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
What exactly happened? I must have missed it
- Gregory
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 20, 2015, at 11:34 AM, ResearchBiz ResearchBiz@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc
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@gmail.com:
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc
wikimedia-dc mailing list wikimedia-dc@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc
I am a relatively new member of wikimedia-dc, although a 10+year wikipedian. I am not aware of whatever history there may be behind this request. (I had wanted to attend the Wikiconference USA 2015, but was not able to do so.) I suspect others are also not aware. Could you please explain more clearly what the issue is here, and what information you are requesting, and exactly what you want Wikimedia-DC to do? It would be very helpful.
-David E. Siegel Siegel@acm.org
-----Original Message----- From: ResearchBiz ResearchBiz@gmail.com To: wikimedia-dc wikimedia-dc@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, Nov 20, 2015 11:35 am Subject: [wikimedia-dc] FOIA request to National Archives
On October 13 (over a month ago), I submitted a Freedom of InformationAct (FOIA) request to the National Archives, with a courtesy copyaddressed to Kirill Lokshin, James Hare, and the Safe Space Committeeaffiliated with Wikiconference USA 2015.I had hoped for Wikimedia DC's help in this matter, because I thinkit's very important in resolving the increasing tension that seems toexist between the First Amendment right of unabridged free speech, vs.the rising perception that there is a privilege not to ever have one'sfeelings hurt by unabridged speech. I spoke today with the NARAemployee who is supervising the response to the FOIA request, and itsounds like they are assembling quite a substantial amount ofinformation that will be delivered back to me, likely in the next twoweeks, I am told.In stark contrast, I have not heard any response from the leaders ofWikimedia DC, even though their code of ethics asserts that personnelshould:* Serve with courtesy and responsiveness* Demonstrate the highest standards of personalintegrity,truthfulness, honesty, and fortitude* Conduct organizational and operational duties with open communicationIt's possible that Lokshin and Hare have not received my request fromOctober 13, but I doubt that's the case. Time is running out for theleadership of Wikimedia DC to proactively state their position on theconcerns addressed in the NARA FOIA request.Sincerely,A concerned citizen_______________________________________________wikimedia-dc mailing listwikimedia-dc@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc
wikimedia-dc@lists.wikimedia.org