Talk:Vivek Kundra/Archive 1

Archive 1

Need for bio

Vivek Kundra has been receiving a lot of attention recently, and it seems appropriate to post information about him in Wikipedia. As the position of Chief Technology Officer becomes an official US Federal Government post, many people will be seeking information about CTOs from around the country. --KPeterson (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with KPeterson. There's increased interest in both Vivek and Padmashree because of their possible candidature for the Federal CTO position. Have added this information on both their pages with a citation link to a BusinessWeek story. Kirubashankar (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In 1997 Vivek Kundra was 22-23 years old. It is very disturbing that attorney argues that public has no right to have complete truth re: president's appointees to the positions of trust. What about idea of full disclosure? What about public's "Right to know"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.242.83 (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Biographical Data

Do we have any data on when/where he was born? 164.67.237.107 (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Added two sources which refer to where he was born and where he grew up. -- Horkana (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

He's widely reported to be 34, which would make his birth year 1975.[1][2][3] Rakerman (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"I-Net" ?

he built the first high-speed municipal I-Net in the country Does anyone know what an 'I-Net' is ? It seems to be used by a number of companies as a name for various products but as far as I'm aware it's not a generic term for anything (which given the context I would expect it to be). It might be a shortened form of 'internet' which might be technically correct but given the general use of the word 'internet' probably not helpful. What exactly is it that he's meant to have done - a link to explanatory text, a citation or re-wording would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.78.149.221 (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this smells of warm fuzzy marketing talk. I've googled around a bit and the only mention of "municipal I-net" seems to be in relation to Kundra himself. Mention of this 'accomplishment' should be removed, or proper references found as to what exactly and authoritatively happened. --Stuinzuri (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

More research! Check out this link: [4]

The I-net is a Arlington county WAN (Wide Area Network), but there is a major contradictions with Kundra's biography on this point (which seems to be a copy-paste of his bio on other sites). This authoritative link states "The County’s I-Net has been in development since 1998", and went operational in Feb 2002. Fact is, Kundra came into the tail end of a project that had been on-going for years. Yet, the article implies he oversaw it, from start to finish, in 9 months. I am going to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuinzuri (talk • contribs) 10:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This edition lacks WP:NPOV. Consider "He implemented the first municipal I-Net in the country within nine months of taking his post on Sept. 11, 2001". It is equally likely that the project was inordinately delayed for three years for lack of leadership.

The above unsigned is from 173.12.38.241

The edit lacks NPOV? How so? You'll need to be specific with your accusations, beyond your unreferenced conjecture. I counter that the including edit lacked WP:VERIFY, and my edit is valid.

Consider, 173.12.38.241, that WANs are major infrastructure projects ("The County’s I-Net is a 100-mile fiber optic network connecting County facilities throughout Arlington"), and my understanding is that they take more than nine months to complete. Consider the WAN project in question went live in Feb 2002, a mere five months after Kundra's appointment.

Back up the original text with an authoritative link and I'll reinstate it myself. Support your idea that Kundra saved the day after three years of incompetent management and I'll add that too. The reality is authoritative references on this point don't exist, and those that due are suspect. Wikipedia is not a marketing brochure, quality references are important. --Stuinzuri (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

More on I-NET

Just some research regarding this subject. The I-Net in Arlington was the first I-Net to be implemented and was a model for the development of several Institutional Networks in the country. Here is a link to a spreadsheet posted at the NCCCMC that lists 37 I-Nets as of May 2006. This links Kundra to be a key figure in implementing this program for Arlington.

It also defines that the full scope of the project involved linking 79 sites. The link cited by the editor Stuinzuri above clearly states that a “demonstration” of the I-Net was conducted on Feb 25, 2001 which linked six (6) of the sites. This was conducted (under Kundra) to test the I-Net and was by no means a date when the project was completed. This is an order of magnitude lower than the scope of 79 sites.

Regarding the start of the project in 1998, it appears that the project was floundering with delays two years later in 2000. On July 22, 2000 (two years later) Arlington County was negotiating a “rebuild” of the network. It is clear that things did not go right and the county transferred the prime contractor to rebuild the cable and fiber optic network.

It is also clear that the original scope of the project was not sufficient for September 11, 2001. There was an urgent need for building a communications infrastructure and funds were made available to build an effective I-Net at this critical time. As per the same article as cited by the editor Stuinzuri The equipment to link County facilities with each other over the I-Net was purchased using $2.4 million in capital funds, provided as a 2001 strategic initiative on e-government. These funds constitute the bulk of $3.2 million total project cost and were made available in 2001. The Washington Business Journal quotes: "A lot of the technology we've invested in is because of Sept. 11," says Vivek Kundra, director of technology services for Arlington County (http://www.co.arlington.va.us). "Communications were vital on Sept. 11 and our cell phone network wasn't working. We wanted to ensure that would never happen again."

An article on March 29, 2009 in GCN quotes:

Arlington County, Va., showed off its Institutional Network, a 12-strand-fiber network that will link (comment: future tense) county fire stations, libraries and community centers. 'We'll have somewhere between 25 and 30 Arlington County buildings hooked up by June,' information systems director Frances Rowell said.

The same article that Stuinzuri quotes to question the validity of time lines states "DTS expects to have 40 County buildings lit up by June 2002."

It clearly establishes that the I-Net was not complete by February (a mere five months after September 11) but was completed by June 2002 in its full scope after most of the funds were made available in 2001. This time line questioned by the prior editor (of 9 months since Sept 11, 2001) matches the timelines on Kundra’s Bio. This clarifies the veracity of the deleted editions and that the project was indeed implemented under Kundra. Editors must take great care in their editons. (173.12.38.241 (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

A comprehensive response... The editor Stuinzuri may now be convinced of the veracity of the statement and again goes to show in another instance where it is easy to jump to conclusions. I would encourage the editor Stuinzuri to post an amended statement that he sees fit. (57.67.16.50 (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

"state"

In 2007 he assembled the largest United States trade delegation ever to visit India, comprised of over one hundred business leaders, which resulted in a $99 million investment for the state.

What exactly does "state" refer to? The state of India? If so, it should be changed to "country". If it means state of Washington DC, it should be changed to reflect that, as obviously DC is not a state, but a district. I don't know the original editors intent, so I can't change it myself. Anyone else know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.16.143 (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

They are referring to the state of Virginia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.242.95 (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Federal CIO position within US Government?

is US federal CIO a cabinet-level position or where does it fit in the gov? (I want to know what category/ies to put the wiki page into.) Rakerman (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

His job doesn't require confirmation by the U.S. Senate, so it must not be a cabinet-level position.SandeepBK (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Admired persons

"If you could have dinner with any one currently living, whom would it be and why? Bill Gates. In 30 years he not only created a whole new industry, but is transforming public health and education. From global health to education he is successfully tackling some of the world's toughest problems!" from: http://www.sorenseninstitute.org/newsroom/entry/political-leaders-2007-profile-vivek-kundra retrieved just now.

