So the UK site has been stolen by some of the peeps working on it from the others. Nice act of solidarity for Mayday but each to their own. Do we users presume that from now on the this is an indymedia site or is it something else. I do not think that one group wanted to get rid of the other. I read some of the features and it seems there is a split in ideas. So should not the site now be split or have one side got greedy and taken the whole cake. Sounds like the act controlling Stalinists wanting to hold all the information in one place rather than letting '1000 flowers bloom' as you say.

The mayday collective tried to retroactively add new conditions to the Bradford agreement.

The other party to the Bradford agreement balked, as it should have whenever someone tries to retroactively change an agreement.

Now mayday has gone rogue. While, of course, blaming the other side.

[I write as an IMCer, but in a personal capacity, not representing any regional or national collective.]

Please bear in mind there are some very entrenched and opinionated people on both sides of this conflict, and they have very different interpretations of what has happened, based on huge amounts of mistrust.

There are also a significant number of us who have not taken sides, and do not want to take sides.

If you are interested in finding out more, I recommend reading mailing list archives, which are publicly accessible, and making your own mind up, rather than accepting at face value what either side is telling you.This would make an OK starting point:
 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-process

But actually, my personal advice is not to waste your time reading up on the details - you will probably end up feeling drained and wondering why you bothered, because there isn't any straightforward explanation or narrative, just a horrible mess of mistrust and disrespect.

So after all this hysteria about the UK site getting shut down here it is and I can still publish to it.

I don't get what the problem is?

In other words, look forward to six months of open warfare, duplicity, and outright lies.

Who benefits? Certainly not the Indymedia movement.

Thanks for the escalation, mayday.

seriously friends... someone better explain to all of us indymedia people in north america and elsewhere in the world what the hell is going on here!?

Well nice one to all those who saved UK Indymedia from imminent demise. In the past the site has faced threats from the state and even other states with server siezures and all the rest. Now it's even faced with a threat from within. And yet it's still going. Hurrah!

I'm sure the Be The Media people mean well but was it really their intention to replace UK Indymedia with Bethemedia? Well I don't mean to dismiss all the hard work BTM have doubtless put in but compared to UK Indymedia, be honest, it's a bit crap really isn't it. And doesn't anyone in Be The Media see the irony of having a site with that name but that doesn't even allow users to publish news?

So BTM tried to close down UK Indymedia and the obvious question is why? You have your own site now up and running so why on earth did you want the UK site shut down? As things are now users have a choice between the old and the new. They're free to choose. But by shutting down the UK site you've tried eliminate the competition. That's a crap thing to do and it should be for the users to decide where to go. Cooperation is better than competition. But competition is better than the brute force and domination.

As for the attempted coup by BTM to take over and close UK IMC frankly I'm appalled. Whatever was or was not said in the Bradford meeting it's pretty clear there is no consensus on on shutting down UK IMC right now. But you put your fingers up at consensus and tried to do it anyway. And you've really shot yourself in the foot now. By massively betraying the trust of the Mayday group the only way they can secure the site now is by shutting you out. How can you ever be trusted again?

If you genuinely think your model for Indymedia is superior then stick with it and the users will come to you. However the way you've behaved suggests that you're not totally confident in what your doing and looking at the BTM I'm not really surprised. But by trying to simply trash the competition is worse than even how capitalism operates. It's more like an act of war.

Let's keep both sites as they are right now. Archiving all the news from the past 11 years to a seperate site is a dumb idea and just makes the site harder for site visitors. Both sites are surely better for the users which is what Indymedia should be about. And if both groups start putting their energies into running these and not fighting each other alternative media in the UK will be richer for everyone.

This morning, I checked the indymedia.org.uk site and found that the much-discussed fork was implemented. I found an archive of the struggles of the past 11 years on indymedia.org.uk, and two new projects, each with its own visions and energies: Maydaymedia, with a copy of the old Indymedia UK site rund by a small, new and dedicated collective, and be the media, which continues the Indymedia tradition in the UK by pulling together news from all local indymedia sites.
Phew, I thought, finally room for new energies instead of all this in-fighting.

Now, a few hours later, I'm back here on indymedia.org.uk and notice: The forking-announcement has disappeared, the publishing facility is back on, there's some confusing "breaking news" on the startpage about an attempt to "disrupt the Indymedia UK site", and an announcement about the fork that I thought I'd seen earlier seems to have disappeared.

