Dear Gregory Varnum:
This is the second chapter in the sage of whether Wikimedia DC can and
should "ban" people from our conferences (that are advertised as being
open to everyone) without a good reason.
I am sure that Krill and James did not come up with the idea of
banning Greg Kohs on their own. Everything points to someone from the
WMF asking them to take this drastic step. No explanation was given
in 2014 following the first ban even in response to polite, discreet
private email inquiries, and no explanation was given for 2015.
When we adopted a "safe spaces" policy, there was enough language in
it to make clear that the policy was to address serious safety
concerns and not to be used for petty personal vendettas. We need
sufficient transparency to make plain that this is not just the case
of someone from WMF asking Krill or James to single out and humiliate
a member of the public who should be otherwise welcome to participate
in our conferences and meetings.
I hope that Wikimedia DC will maintain its credibility with public and
government institutions -- when we say that we invite the public
(regardless of their viewpoints) to attend our conferences, we mean it.
Thanks,
-- Bob Platt
Quoting Gregory Varnum <greg.varnum(a)gmail.com>om>:
I’m sorry, but having been involved in dozens of FOIA
requests on
both sides - I feel like I have to point out that submitting a FOIA
request and then sending this email is like taking your neighbor to
court, and then sending an anonymous letter to the editor
complaining they are no longer inviting you over for tea.
If you truly wanted their friendly cooperation, sending a FOIA
request was not the way to go. However, since you did that, and then
sent this email anonymously, my hunch is that they did not find you
to be a person seeking information in good faith - and that you are
well aware that there was no actual reason to expect them to be
helpful. It seems very much like you have a personal ulterior
motive, and I imagine they were aware of that.
You are absolutely welcome to submit a FOIA, that is your legal
right. However, you do not have the right to expect the target of
your FOIA to be cooperative with or happy about your legal demand to
a third-party for documents about them. Again, I am sorry, but
sending that request and then this email just comes off as an
intention to harm and not inform (as you claim). Since NARA legally
is the focus of the FOIA and not WM-DC, I would not expect them to
respond. You are going through a legal route and expecting casual
responses - that just isn’t going to happen.
No doubt, this list has not heard the last of you, but please drop
the accusation of WM-DC being unreasonably uncooperative. I am not
sure what all of this is about, but already, you have come off in a
way that I question the motives of your efforts. You do not send a
FOIA request and then expect the other party to be happy about it -
that is just not realistic. You want to stir up shit and make others
aware of it - maybe that is necessary, I do not know - but at least
own up to your goals and drop the false pretenses. You might be on
to something important, but right now you are going about it in a
way that seems more likely to make others more wary of you than WM-DC.
-greg (User:Varnent)
A concerned citizen not afraid to post with his name
On Nov 20, 2015, at 11:34 AM, ResearchBiz
<ResearchBiz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On October 13 (over a month ago), I submitted a Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) request to the National Archives, with a courtesy copy
addressed to Kirill Lokshin, James Hare, and the Safe Space Committee
affiliated with Wikiconference USA 2015.
I had hoped for Wikimedia DC's help in this matter, because I think
it's very important in resolving the increasing tension that seems to
exist between the First Amendment right of unabridged free speech, vs.
the rising perception that there is a privilege not to ever have one's
feelings hurt by unabridged speech. I spoke today with the NARA
employee who is supervising the response to the FOIA request, and it
sounds like they are assembling quite a substantial amount of
information that will be delivered back to me, likely in the next two
weeks, I am told.
In stark contrast, I have not heard any response from the leaders of
Wikimedia DC, even though their code of ethics asserts that personnel
should:
* Serve with courtesy and responsiveness
* Demonstrate the highest standards of personal
integrity,truthfulness, honesty, and fortitude
* Conduct organizational and operational duties with open communication
It's possible that Lokshin and Hare have not received my request from
October 13, but I doubt that's the case. Time is running out for the
leadership of Wikimedia DC to proactively state their position on the
concerns addressed in the NARA FOIA request.
Sincerely,
A concerned citizen
_______________________________________________
wikimedia-dc mailing list
wikimedia-dc(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc
_______________________________________________
wikimedia-dc mailing list
wikimedia-dc(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc