003@yahoo.com

I did not sign this letter, and it was absolute bullshit that this was posted with my name on it. I don't necessarily agree with its version of events; I don't necessarily disagree either. I don't have enough information to go on either way.

I began volenteering with what was then SF-IMC after this conflict had started. Neither side gave me their version of the dispute. I never asked for either sides' version of events, either. I never tried to get involved in this one way or the other. I felt that there was nothing useful that could come from one more person jumping into the fray. My role in the project has been marginal, limited to staffing the space a few hours a week and occasionally posting docs on the web site.

I have ended up siding with the currently-constituted indybay folks, by default , only because they seemed more likely to be able to sustain the project in some viable form resembling what I'd originally volenteered to help out with -- I have no axe to grind with the former tech people who have split from Indybay, and I never agreed to blackball them, or anyone else who has been involved in this. I am not for or against either side in this donnybrook; again, I have next to no information from either side about their version of events. The level of rancor in the dispute seems patently ridiculous to me. I don't have any exaggerated sense of the significance of this project. No mass revolutionary movement is going to jump off from a fucking web site!

I haven't been in contact with the former tech people now making up SF-IMC for some months. I don't give any information from one side to the other. Again , my role in this effort is limited to staffing the space and posting docs on the web site. Signing my name to this, and then posting it like this was, at best, an extremely poor judgement call, especially when it was widely known that a bottom-feeding, carrion-eating hack journalist named Chris Thompson from the East Bay Excuse was out to do a hatchet-job on the project and the dispute arising from it.

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

This provoked another younger, lesser-known activist named Ali to say that he also was put on the letter without his approval:

One more clarification
by Ali Wednesday January 14, 2004 at 08:47 PM

The signature "Ali" was also signed on to the letter by mistake. I have been out of the country for a while and had no involvement with the drafting of the letter. I have been working with indybay.org by "default" similar to kevin keating. Having just moved to the bay area it's hard for me to have any sort of opinion on this issue.

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

So, I wonder what would happen if we contacted the OTHER people on this list of names. Or is it really a very small, isolated clique of jerks who don't give one damn about Indymedia, don't give a damn about making Indymedia better, all they care about is getting revenge for who dated who, who slept with who, who pissed off somebody in an argument three months ago?

Luckily there are IMCs like Portland out here to eat it up. Portland IMC: where is your statement against forging signatures to an Open Letter that is spammed across IMCs far and wide? Where is your statement against using violent women abusers as ways to intimidate activists into doing what you want?

also, what this person is saying is false. the person they are referring to is not a member of indybay.

there are many other untrue things in their comment, and hypocritical statements, but i won't go into how inaccurate it all is.

there were gender problems in sf-imc when it was one group, and most of the women in the group are now working in indybay.org

The Indybay folks want you to believe that they are the majority, they cling to the idea that if they can prove a majority, they are "right" somehow.

Allow me to dispell some myths.

First, two women in SFIMC (who are now part of the SFBAY group) went out of their way to prevent at least two women from joining the group who were "allied" with the "enemies" (i.e. anyone who disagreed with their process of bullying people into doing things). One woman of color was scared away because her visa status was jeopardized by the willful anti-security posturing of a woman in the now SFBAY group. Another woman (who has tech skills, photo skills, and is a true asset to indymedia) was quite literally harassed away by an SFBAY person who (as mentioned) collaborated with her abusive ex-boyfriend, tried to inflame him into jealous rages which would mean he would go to this woman's house and mess with her (and this abusive person is now a member of the new SFBAY/Indybay group), and this person made sure that this woman would never try to work with Indymedia again. The worst part is the Indybay person didn't even KNOW this woman, had never even MET her, but maybe now you can get a sense of the deranged power games and bullying that Indybay people use to get their way. You see it again when they spam half-truths over every IMC in the network. You see it again when they spam every mailing list in the IMC network. If you lived in SF, you could see it every day. It is 100% what led to this split: power games, gender power games, and much of it, unfortunately, has nothing to do with politics or coverage, but insane personal crusades. The more I think about it the more I think this shit needs to come out in Global Indymedia.

| marc (~ marc@vax.hanford.org) (Non profit organization)
| channels : @#sfbay @#ecr
| server : che.indymedia.org (che IMC IRC server)

Why is he always on IRC and always hanging out in only TWO irc channels then? The Indybay (#sfbay) channel which is newly-formed and only has 4-9 people ever in it and the #ecr channel, which is for Indybay's "shoutcast" stream? Why is he at your events? Why is he still being used to threaten and intimidate SFIMC members throughout the process in Global Indymedia? Why was he collaborating and meeting with Indybay people last year to force women out of SFIMC? Why does he have "operator status" in the Indybay IRC channels?