Pretty clear situation - the group called mayday media collective is now controlling the entire indymedia UK website. They call it direct action. Looks more like a hijack to me. Indymedia UK, an online platform based on the reports of thousands of activists, and the work of dozens of admins and moderators over more than 10 years, is now controlled by one closed group. The local indymedia collectives in the UK have no more say in a platform they themselves created. No more consensus decision making and horizontality: Those who have the passwords and own the URLs take it all.

"Pretty clear situation - the group called mayday media collective is now controlling the entire indymedia UK website. They call it direct action. Looks more like a hijack to me. Indymedia UK, an online platform based on the reports of thousands of activists, and the work of dozens of admins and moderators over more than 10 years, is now controlled by one closed group. The local indymedia collectives in the UK have no more say in a platform they themselves created. No more consensus decision making and horizontality: Those who have the passwords and own the URLs take it all."

The biggest fly in the ointment here was that BeTheMedia were trying to kill the newswire, or move it out of Indymedia. As they said on the splashpage, open publishing was to be stopped shortly. The choice the offered mayday was do what we say, when we say, or else. So were they offering a choice?

Indymedia is primarily about the production of radical news, and however you try and spin it, BeTheMedia were into limiting choic.

If their stance reflects your politics they can be found at  http://bethemedia.org.uk/.

Which isn't controlled by anyone from Mayday.

Andrew Sarchus - here here.

Long live both projects - a UK-wide site with open publishing at indymedia.org.uk and the BeTheMedia aggregator site - plus of course both of them being integrated with local IMCs.

I hope people are able to let the dust settle, and respect the energies of others, without having to agree the 'truth' of what happened.

Have you come across the Dual Narrative idea, that two sides can't find peace until they both recognise that the other sides' version of the truth is true for the other side, despite that it might be contradictory (& not what they think is the truth)?

I don't give a shit about Indymedia internal politics, consensus or any of that crap but I do use Indymedia UK to find out news and publish as well. The BeTheMedia site is not Indymedia to me at all it is just an RSS feed of Indymedia news (hundreds of Indymedia RSS feeds can be found on blogs across the web and I don't call them Indymedia). I hope Indymedia stays and I don't give a fuck how that is achieved or who said bollocks at a boring meeting. Sorry just being honest!

If you have to call it 'Mayday' then fine, but it would be a lot simplar if you were UK Indymedia as ever. Good on the 'Mayday' team for taking direct action!

You say:
"The biggest fly in the ointment here was that BeTheMedia were trying to kill the newswire, or move it out of Indymedia. As they said on the splashpage, open publishing was to be stopped shortly. The choice the offered mayday was do what we say, when we say, or else. So were they offering a choice?"

erm - "open publishing to be stopped shortly" sounds overly dramatic. For one, each of the collectives which implemented the be the media aggregator have open publishing newswires. Nobody ever attempted to stop this or put an end to indymedia open publishing in the UK. Actually, the indymedia uk network decided years ago to put an aggregator under the indymedia.org.uk URL, to make sure that content from all indymedia websites in the UK is accessible on one page.

Second, open publishing can happen on any weblog service and in the comments of most blogs, for instance. Indymedia is different partly because its open publishing was, until now, not controlled by one individual, not even one small group, but by transparent consensus amongst a variety of people and collectives.

About choice: both the mayday media collective and the four collectives that formed be the media had not much choice. Both had plans how to rund indymedia.org.uk, unfortunately the plans were incompatible.
Be the media seems to understand that they cannot 'own' the indymedia uk website and run it as they like, without consideration for the wishes of what is now called mayday collective, and without regard for indymedia uk network consensus.
Be the media generously agreed to let mayday media use a copy of the indymedia uk website, including 10 years of archived content, for their own, new project. The only reservation was that none of the two groups should use the indymedia.org.uk url for their respective projects. Be the media stuck to this agreement, mayday media obviously didn't.
In contrast, the mayday collective which is only one small part within a much larger indymedia network in the UK, claims the entire indymedia uk website, an established collaborative project, for themselves, without consideration of any other plans and proposals. As the mayday collective owns the url, they can do with the website whatever they like. Todays hijacking shows that they have no qualms to do so.

Making radical media is not only about managing websites and producing contents, its also about political organising. I doubt that hijacking each others websites is an efficient way of organising.

Not exactly transparent, this decision making process, is it?

"For one, each of the collectives which implemented the be the media aggregator have open publishing newswires."

That's a fat lot of use for publicising issues, gathering support for local campaigns and reporting local actions if you live in Lincoln, Ludlow or Llanelli -or anywhere else outside the geographical purview of those collectives. If you don't live in a town at all then you must be just some crazed hippy and can fuck off.