Should this be included? I am not sure. Don't know if it is Wikipedia-worth or if it is trivia. On the other hand it is interesting when considering his new job as US CIO. Your comments appreciated. --Unapiedra (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Shoplifting

Hello. I am tiring of battling three different anonymous IP addresses in the dark. Why do you continue to remove this paragraph?

In 1997 Kundra was convicted of shoplifting a number of dress shirts from a JC Penny department store.

It is cited and written by a good source, an Associated Press writer, not a blog. If the AP can find resources to track this down, in this day and age of a dwindling number of news reporters, it belongs here. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

RFC Bio

Greetings. Three separate IP addresses remove the same paragraph about subject and shoplifting. Now one has removed my post on the talk page. I don't really know about this subject, but think that a properly sourced anecdote like this belongs in a BLP. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It is totally inappropriate for anyone to remove your discussion from this talk page. The incident that you are citing was deemed newsworthy by a major media entity, and so I think if the incident is relevant to the article then it should be included. At this time I am not going to say that the description of this incident has a permanent place in this article, but I will say that I feel it belongs in this article until someone who feels otherwise posts a legitimate reason for its removal. Until then, I feel that this incident should be in the main article, and I just put it back. Blue Rasberry 19:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Censorship

It is disturbing that legitimate criticism of a public figure like Kundra is censored by Wikipedia "editors"/censors. There is currently much discussion about Kundra's qualifications (even commented by the White House), and this article should reflect that fact.

The "fact" that is being referred to was dismissed as fiction by the White House as a smear campaign. This is simply a motivated attack to discredit and defame a public figure. This has no place on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.102.233.254 (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding arrest

Please do not remove the paragraph about him being arrested for shoplifting. The material has a reliable source. -Falcon8765 (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it got removed again, can I get other editors' opinions about the inclusion of "In 1997 Kundra was convicted of shoplifting four dress shirts from a JC Penny department store, an incident the White House said was resolved long ago."? Falcon8765 (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Restored it as per other talk page comments. Falcon8765 (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's well-sourced, and notable, it should be included. It's notable to me that a person in a position such as his would have shoplifted in his adult life. But it still seems like a non-sequitor, and shouldn't there be some context? Why did he shoplift, was he remorseful, etc. I understand not giving it undue weight in the article but it just seems to stick out in the article like a sore thumb the way it is currently written. I'm going to try to smooth it out if I can. -- Atama^chat 16:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

...Well I think I got my answer, apparently nobody knows. I see speculation but I see nothing concrete, certainly nothing from Kundra stating what had happened. It's unfortunate, too, I wonder if the best thing to do would be to simply state that it is unknown why the theft occurred, but that his sentence was simply a fine. -- Atama^chat 16:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I added information about the punishment he received, to show that he pled guilty (admitting his wrongdoing), was given a fairly minor punishment, and paid his dues by the law (the fines and community service). The way it was written before, about the conviction only, could lead the reader to speculate that he fought the charge in court or even served jail time. -- Atama^chat 16:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(E/C with Atama) I removed it again, as it violates WP:UNDUE. A shoplifting arrest from 12 years ago, one which has no material bearing on the job for which he is notable, does not belong in the article at all, particularly in the "Education and early life" section. FWIW, if you introduce such nonsense into an article, at least try to spell the names correctly; the company's name is J.C. Penney, not "Penny". Horologium (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning here. This is a biography, not an article about his job. He's "notable" for his job, but clearly the shoplifting incident was notable enough for mention in mainstream media. I don't think WP:UNDUE applies here, is it significant that a man who has reached such an important status in the government, a CIO who oversees protection and cybercrime for the United States, once stole as an adult? It's not like the crime was committed when he was a minor, it's not like he walked out with the shirts without paying, he was caught only after being chased. I think it's important to not expand upon the incident too much, that certainly would be giving it undue weight, but to exclude it is a mistake. -- Atama^chat 17:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The expansion caused this to become undue weight. Only a simple sentence is in order. The article is protected for one week. I for one don't need editors piling on to the accusations of sensationalism, vandalism and malicious intent in the edit summary here. :-) They hurt. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a mistake to exclude the fact that he pled guilty at least. Let me try a compromise and see what you think. -- Atama^chat 17:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well done. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"Bad journalism has the world's attention, and endless hours are spent by those who care about news dissection of what is bad." I agree, it should be removed. Labor unions, political parties, and other interest groups are corrupt like sledghammers to push self-interest rather than the broad public/country's interest. He is doing an excellent job. I care about our country's present and future. The sole purpose of these editions is to discredit and undermine a public servant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.16.50 (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I am happy to hear that Mr. Kundra is doing an excellent job. Scrubbing history doesn't help anyone. It's a wonderful life that allows one to change one's life for the better. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you, SusanLesch. Don't give up. 57.67.16.50's arguments are weakened by the fact that he/she has attempted to censor you even here on the talk page--these acts contradict the openness espoused by both the Obama administration and wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuinzuri (talk • contribs) 22:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with horologium, such trivia and nonsense in an article should be removed. I have heard for weeks from teachers, journalists and historians about "the wonderful world of Wikipedia," where millions of people worldwide visit daily for quick reference "facts," composed and posted by people with no special expertise or knowledge — and sometimes by people with malice.

When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.241.37.140 (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, this isn't gossip, it is an Associated Press story, and there are plenty of other sources. And I do agree with you and I support removing the stuff that was here from bloggers (John C. Dvorak and Adam Curry). -SusanLesch (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Kundra has moved beyond this and gone on to dedicate his life to public service. This is more than what most people can claim… To punish him again (and all his family members) publicly thirteen years later when a Judge with material facts deemed it to be a misdemeanor is willfully malicious and unconscionable. This is in direct contradiction to the disposition that the judge (the law) intended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.102.233.234 (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I couldn't speak for anybody (and their family) like you do. I have no idea who you all are. Unless you are Vivek Kundra and are asking for special treatment, in which case I suggest talking to User:Jimbo Wales who might make an exception. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The main point regarding the argument of 67.102.233.234 is being avoided. The key question relates to judicial intent. Selecting certain facts and ignoring others is the basis of advocacy, which may range from political punditry to propaganda.