The facts are:
1. Indybay members have harrassed and intimidated women out of SFIMC and that is one of the main reasons for the split that is never talked about.
2. Indybay members used a man with a widely known history of violence against women to do it.
3. There is hard, concrete proof of this.
4. It continues to this day, to this very second, as this person sits in an Indymedia channel, using Indymedia resources, after this long history of violence against women in Indymedia. And its all thanks to Indybay: the home of stalkers and abusers.

So. Are we going to talk about a teenage kid who brushed past some woman who was in his face and trying to kick him out of a space that belonged to him just as much it did her (if not more)?
Or are we going to talk about REAL ISSUES that face women -- violence, rape, harrassment, intimidation, stalking behaviors, and how all of this can be encouraged by other women who obviously have many internalized sexist motivations as some men do?

The Daily Poetry Movement (quick clicks)
author: Migratory Bird
Quick Clicks. You wanted to have a quick page to browse, didn't quite have a chance to read that poem cause you didn't have enough time and you didn't have time to go back and save it? Then save this page to favorites. Now you can have the daily poetry movent for all those specail resistence occasions. Also don't forget to use Haiku Kung Fu for protesting Cheyny! Got chalk ready, poetry printed, got signs to plaster around town, let poetry wake up our beautiful city! Resist! Refuse!
January 5, 2004  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/01/277752.shtml
(Bush poetry)
January 4, 2004  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/01/277707.shtml
(Gendercide)
January 3, 2004  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/01/277644.shtml
(Mumia)
January 2, 2004  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/01/277612.shtml
(Lesbianism)
January 1, 2004  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/01/277588.shtml
( linguistic racism)
December 31, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/277502.shtml
(revolution X/ free speech/ teacher fired)
December 30, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/277464.shtml
(Leonard Peltier)
December 29, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/277393.shtml
(animal cruelty and health affects)
December 28, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/277369.shtml
(triangle shirtwaist factory fire)
December 27, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/277335.shtml
(Media criticism and war journalism)
December 26, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/277285.shtml
(comic relief /Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy)
December 25, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/277244.shtml
(Harry Moore killed on Xmas day for NAACP activity)
December 24, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/277118.shtml
(13 month calender)
December 23, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/277075.shtml
(My Sharon-uh)
December 22, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/277018.shtml
(solstice selections)
December 21, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276957.shtml
(Start of Chanukkah/ Yiddish Anarchists/ Cry Palestine)
December 21, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276965.shtml
(Big Page plus original poems (solstice poem)
December 20, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276905.shtml
(War on Iraq criticisms includes youth poem)
December 19, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276773.shtml
(free labor/slavery/ link to slaves poems)
December 18, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276702.shtml
(Propaganda)
December 17, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276621.shtml
(Gender language/war)
December 16, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276521.shtml
(Oppression)
December 15, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276442.shtml
(Honoring Indymedia/ CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR/ESVM)

December 14, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276409.shtml
(haiku kung fu/ protest signs suggestions)
December 13, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276352.shtml
(Black and queer)
December 12, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276264.shtml
(Freedom)
December 08, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276103.shtml
(Class war)
December 07, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276080.shtml
(transgendered poetry)
December 06, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276043.shtml
(anti shopping)
December 05, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/275974.shtml
(genital mutilation)
December 04, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/275931.shtml
(pinochet/ school of the Americas)
December 03, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/275866.shtml
(poetic terrorism)
December 02, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/275774.shtml
(a jewish women writes a poem to a women in Palestine/ Gush-Shalom)
December 01, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/275723.shtml
(Archy and Mehitbel/ the disappearance poetry from media)



November 30, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/11/275680.shtml
(Toe'osh: A Laguna Coyote Story/ Leslie Marmon Silko)
November 29, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/11/275647.shtml
(Great local artists/ capitalism criticism)
November 28, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/11/275618.shtml
(Bombs over baghadad)
November 22, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/11/275307.shtml
(chemical oppression)

OK now that you SFers have deteriotated into the he said/ she said non specific debate that you are known to do how about addressing the real issues:

We could debate all day whether or not his name was retracted from the list or whether or not it was falsified, we can debate nonnamed persons and what they were or were not doing. But that is shit debates meant to distract Portland from it's real statements.


WHY DID YOU CLOSE DOWN THE MEDIA AND WHY ARE YOU HOLDINGH THE SERVER STILL?

