Are you objecting to the hiding of something of yours? If so, please give us the details and we'll explain why it violated the guidelines.

There are many many examples of things being hidden for spurious reasons, for example not being keen on graffiti is definitely frowned on by somebody there who happens to be very keen on graffiti. This is curious, because Indymedia tends to promote a responsible attitude to the environment, and it is at least arguable, surely, that graffiti are contrary to this. Do Green councillors fight against their removal, I wonder ?

A more serious example, involving some of my own contributions is:

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/06/293989.html

I should imagine that Ximenes wasn't very pleased about this either.

dont hide stuff its shit.

The article cited here is quite simply non-news, and therefore violates the guidelines for posting to a newswire. Couldn't be simpler.

I suppose it wasn’t news, in the sense that it was no news to anyone that things were being hidden like this !

But the guidelines refer to “news, issues, actions and analysis”, not only news.
Non-news means ”unrelated to a recent event or action etc”.
There are even topics called “Analysis” and “Indymedia”..

It did relate to recent events in the field of hiding news, and several contributors embarked on an analysis of Indymedia.

Presumably you will be hiding “Be your own journalist”, on the grounds that that is not news.
Or you may agree that items relating to the operation of Indymedia itself are permissible.

Ho hum. Quote from the guidelines: "Non-news : posts which are clearly purely comment, opinion, rants unrelated to a recent event or action etc."

The editorial guidelines were drawn up by the imc collectives after much deliberation, with the aim of enabling as much open publishing as possible, without the newswires being deluged in tedious nonsense by vexatious trolls with too much time on their hands.

Apologies to indymedia readers/contributors that this thread is still on the wire. At first we give a poster the benefit of the doubt, and then we find it's one of our most persistent trolls Roger up to his old tricks again. Roger, in your case, never has the phrase "get a life" been more appropriate.

But not non-news if it is related to the recent events of hiding postings.
And your Guidelines also ALLOW issues and analysis, and comments are invited !
When is a comment not a comment?
When is a “troll” a “troll” ? This is what was being discussed, but was not allowed to be seen to be discussed.

As in the past, if people are not identified as “trolls” they are sometimes identified as “Roger”. How do you “find out” that it’s supposedly “Roger” ? Do you investigate everyone’s identity electronically, or is this just a meaningless smear like “troll” ? Are you going to try to reveal the identity of your other contributors when it suits you?

When you invite “Roger” to get a life, does this apply to everybody who takes the time to contribute to Indymedia, telling their own story, in their own words and in their own style? Whatever happened to the idea of local residents reaching out to the wider community with “issues, stories and VIEWS” ? (That’s your Mission Statement).

Why doesn’t Richard Thorneycroft get a life instead of wasting his time censoring what he considers to be improper reading for everyone else ?

And why is this shite still on the newswire?

It isn't.

Dave and others do seem a bit mindless.

I think Richard is more dogmatic and slow than mindless.