As an attorney and objective observer, I would have to agree with the previous unsigned comment about the appropriateness of including information on this incident. Legally, Kundra was never convicted of anything--in Maryland, probation before judgment (or PBJ) is not a conviction and can be expunged from a person's record within three years. A person receiving a PBJ could honestly and legally say that he/she was never convicted of anything and does not have a criminal record. In fact, the whole point of a PBJ is to prevent people from having the "black mark" of a misdemeanor follow them for life. While Kundra's information is now out there on some blogs and a few publications, that does not mean it SHOULD be out there. Moreover, given the tone and purpose of his Wikipedia page (i.e. to provide information on his professional background and responsibilities of the CIO), it seems completely inappropriate and almost partisan in nature. For example, why is the theft that President Bush committed as a twenty-year-old not on his wikipedia page when it was covered by publications such as the New York Times?

On a sidenote, I am also concerned by the tone of this discussion. Is it fair to assume that just because somebody believes this information should not be disclosed, they are somehow linked to Vivek Kundra? It would be equivalent of assuming that just because somebody wants this information on his page, they are affiliated with the Republican Party. I think it's better we stay away from such assumptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.138 (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

A wikipedia biography frequently goes beyond just "provid[ing] information on his professional background and responsibilities of the CIO". As for the tone of things here, those in favor of not including the theft charge in the article have gone as far as removing edits on the topic from this very talk page, which is aggressive and hostile. This kind of censorship breeds suspicion of intent. --Stuinzuri (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There is alot of not assuming good faith statements and accusations going around on this talk page. I personally am an Obama supporter, so all of these accusations of malice and partisan leanings are mildly amusing. Not assuming good faith and questioning the frankly unknowable motives of other editors does nothing for the rational discussion of the inclusion of his arrest and does more to keep the material present as to not censor it. Assume good faith people. Falcon8765 (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

If it is true that probation before judgment would be erased from the state of Maryland's records, then why did the Associated Press find a record? I feel responsible for accusations of bad faith because I brought up Kundra and Jimmy Wales, which was actually in good faith. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't you wonder? Well said by the attorney at 170.170.59.138! I could not have expressed it better. Besides all of the avoidance of addressing the judicial intent, I would simply refer all the editors to WP:BLP. To reiterate the Wikipedia guidance: "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States".

A new editor, whose first edit a week ago was on this topic, has removed it. That doesn't change my question, "If it is true that probation before judgment would be erased from the state of Maryland's records, then why did the Associated Press find a record?" I put a talkback tag on the attorney at Kinko's talk page, User talk:170.170.59.138, but don't expect a reply. This had the potential for being a civilized discussion but it got off to a very bad start (someone removed my talk, people made accusations in edit summaries). So I guess it comes down to if you ever hear again from the Kinko's user, who supports removal but says s/he is an objective observer. I won't argue here any longer. So you IPs all won. Congratulations. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not the shoplifting incident still appears in Maryland's records does not change the fact that it happened. The AP article is sufficient to establish this fact. Publishing a "notable, relevant, and well-documented" incident is prescribed by WP:WELLKNOWN: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The incident is notable and relevant because it speaks to Kundra's integrity and judgment, which are essential questions for any high ranking government official.

"As an attorney and objective observer, I would have to agree with the previous unsigned comment about the appropriateness of including information on this incident. Legally, Kundra was never convicted of anything--in Maryland, probation before judgment (or PBJ) is not a conviction and can be expunged from a person's record within three years. A person receiving a PBJ could honestly and legally say that he/she was never convicted of anything and does not have a criminal record. In fact, the whole point of a PBJ is to prevent people from having the "black mark" of a misdemeanor follow them for life. While Kundra's information is now out there on some blogs and a few publications, that does not mean it SHOULD be out there. Moreover, given the tone and purpose of his Wikipedia page (i.e. to provide information on his professional background and responsibilities of the CIO), it seems completely inappropriate and almost partisan in nature. For example, why is the theft that President Bush committed as a twenty-year-old not on his wikipedia page when it was covered by publications such as the New York Times? This comment was posted by User:7oceans. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have sat next to an attorney at Kinko's so I know it is possible. But why copy what he or she wrote? -SusanLesch (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have parsed through the arguments and counter-arguments and strongly agree with the attorney and the legal disposition. The overriding guidance for WP in this case would be "Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States". This comment was posted by User:7oceans. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

WP has a more specific policy for well-known people WP:WELLKNOWN. Its standards are that the incident should be included if it is "notable, relevant, and well-documented". It makes clear that "notable" and "relevant" trump "sensitivity" when well known figures are involved. Certainly the Federal Chief Information Officer is well known. The incident itself is well known, because the White House Press secretary brought attention to the "youthful indiscretion". Furthermore, it is disingenuous for you to imply that publishing the incident does not "adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States." You would have us believe that if the incident was expunged from the criminal record, then we are legally required to exclude it from the historical record. That reasoning is fallacious and quite dangerous. Lawyers and judges do not get to write the history books, WP has its own standards and an editorial process. I think it is important that this issue be argued on the points of "notable" and "relevant". If we decide not to publish the information simply because it has been expunged from the criminal record, I believe we are setting a dangerous precedent that has the potential to reach far beyond this article. This comment was posted by User:67.243.39.12. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe judges make decisions to set dangerous precedents. In fact the Chief Justices have categorically stated that societal well being is the primary basis for decisions. Regarding WP policies, the statement states that content regarding a BLP must first strictly adhere to all applicable laws in the United States and then to all the policies set forth. The law deems the matter closed. The examples or the content of WP:WELLKNOWN does not account for situations where the legal system has ruled to exclude it from public record. I don't think "we" (the editors in WP) agree that "we" don't recognize due legal process.This comment was posted by User:7oceans. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

For the last time, publishing the shoplifting incident does not violate US law. The court may have decided to remove the incident from the criminal record, that does not prohibit a journalist or historian from writing about it. I don't even believe that you think it would violate the law. You are broadening the meaning of "adhere" to mean "imitate", so that in your interpretation, "adhere strictly to the laws" means "imitate a courtroom". You think that WP ought to, as a matter of policy, censor the historical record to remove any mention of an incident that has since been expunged from the criminal record. There is no such WP policy, and there is no such law. What is true is that if WP decides to publish the incident, then it has to be very carefully worded so that it does not make false claims about the legal outcome. Perhaps "crime", "conviction" are not legally accurate, and so cannot be used. But there is a wording that can accurately document the event and the legal outcome. The only issues that ought to stop WP from publishing it are questions about the notability and relevance of the incident.This comment was posted by User:67.243.39.12.