Congratulations on keeping open publishing and the newswire available for EVERYONE ON THIS ISLAND. I know it has inherent problems of disruption by masquerading state agents, fascists, and Daily Mail readers etc., but the answer is to get smarter at spotting those, not to close it down.

I was looking down what @comment said to find "For two". Errr...wasn't there. That "one" was it, apparently.

"erm - "open publishing to be stopped shortly" sounds overly dramatic. For one, each of the collectives which implemented the be the media aggregator have open publishing newswires"

Which is fine for people in London, Nottingham, Northern and Bristol who are happy with the editorial policies. It does exclude quite a few people.

"Nobody ever attempted to stop this or put an end to indymedia open publishing in the UK. Actually, the indymedia uk network decided years ago to put an aggregator under the indymedia.org.uk URL, to make sure that content from all indymedia websites in the UK is accessible on one page."

Some of the Indymedia uk network decided that. There was a clear problem with consensus when it came to implementation. That was what some people wanted, whilst others felt that an open publishing newswire was essential. BeTheMedia failed to convince people that the aggregator was the best option, and thus failed to gain a consensus for the proposed change.

"Second, open publishing can happen on any weblog service and in the comments of most blogs, for instance. Indymedia is different partly because its open publishing was, until now, not controlled by one individual, not even one small group, but by transparent consensus amongst a variety of people and collectives."

And that group would be the same group that the Bradford agreement would have seen running the wire after they had been through new IMC.. And I'm sure Mayday will continue to do so in as transparent a manner as possible.

"About choice: both the mayday media collective and the four collectives that formed be the media had not much choice. Both had plans how to rund indymedia.org.uk, unfortunately the plans were incompatible."

You mean "there was no consensus"?

"Be the media seems to understand that they cannot 'own' the indymedia uk website and run it as they like, without consideration for the wishes of what is now called mayday collective, and without regard for indymedia uk network consensus."

Which was demonstrated by their actions last night? Instead of coming to an arrangement that allowed for a smooth and fair transition they enforced their claim that consensus had been reached, knowing full well that there was no real consensus and that Mayday might feel forced to take steps to secure the site, as is made clear in this email.
 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-process/2011-April/0422-a5.html
Along with that was a threat to use blocks to prevent MayDay members from ever becoming affiliated.
 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-process/2011-April/0425-tv.html

Furthermore, MayDay made clear they were willing to fork once new IMC had been sorted. BeTheMedia needed to do nothing except get on with its business, but it decided to force the issue, and made attempts to silence all dissent. Mayday could have rolled over, but there was no coherent reason put forward as to why they should. Just threats.

"Be the media generously agreed to let mayday media use a copy of the indymedia uk website, including 10 years of archived content, for their own, new project. The only reservation was that none of the two groups should use the indymedia.org.uk url for their respective projects. Be the media stuck to this agreement, mayday media obviously didn't."

Mayday members had been around for years and had put their share of time into keeping it going. A new project it was not. BeTheMedia wanted an aggregator and would rather see a dead site than the functioning one already there on the existing url. Mayday made clear their willingness to see the agreement through once new IMC had been achieved. BeTheMedia refused the offer, and forced through changes in the full knowledge that they were claiming consensus which was strongly disputed.

"In contrast, the mayday collective which is only one small part within a much larger indymedia network in the UK, claims the entire indymedia uk website, an established collaborative project, for themselves, without consideration of any other plans and proposals. As the mayday collective owns the url, they can do with the website whatever they like. Todays hijacking shows that they have no qualms to do so."

Thats your one sided version of it. The other remains that Mayday is willing to go ahead with the fork once the new IMC status has been achieved. BeTheMedia have already threatened to block, as if Indymedia has become some kind of gated community for approved activists (meaning activists who do what the main players in BeTheMedia want, when the main players in BeTheMedia want it). All BeTheMedia stood to gain from forcing through the clearly disputed website was dissolution of the uk network and a site with a splash page and dead wire. If you try inflicting your will on people, the outcome isn't always as straightforward as you might hope it would be and if you are commited to work with a diverse group, forcing through a dodgy consensus won't help you achieve it.

"Making radical media is not only about managing websites and producing contents, its also about political organising. I doubt that hijacking each others websites is an efficient way of organising."

BeTheMedia's political organising is not everyone's cup of tea. Long live diversity

We win!

All the jargon and internal politics is a bit above me, but I know I read and comment on the UK Indymedia site and find it very useful. There isn't really a local Indymedia for me, and anyway, it's good to have a place for national news items rather than local ones.