If there are abusers at "indybay," or at the presumptuously-monikered "SFIMC" group, then the abusers must be expelled. This absurd website split does not solve or even address an abuse problem, if such a problem really exists. Insinuations that anybody with a problem with "SFIMC" may be a "secret agent" are not winning any points with anybody. The larger indymedia world will indeed care which side seems to constitute a majority, which side seems more coherent and less paranoid, and which side is actually running an indymedia project -- as opposed to just keeping a server plugged into a wall somewhere. It won't necessarily matter whether you're mostly "right" if your server and its tinfoil-hatted caretakers become the most embarassing appendage of a ridiculous situation.

We are not holding the server. There was never a server to be held. The server move was talked about, planned, and passed consensus.

It was originally to be moved to a server in rack space provided by me. On the day we were to install the new server, there were problems with the machine. An Indymedia tech and I had taken the server to the colo space (a drive of over an hour in rush hour) so that I could get him in and his name on the access list for that rack. During the install, the machine came up with problems. We worked on it for awhile there, but decided to bring the server back and have other people look at it after attempting for several hours to make it work. We drove back to the city (another hour plus drive) and telephoned the person with whom we would be leaving the server. He was unavailable at the moment to pick it up, so we agreed to meet him in a park when he was done with his tasks. We were waiting in the park when the tech I was with's ex-girlfriend came up. She immediately began to flip out about what we were doing etc. We decided to just go wait in the car. She then proceeded to repeatedly call his and my cell phones for several hours. After that I was harassed daily online and by phone. She collaborated with my at the time boyfriend who was extremely jealous, causing him to begin to flip out on me. Any time I tried to be involved in Indymedia both of them would begin again with the harassing behavior. At one point she even stood up in an Indymedia meeting and begin screaming about me and how I was dating her ex.

I decided to not have anything to do with Indymedia anymore as long as she was there. It was not worth the disruption to my life, or my children's lives. Because there was now no server hosting arrangement, the server was moved to linefeed as an alternative host because the current host was too unstable. This is a matter of record in the tech email archives.

Not only do I have technical skills, and photography skills, but I have extensive community resources that could have been utilized by Indymedia. I had two other girl techs that wanted to work with Indymedia, but after this incident, they decided not to.

Now we have sfbay which has no girl techs, and sfimc which has two (possibly three) girl techs. We have sfbay who is violating the mediation agreement by talking (and lying about) the split with everyone they can get to listen to them, and we have sfimc who continues to uphold the mediation agreement by not discussing it. We have sfbay who is working with a man who has been accused of rape by one woman, with a restraining order against him by another, attaches fake names to their petition, and repeatedly spreads slanderous and libelous statements against sfimc members, and we have sfimc who has remained silent in the face of such statements.

SFIMC has been working on trying to get on with the business of running our site, and working within process to get this resolved, which is why we don't wish to respond to this statement.

Sorry to reapeat this post, but either SF people missed it or no one there wants to answer these simple questions for some reason...

You noted the following, and I would like more specifics. Could you please list in each of these cases how many people consensed to these decisions? How many people at that time constituted the SFIMC group? How many of them would "work on this project?" How many people at the time constitued the SFIMC Tech group? And how many people constitute the SFBAY IMC? Thanks.

"As stated on global mailing lists:
1) The entire SFIMC group consensed to move the server.
2) The entire SFIMC group consensed that some people would work on this project.
3) The SFIMC Tech group consensed on moving the server, using consensus minus one, with no blocks.
4) The server was moved.
5) Ultimately, the entire SFIMC group had jurisdiction over the server.
6) Any consensed-upon decision was respected by imc-sf-tech, as always.
7) At the 2nd mediation meeting, it was consensed and re-affirmed that imc-sf-tech would respect consensus decisions of the larger group.
8) This was never violated."

"You noted the following, and I would like more specifics. Could you please list in each of these cases how many people consensed to these decisions? How many people at that time constituted the SFIMC group? How many of them would "work on this project?" How many people at the time constitued the SFIMC Tech group? And how many people constitute the SFBAY IMC? Thanks."

Around 15 people at this meeting- > 1) The entire SFIMC group consensed to move the server.
Around 15 people, same meeting -> 2) The entire SFIMC group consensed that some people would work on this project.
There are 56 people on imc-sf-tech -> 3) The SFIMC Tech group consensed on moving the server, using consensus minus one, with no blocks.
Around 11-12 people at this meeting -> 7) At the 2nd mediation meeting, it was consensed and re-affirmed that imc-sf-tech would respect consensus decisions of the larger group.

Around 5 - 6 techs worked on this project out of a larger tech group of almost 60 people. </