I am a self-styled journalist and historian. This is a travesty and a mockery of the judicial system and of Wikipedia itself. These laws and processes were created for a purpose. When by law a person does not have a criminal record, and a person can legally claim so, isn't it defamatory to publish it with a world audience? The fact that the judge struck it from public record means that it was not a "notable" or a "relevant" incident. WP:BLP states clearly "from both a legal and ethical standpoint it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other undesirable information from these articles as far as possible". (66.171.128.239 (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC))

Nobody has answered my question. Why did the Associated Press find a record, if it is true that the record was cleaned? -SusanLesch (talk) 04:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

To answer the journalist/historian's question, no, it is not defamation if it is true and not misleading. So when you say "publish it", if you mean claiming that Kundra has a criminal record, yes, that could be a problem. However, if you mean writing that he pleaded guilty to theft, that cannot be defamation because it is accurate and true. To address your second point, as recently as March 2009, the Montgomery County, Maryland case record #0D00031388 was still available, which is how the news organizations discovered the truth. So the case was not removed from the public record. Regardless, WP must now re-examine the significance of the shoplifting event given Kundra's current status and responsibilities. WP policy clearly makes a distinction between unknown and well-known persons: see WP:WELLKNOWN.

This is ludicrous. The editors above are already engaging in defamatory/libelous "discussions". Through the talk pages the editor is already "publishing it". These are searchable and create a new public record. The argument above is also equivocatory. If the court has moved to strike the public record, in legal terms, the plea or the outcome are irrelevant (they do not exist). By shifting the responsibility, i.e. "he pled guilty" and by using terms as shoplifting, the editor is in effect alleging a criminal record. It is misleading by implication. The link cites defamation "in law, is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not always, a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant)". The responsibility lies squarely with the editor. The fact that the editor is anonymous itself underscores the lack of legal standing. The editor is even listing the case number above to fabricate a criminal record within WP. This is malicious. It should be removed immediately.(57.67.16.50 (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC))

The US Supreme Court has upheld the right to publish information that appeared in the public record:

Once true information is disclosed in public court documents open to public inspection, the press cannot be sanctioned for publishing it. In this instance as in others reliance must rest upon the judgment of those who decide what to publish or broadcast.

(Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn (USSC) [420 U.S. 469, 496]).

Kundra's case record was public, which is how the AP and other news organizations found it. Therefore the publication of its information is allowed.

A Rockford, IL court has upheld the right to publish information about a case that was expunged:

In dismissing the suit, the court agreed with the newspaper's argument that since the conviction and expungement were both matters of public record, the newspaper's accurate report of them was privileged.

(Rockford: Holder v. Register Star)

http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/2003/december/nw1224-3.htm

Kundra's case record was public, so the accurate reporting of it is allowed.

Furthermore, we know that having pleaded guilty does NOT imply that there is a criminal record. If one feels this subtlety is lost on the typical reader, then the appropriate remedy is to expand the description to make it explicit. I find it telling that the only remedies you suggest are censorship. There are those who would censor the truth using the chilling effect of libel intimidation. The First Amendment protects us against such bullying.

Also, "actual malice" is a reckless disregard for the truth, not the accurate publication of information that you consider harmful.

I am relatively new to WP so I didn't know the signing technique. Thank you to those who have taken the time to add the missing signatures from the page history.67.243.39.12 (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

So you are relatively new? Welcome back! I also recommend that you read Wikipedia Policy carefully so that you understand our practices. Be careful of how you interpret what you read: what you understand. Wikipedia's contributors come from many different countries and cultures. We have many different views, perspectives, opinions, and backgrounds, sometimes varying widely. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an international online encyclopedia.

I also strongly agree with the attorney.

"As an attorney and objective observer, I would have to agree with the previous unsigned comment about the appropriateness of including information on this incident. Legally, Kundra was never convicted of anything--in Maryland, probation before judgment (or PBJ) is not a conviction and can be expunged from a person's record within three years. A person receiving a PBJ could honestly and legally say that he/she was never convicted of anything and does not have a criminal record. In fact, the whole point of a PBJ is to prevent people from having the "black mark" of a misdemeanor follow them for life. While Kundra's information is now out there on some blogs and a few publications, that does not mean it SHOULD be out there. Moreover, given the tone and purpose of his Wikipedia page (i.e. to provide information on his professional background and responsibilities of the CIO), it seems completely inappropriate and almost partisan in nature. For example, why is the theft that President Bush committed as a twenty-year-old not on his wikipedia page when it was covered by publications such as the New York Times?" See below:

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/061900wh-bush.htm

New York Times Ally of an Older Generation Amid the Tumult of the 60's

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Political Journeys

NEW HAVEN -- The first time that George W. Bush was arrested, he had just stolen a Christmas wreath.

Mr. Bush, then a 20-year-old junior at Yale, was head of a notoriously rambunctious fraternity, and with the Christmas holidays approaching, he and some of his buddies had declared themselves the "decorating committee." They took off for a festive shopping street, where Mr. Bush spotted the wreath in a hotel -- and stole it.

It was not the perfect crime. Mr. Bush later recalled that he and his friends had perhaps had a few beers and were loud and boisterous. In addition, a police car was approaching.

The police arrested Mr. Bush and charged him with disorderly conduct. Eventually the charges were dropped, but the episode underscored Mr. Bush's path through the uproar of the late 1960's: at a time when many university students risked arrest for their vociferous political protests, Mr. Bush broke the law not out of principle but for a prank. Others denounced the police as "pigs," while Mr. Bush instinctively stood with the establishment, even as he casually breached its law.

Born at the earliest fringe of the baby boom, Mr. Bush was pressed during his years at Yale, 1964 to 1968, to take sides in the great battles then unfolding over politics, civil rights, drugs and music. Mostly he was a noncombatant in those upheavals, but when forced to choose, he ultimately retreated to the values and ideals established by his parents' generation, and to their accepted methods of rebelling.

In short, while some students took to the barricades, Mr. Bush took to the bar.

Unlike others of his generation, like Bill Clinton or Al Gore, Mr. Bush never wore his hair long, agonized over Vietnam, wrestled with existentialism or cranked up Rolling Stones songs to annoy his parents (instead of hard rock music, he listened to soul). Even today, Mr. Bush thunders in his stump speeches against boomer-style self-indulgence and appeals for a "responsibility era" that in some respects sounds like the 1950's; he likes values as clean-cut as his hair.

Many young people of privilege who encountered the 1960's began to question the system and their own values; Mr. Bush seems to have grasped his more tightly than ever. He may have broken the law, but he never questioned it. And today, much of his underlying political philosophy rests on the belief that the nation still needs to reverse the psychology of permissiveness and liberalism that began to take root in the country in the late 1960's.