But at the end of the day I know it's run and funded by volunteers so whatever they decide I won't complain. I'm sure something else will take its place if it goes and people find they need it.

What no download the archive+source+fill-in-yer-link-for-our-jump-to-you page?

Hijacking a plane bound for the scrap heap just so some lesser paramilitary pig with a wordy gun can change an interface, which matters to many is hardly a crime of the domain game. I mean a nice firefox, mayday up my indymedia plugin would have worked fine.

It's less than a fart in a tea cup this one.

ooops my comment has disappeared maybe somewhere in the tech maize. I was looking a little bit back in the web and list archives and what I find important is that the inymedia.org.uk domain was only used as the main DNS for the MIR site from June 2003 onwards, when the move was made from one technical system to the other. Beforehand, the main URL was uk.indymedia.org . So the indymedia.org.uk domain has always been associated with primarily this website.

@ comment did say "second", though it was hardly impressive.

... is the name of the game. As someone not involved in Indymedia or whatever it is called now, it's hard to tell what is going on, but looking like the dividers have won.

From what I read of the conflict the "divide and conquer" might have failed, I guess we can watch the site and see how it evolves find out...

I thought this comment was spot on:

"What does need to change on Indymedia though, is the way comments are moderated, to cut down on the trolls and state shit-stirring."

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/04/478397.html?c=on#c268282

Get it sorted people!

Perhaps a link for reporting trolling for hiding would help?

Moderation of the newswire was one of the problems indymedia.org.uk has struggled with in the last years:
- some contributors complained about censorships
- others wanted more moderation
- the 303 gateway affair
- the imc volunteers in the indymedia uk network disagreed about what to hide and what not.

For instance, there was a big argument about what some consider anti-semitic postings on the newswire. This led to the retreat of several local indymedia volunteers from indymedia.org.uk involvement, because they didn't want to be involved in a website that tolerates, even promotes anti-semitic postings. See this website:  http://geniza.wordpress.com/

Since the site was hijacked by a bunch of strong-minded people yesterday, many admin log-ins have been disabled. It seems that only members of the mayday collective are still able to do moderation.

Until yesterday, several dozen imc volunteers from all local collectives were able to moderate the site. I don't know how many of them, if any, were allowed to keep their log-in.

Global indymedia should decide.

This domain name is still under the control of indymedias global network.
 http://uk.indymedia.org
Serveral times they have stopped websites using the indymedia name, on the grounds that they are not using the IMC CMS. Fascists is Romania were stopped, even Iylians BNP wankers in Wales were stopped. If Uk wants to change to a totally different content management system, they have to go through the process, and I'm not sure the new cms amounts to the open publishing definition.


Topic newswires are far more important than local news!
The majority of the newswire content is not local news, but a wide variety of social topic news. Bristol indymedia is quite strict about having only bristol local news, everything else gos to ukimc. Theres lots of national and international issues that local newswires really dont want to be swamped with.


Bad decision making process!
What about all these guys, have they really consented to change their newswires & URLs?
-Birmingham
-Cambridge
-Liverpool
-Oxford
-Sheffield
-South Coast

Google suicide!
For example this URL has thousands of link to it:
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/actions/2009/g20/
Whereas the new URL will have only a few links to it. Therefor indymedia will lose all pagerank, both on google, bing & yahoo


Open Publishing is better.
I know its a lot of work tidying up the newswire, but having to authorise every posting & addition is more work. Trying to enforce a strict party line is not neccessary as indymedia already has an acceptable broad radical position.

On the question of longevity of websites have you noticed how scotland has been intentionally scrapped 5 times. Suffering massive data loss, hundreds of articles discarded, and a bad google rank. Please dont follow this example.

There isn't an Indymedia CMS. There hasn't been a switch to a new CMS. This site is running the same CMS it ws running before. What are you on about?

When UK IMC first started they had to go through a process of agreeing to the definition of indymedia. Not any old website can use the Indymedia "brand" name, it has to use an indymedia open source content management system.

info on IMC content management systems:-
 https://docs.indymedia.org/Devel/WebHome

It aslo has to be open publishing, open content, etc
There hasnt been any IMC Tech disussion or docs on the proposed UK aggregater site. Previsously they have agreed to the controversial indymedia.us agregator site. So they might agree to the uk proposal.
 http://www.indymedia.us
 https://docs.indymedia.org/Devel/ImcUsTech

UK MIR docs-
 https://docs.indymedia.org/Local/ImcUkTech

general overview-
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indymedia