Mr. Bush was a rabble-rouser of sorts, but only in the high-spirited way that fraternity boys a generation earlier had swallowed goldfish or sat on flagpoles. For all the buffeting that late-night television has given Mr. Bush over questions of drug use, he was in most respects a very conventional young man, and classmates say they do not recall him ever using marijuana or other illegal drugs.

One of the very few differences in mores between Mr. Bush and his parents came with changing patterns of courtship, for Mr. Bush busied himself with a string of girlfriends, while his father and mother both had married the only person they had ever kissed. Indeed, like many of his conservative peers, the only revolution for which the younger Bush ever demonstrated any enthusiasm was the sexual one.

As Mr. Bush was frolicking around Yale, a young man named Al Gore was studying at Harvard. But they were very different. Mr. Gore had barely arrived on campus when he began going around the dormitories, campaigning for a spot on the freshman council; later, he spent his time worrying about Vietnam.

He was, in short, just the kind of serious and self-important student whom the less reputable Mr. Bush liked to mock.

"Can you imagine how much it hurt," Mr. Bush once joked to a crowd, "to know that Dad's idea of the perfect son was Al Gore?" (talk)

I would guess Bush's wreath-stealing escapade was omitted because it was seen as an insignificant college prank. However his drunk driving arrest is documented in Wikipedia:

In one instance, on September 4, 1976, he was arrested near his family's summer home in Kennebunkport, Maine for driving under the influence of alcohol. He pleaded guilty, was fined $150 and had his Maine driver's license suspended until 1978.

So here we have 2 different Bush arrests, one notable, the other not. One is documented, the other not. My argument all along has been that Kundra should be held to the same standard: his arrest should be documented if it is considered notable and relevant.67.243.39.12 (talk) 06:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

George W.Bush (the 43rd President of United States) was arrestted THREE TIMES.

1. The first arrest in 1966, of George W. Bush was for theft at a hotel. Age almost 21 ("The First Son," Minutaglio, p. 99; "Dallas Morning News," September 6, 1998) 2. The second arrest in 1967, of George W. Bush was for disorderly conduct at a football game. Age 21. http://www.wthefilm.com/guide/pages/6-Arrest-at-Princeton-Game.html 3. The third arrest in 1976, of George W. bush was a very serious crime -- drunk driving. Age. 30. (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/02/bush.dui/).

The first two arrest of George W. Bush in 1966 and 1967 were omitted becuse it was seen as an college "youthful indiscretion" or prank.

Kundra's college "youthful indiscretion" or prank, is not considered notable, does not belong in the article at all. It seems completely inappropriate and almost partisan in nature. All politicians, whether elected or appointed, are public figures and should be held to a same higher moral standard. Wikipedia policy does not condone discrimination.(talk)

Also, please don't reclassify other members comments/posting in different sections and subheading. Incivility wastes time and energy -time that could be used to make this world a much better place and save lives.

It is good to see that the issue is now being debated on the basis of notability and relevance. Libel intimidation is a dangerous thing, we cannot stand idly by as long as it is a threat.67.243.39.12 (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

With regards to the "there is a problem" post I moved, please see my comments thereunder before moving it again.67.243.39.12 (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit war stopped

I have semi-protected this article for a week. My other option was to block the IP addresses involved in the edit war, but since IP addresses can be changed, I opted for semi-protection for a week.

Both viewpoints can be justified under policy; come to an agreement on the article's talk page instead of reverting each other's edits. Horologium (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears that 24.12.192.73 also sneaked in an opinionated commentary in the Early Life section that underscores the true intentions of the editor. The comment: "although it cannot be confirmed that he attended full time or day classes and may have attended night or correspondence classes. The University refuses to release his transcripts to confirm his credentials". This pure unverifiable conjecture on the behalf of the editor has no place in WP and amounts to a personal attack on a public figure and should be deleted immediately. This is really not a blog or a tabloid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.16.50 (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the preceding comment. Why are the sentences about full time vs. correspondence classes and UMD transcript allowed on Wikipedia? Those sentences are pure conjecture and, in fact, the source cited is completely contrary to the author's baseless assertion. The source actually indicates that the University of Maryland unequivocally confirmed Kundra's credentials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.111.58 (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A self-admission by the editor 24.12.192.73 that his statement "cannot be confirmed" and use of "may have attended" confirms the speculative nature of the editions. Why does 24.12.192.73 want to include his/her own unconfirmed speculations? It is also not normal for an editor to call for the transcript of a BLP subject. We may not be able to assume that the editor is acting on the good faith principles of WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.102.233.245 (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a transcript from Kundra's speech to the FCC this year:

“And think about this, I know there are people on Second Life right now, but imagine a Universe where you have the Star-Trek holodeck where you could literally ask the computer, err, to act or ask questions to get answers. In the same way, if you look at some of these software companies they’ve made it sooo complicated to interact with their technologies. Ah and, err, at the same time the underlying architecture and the platform, it’s almost a chicken and egg question because alot of it was built and architected around bandwidth constraints therefore you had to deploy technologies that were much more complicated in terms of interacting and communicating. Now, as broadband deployment, and more importantly, err, if you look at the megabits-per-second, err, how much, err, how much information can we get through the pipeline is going to be so important and, as new and new software and techologies are being introduced, what you going to see is huuuge-change from how applications are architected from skip-logic to video and much more human ways of interacting with these applications rather than, err, binary or COBOL ways of interacting.”

Journalists such as John C. Dvorak question much, much more than his academic degrees or his police record; this speech makes clear that this person has hardly any qualification for the job, regardless of he has or not a M.Sc. degree on whatever field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.61.152.245 (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

If one were to cite blogs, journalists consider Dvorak to be a great entertainer and the author of a blog, but definitely not a journalist. The editor above seems to be confusing blogs for news and opinions for facts. The biased opinion or entertaining caricature above has no credibility and truly reveals the purpose of these editions to use wikipedia for a smear campaign. Refer to Wikipedia policy on WP:BLP. It states: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." These are merely attempts to vandalize this wiki page and have no place here. 57.67.16.50 (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Two Points: 1. The issue presented regarding the purported value of the free apps supplied to DC at Kundra's request seems to be a disagreement as to whether or not the DC Mayor's mere words, without any specific numbers to substantiate those words (that the free apps were worth $X millions of dollars). If the policy of Wikipedia is that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed", then it seems clear that self-serving words by a politician (the DC Mayor) of the value of the apps needs to be clearly confirmed by an independent party (that is one with no horse in the race and one that shows the numerical basis of the conclusion of value). If no valid citation as to the value can be made, then either the words as to value must be qualified with terms such as 'supposedly' or ' purportedly' or the value amount should be removed. It seems that is what the first editor tried to do then they were removed by 57.67.16.50 who either was trying to promote Kundra without substantiation or could not understand what substantiation means. Statements by someone aligned with the person whom the statement helps is prima facia biased and needs to be supported by facts, not assertions. 2. Even more revealing is shown ironically in the talk point made by 57.67.16.50 who personally attacks Dvorak supposedly in response to the talk quotation regarding Kundra testimony to congress as being shallow. When 57.67.16.50 attacks Dvorak, it seems clear that he/she could not think of any reason to argue against the point made by the person quoting the testimony or the broader issue. This obvious showing of bias seems to speak volumes as to the motives of 57.67.16.50.

In summary, if this Wiki page is supposed to live up to the standards that itself posts, that is that it is to be objective, then it is clear that all of these biased remarks (positive or negative) be removed. The problem it seems is that if the editors cannot understand what unsubstantiated means, then the Wikipedia has failed if they allow these pages to become fan-boy pages for the person named. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.107.87 (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I am a little concerned about the single minded focus of the editor above to discredit the subject of this BLP. The content of the edition is dubious. A coding error in a Pie Chart on the federal government website was discussed in a blog and has its rightful place there. But to include it on the biography of the US-CIO is a little over the top. Please consider that extreme caution needs to be exercised while editing the biography of a living person (BLP) as a matter of policy. There are strict guidelines for citations with no exceptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.102.233.245 (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well ... I am MORE than a little concerned about the single minded focus and obvious motives of those WP editors that seem hell-bent on praising the subject of a page but at the same time refuse to allow any and all contrary facts that dispute the basis of the praise offered, even when such facts are presented by independent parties with expertise and specific technical reference. These are not opinions, they are facts borne of investigation. WP is NOT a fan-boy site. If a person claims through the proxies of WP editors that he/she has accomplished great things, and others show that such things have material defects, then it should be up to the reader to determine the weighting of each position. It should not be up to the editors to try to pursue their agenda by hiding the facts that are contrary to their contention. Dismissing criticisms out of hand without disproving the facts presented therein is a dangerous path to follow. The errors in the .gov site once corrected can be justification for the removal of the comment as a current issue; absent that, the problems are relevant to the subject presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.107.87 (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I define journalistic objectivity as a genuine effort to be an honest broker when it comes to Wikipedia and news. That means playing it straight without favoring one side when the facts are in dispute, regardless of your own views and preferences. This is not about mine or your preferences. Wikipedia has no room for opinion, spin, and propaganda from blogs. It is more important than ever for young readers to learn to distinguish fact and opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.128.239 (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Did it ever occur to the editor 24.1.107.87 that there may be some rules at WP? They are there for a reason. Here is a quotation from the WP:BLP policy:

Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material (see below).

The BLOG article cited is not under any editorial control. It has the following disclaimer for the citation:

This is a public forum. United Business Media and its affiliates are not responsible for and do not control what is posted herein. United Business Media makes no warranties or guarantees concerning any advice dispensed by its staff members or readers.

If it were under editorial control the reviewer would have guided the author of the BLOG to amend its critique by pointing to an FAQ at the USASpending.gov website which states categorically:

Is USAspending.gov accessible for people with disabilities?

USASpending.gov complies with all of the automatic checkpoints of the Section 508 Accessibility Guidelines, and has been manually verified for nearly all of the manual checkpoints.This compliance has been tested using Watchfire WebXACT program. Because USAspending.gov uses dynamically generated Web pages, it is not possible to test literally every page. However, each dynamically generated output style can be tested. We hope to continue to upgrade USASpending.gov’s accessibility for individuals with disabilities in forthcoming updates.

This is a BLP. It is not a litany of errors of Federal Govt. webpages. The above example shows why the editorial process is important.

Another caveat. Personal attacks on the editors and language such as "fanboy" is not permissible. I am also offended by statements such as "Dismissing criticisms out of hand without disproving the facts presented therein is a dangerous path to follow." Dear editor (24.1.107.87) do you conform to the concept of Guilty until proved innocent? This seems to explain the pattern of provocative accusations with the argument that the accusations stand until proven otherwise! Acusation of 'a person claims through the proxies of WP editors' is paranoid and offensive to editors who are trying to comply with certain guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.16.50 (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems to us, as we watch this monologue of the pro VK folks unfold, that the credibility of 57.67.16.50's impartiality has already become suspect. Moreover, wethinks that 57.67.16.50 protests too much, when criticizing others of personal attacks. We also note that in one of the prior revisions that one of the editors removed the explicit reference to USAspending.gov in the text but chose to hide it in the it-dashboard hyperlink, apparently trying to in-artfully obscure the argument that was made by others about the defects in the USAspending.gov coding and accessibility to the disabled, feigning that the reference was removed in the interests of avoiding redundancy. LOL

Finally, one has to wonder, as we do here, what is the real motivation of 57.67.16.50, 66.171.128.239 and others that keep trying to remove any and all contrary facts to their positions of the supposed technical achievements of the subject of the web page. Are these folks somehow connected to the subject of the WP page? We guess we will never know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.240.39 (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I am also concerned by the tone of this discussion. Is it fair to assume that just because somebody believes in truth, they are somehow connected to the subject of the WP page? Finding truth is a universal journalistic responsibility. It is not a goal, but a duty. Opinion sells. And opinion is, relatively speaking, cheaper than news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.128.239 (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

We are all concerned. The comments by 66.171.128.239 would be laughable if the underlying implications for WP were not so serious. He/She uses the words truth and opinion but seems that he/she knows the disnction? Joseph Goebbels also used a similar technique to discredit those who dared to challenge the 'truths' propagated by that regime. One has to wonder what the persons who are removing edits that present fact-based contrary views are afraid of? WP's allowance of these vandalisms of the edits made by persons who want to restore balance to the page is more than troublesome, it is a debasement of the purpose and supposed charter of WP itself. We just hope and pray that the persons who attempt to restore balance will prevail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.66.146 (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Objectivity also means not trying to create the illusion of fairness by letting advoctes pretend in your journalism that there is a debate about the facts when the weight of truth is clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.128.239 (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I would hope that 66.171.128.239 would stop vandalizing the posts of others using absurd claims such that the citation to one's own public facebook page is not a valid self-certification of the facts. Objectivity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.180.194.70 (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The following remarks are for 207.180.194.70 "When politics is being covered, accusations of bias fly like bullets." He - said/ she - said reporting, which just pits one voice against another, has become the discredited face of objectivity." Refer Wiki policy WP:BLP, sources such as blogs, facebook etc. which are not under any editorial control are not admissable as citations. Anybody can create a profile on a facebook page, it does not aver ownership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.128.239 (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

NOW the reason is clear for 66.171.128.239's malicious attacks on my posts. For some reason, he/she is confused. This is a BIO piece not a political piece! There have been others that have also substantiated the marriage not just by words, but by photos, but when others have posted a hyperlink to those references, some editors have also wrongfully claimed that the mere posting of a hyperlink toa public page is somehow copyright infringement! How absurd. The pages in question invite inbound linking and are trying to serve a public purpose as well. If 66.171.128.239 wants to do a political piece, then he/she should do one. This is a bio piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.180.194.171 (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What is your post? Macy's Wedding & Gift Registry. What is your intent? To promote Macy's or photographer? Refer Wiki policy WP:BLP, sources such as blogs, facebook etc. which are not under any editorial control are not admissable as citations. Anybody can create a profile on a facebook page, it does not aver ownership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.128.239 (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks by 66.171.128.239 are not welcome not in accord with WP policy. Citations were evidence of facts not adverts. Moreover, if it is WP policy to disallow blog posts, then many of the items on this page should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.180.195.227 (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the position of 207.180.195.227 in that there seems to be some absurd application of the NO BLOGS policy with respect to this page in general and with respect to 66.181.128.239's interprestation and application thereof. What is the REAL Agenda of 207.180.195.227? take a look at the past few weeks of edit history. Why does 227 seem to be very pro-subject of the page (and quite combative rather than rational)? Troublesome to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.99.106 (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

WP is not a BLOG. The editors are guided to express their opinion on blogs if they desire to do so. WP is not a proper forum for this nonsense. WP editors (especially for a BLP) are required to IMMEDIATELY Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. The editors are guided to read WP:BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.102.233.246 (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Did 67.102.233.246 even read the post before killing it? One has to wonder. It was very specific and item has been covered by Slashdot as well as the specific citation used in the posting which is a reputable reporter. why is no one removing the other posts that are based entirely on blogs if the issue is blogs? Or is the real issue WHO'S blog it is? gotta wonder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.80.86 (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Let us read the WP:BLP policy together. It states: "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material (see below)." The citations do not meet this criterion.

Let us not use patronizing comments. You deleted refs with a general comment. Please explain EXACTLY what you are objecting to. If it is a reference to a WEBSITE, then most of this page needs to be deleted. One gets the impression that you do not have a specific issue. In my country, we would say that your comments are smelly. You edit without reason. Why cannot you answer the question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.161.16 (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone intending to write a biographical article about a living person should carefully review Wikipedia's policies, in particular their Core Content Policies (Neutrality & Verifiability). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.128.239 (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

These remarks are for User talk:80.25.161.16 My sense is that most Americans want the same thing that their news should be rooted in a verifiable reality that can be confirmed and that faithfully represents tha ambiguity that reality usually includes. The national conversation is the means we have for interpreting and analyzing that core of objective news, and it is inherently subjective and opinionated. But if a fundamental confidence in the iron core disappears, if it is viewed as just another collection of facts assembled by someone with a political agenda, then one of the most important supports for our democracy will weaken, and the conversation may well become more of a cacophonous Tower of Babel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.128.239 (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Madame, 66.171.128.239, you seem to be the perfect example of the Tower of Babel. You try to puzzle people with generalities, ignore the simplest requests for clarification, and impune the integrity of every other person who does not agree with you. You are shameful. Your failure to respond to the simple questions shows how your purpose is malicious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.161.16 (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

These remarks are for User 80.25.161.16 "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.128.239 (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Holy cow, so many anons. Someone must have a political blog or something. In a way its no different than sports fans who suddenly appear after nowhere when a player/rival player gets arrested. --Bobak (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why? Must be a smear campaign. Some people are just caught in the middle of two major Republican and Democratic party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.12.38.241 (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits concerning 66.171.128.239

Removal of referenced information requires a coherent explaination regarding the possible issues with the content. Vague remarks such as "read wiki policy" is not a sufficient explaination and seems to be more of a cover excuse for possible WP:COI issues with the subject. I am not a newbie, if you want to remove the information you will have to do better than insisting that I should "read wiki policy" -Reconsider the static (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Your explaination of "malicious edits", reinforces the notion that you have a conflict of interest with the subject matter. While the information may be negative, it is backed by a reliable third party source (NY Times) and is written in an appropriate manner-Reconsider the static (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The "leave of absence from FED CIO" edit was reverted again without explanation. I appreciate the enthusiasm displayed by those who oppose the edit! I invite them to channel that energy into a constructive discussion so that we may reach a consensus.Truprint (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well said :) Smartse (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Having followed this discussion for a month, this appears to be another concerted and backhanded attempt to inject the reference to Kundra's 1996 "indiscretion" into the page. In the discussion above there was consensus that was reached that Kundra's BLP was to be held to the same standard as President George W. Bush's WP page and that this content had no place here. To tie together an irrelevant investigation seems like a sketchy and far fetched attempt of a tabloid paper. It is my intent to adhere to WP:BLP standards of not being "sensationalist". This has lately been the bane of WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7oceans (talk • contribs) 00:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the contentious material for the following reasons:

1) WP:BLP warns "Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons." The reference cited here is about Yusuf Acar. WP editors are instructed to be careful especially in BLP. The FBI called this irrelevant. Where is the notability?

2) WP:NPOV - The sentence is constructed to read partially "D.C. chief technology officer, was arrested for "bid-rigging, taking bribes, money laundering and wire fraud." Acar (subject) seems to very far from the predicate. It also appears to be an interesting attempt to insert these irrelevant phrases into the WP page. Intent?

3) "youthful indiscretion" was discarded based on discussion for consistency and arguments above. --7oceans (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the "guilt by association" is a viable argument in this situation. The information should remain on the account that subject was directly affected by the incident. Concerns of "bias" is dealt with in the next sentence "Kundra was not a suspect of the investigation and was reinstated on March 17, 2009". In addition NPOV is not an issue for the sentence of concern, it is simply stating the facts of what happened. The person was charged on those specific terms bid rigging, taking bribes, money laundering and wire fraud. Also, you have yet to justify the removal of the latter part of the paragraph in which it is detailed (with references) that Kundra was involved in previous incidents for which he pleaded guilty. -Reconsider the static (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Your statement: "The person was charged on those specific terms bid rigging, taking bribes, money laundering and wire fraud". Who is "the person"? Not Kundra. Relevance? The bias is evident where you are not even talking about Kundra and associating this to him. This is bonafide "guilt by associaton". The FBI may have better information than you or I. Would you consider that you may be lacking an objective view point? Your next statement "Kundra was involved in previous incidents for which he pleaded guilty" gives it away. Previous incidents connotates to a "present incident". Another dimension to "guilt by association"? As far as the removal of the latter part is concerned, there was consensus that this does not belong here. You may have to read the discussion section above "Regarding Arrest" to arrive to a long drawn conclusion. --7oceans (talk) 10:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Your argument of "guilt by association" holds no ground in this argument. The following sentence "Kundra was not a suspect of the investigation and was reinstated on March 17, 2009" clearly states his non-involvement. However the information is necessary due to the consequent effect of his temporary dismissal. There is a clear distinction between the actions of Acar and the statement of Kundra's innocence. As for the latter part, I do not see any consensus on the subject matter. -Reconsider the static (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The consensus was (again) Kundra's BLP was to be held to the same standard as President George W. Bush's WP page. Since there was no reference to President Bush's arrest in Yale and Princeton in his WP page there should be no reference in Kundra's page as well. The "college pranks" were not considered notable. This is also not relevant in this section. I am going to proceed to delete this segment.--7oceans (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There is quite a lot of information on the George W Bush article that is not covered on Kundra's (and vice versa). Removal for the sake of 'consistency'? Quite a weak argument in my opinion. Though I do agree that it may suggest his guilt on the more recent issue. Rewording? However I still maintain that the information on Acar is relevant and should not be removed -Reconsider the static (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Objectivity also means not trying to create the illusion of fairness by letting advoctes pretend in your journalism that there is a debate about the facts when the weight of truth is clear. All politicians, whether elected or appointed, are public figures and should be held to a same higher moral standard. Wikipedia policy does not condone discrimination. No room for this is nonsense on Wikipedia. Do something constructive.

My two cents would be to include the information and maybe work on changing the phrasing slightly if 7oceans feels this is necessary. Using arguments based on what's done on GWB's article is pointless, we're working on a different article and the consensus needs to be established for this article. The fact that he went on leave definitely has to be mentioned and the other info is just explaining why he went on leave. Smartse (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I would support a rewording that clarifies while maintaining the essential information. I believe Kundra being put on leave from Fed CIO is a notable event in his tenure of that position. Their must exist an unbiased formulation that explains the circumstances. Also, I recall the Obama administration said something about "an abundance of caution" being the reason they suspended Kundra. Perhaps including that would help?Truprint (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The biased opinion or entertaining caricature above has no credibility and truly reveals the purpose of these editions to use wikipedia for a smear campaign. Refer to Wikipedia policy on WP:BLP. It states: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." These are merely attempts to vandalize this wiki page and have no place here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.128.186 (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Your complaints are going to fall on deaf ears when you evade a block to make them. -- Atama頭 18:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It isn't really sensationalist when all we are doing is citing the NYT (not a tabloid AFAIK). All we are doing is stating the facts in the articles. Smartse (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by deaf ears? Are you blocking certain people from posting? As a result, not allowing open fair communication to take place. Effective and balance communication enable better understanding. Why are you posting remarks on the main article when they are open for debate? This is wrong use of power. You have lost my trust and confidence. Failure to communicate - lack of suitable explanations. You continue to make repeated/consistent poor judgments. You should have allowed open, fair, honest communication to take place without posting the data on the main page. Also, why is the theft that President Bush committed as a 21 & 22 year-old not on his wikipedia page when it was covered by publications such as the New York Times?

why is the theft that President Bush committed as a 21 & 22 year-old not on his wikipedia page when it was covered by publications such as the New York Times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.128.186 (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

why is the theft that President Bush committed as a 21 & 22 year-old not on his wikipedia page when it was covered by publications such as the New York Times?

Why do we drive in a parkway and park in a driveway? Who cares? It's not relevant to the discussion. Bringing up problems with other articles shows that you have no real basis for your claims and are fishing for a justification for your recent disruption. -- Atama頭 20:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is relevant. Objectivity also means not trying to create the illusion of fairness by letting advoctes pretend in your journalism that there is a debate about the facts when the weight of truth is clear. All politicians, whether elected or appointed, are public figures and should be held to a same higher moral standard. Wikipedia policy does not condone discrimination.

why is the theft that President Bush committed as a 21 & 22 year-old not on his wikipedia page when it was covered by publications such as the New York Times?

Who is We? I have know people like this. People who are happy when something bad happens to others. They thrive on it. What is it that makes a person so cruel? Is it that they have so little self esteem that they must get it from the pain of others? Are they born sociopaths? What is it about human suffering that makes these individuals so happy?

I have seen it time and time again. The hatred, the lack of remorse or empathy. I know there is something deeply wrong with these people. They hurt others sometimes just for kicks.

It seems to have been an emotionally charged morning! There was an ongoing discussion when I left in the morning. Let us take a more rational approach. My position is simple: if there is a contentious issue the content should be removed from the article to the discussion until resolved. -7oceans (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I restored the material. This article is turning into a joke. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Desperate attempts to attack the subject of a BLP Vivek Kundra from 08/12/2009 to present. Latest attempt to create posting over a contentious material under the ID of TruPrint on 10/21/2009 which was created on the same day. The wording of this posting is almost identical to that posted by SusanLesch, IP 67.243.39.12, and Atama over this period. When Atama stopped reverting edits after 2 attempts, SusanLesch appeared out of nowhere after a month of silence to revert the edit herself. The language and the arguments presented in the discussion section are also practically identical. Relentlessly and purposefully injected controversial subject matter under different IDs in diferent sections.

Wording is practically identical over a three month period and posted at monthly intervals(Interesting - someone has a monthly Outlook appointment):

1) 00:19, 12 August 2009 SusanLesch (talk | contribs) m (9,951 bytes) (Undid, unexplained removal of cited content)

Wording: In 1997 Kundra was convicted of shoplifting a number of dress shirts from a JC Penny department store.

2) 01:24, 18 August 2009 SusanLesch (talk | contribs) (10,137 bytes) (→Early life and education: re-adding shoplifting, also adding resolution) (undo)

Wording: In 1997 Kundra was convicted of shoplifting four dress shirts from a JC Penny department store, an incident the White House said was resolved long ago

3) 16:37, 18 August 2009 Atama (talk | contribs) (10,243 bytes) (→Early life and education: Adding a little bit of context to the shoplifting statement, to show how the incident was resolved.)

Wording: In 1997 Kundra was convicted of shoplifting four dress shirts from a JC Penny department store, an incident the White House said was resolved long ago. He pled guilty and was fined US$155, and served 80 hours of customer service.

4) 17:35, 18 August 2009 Atama (talk | contribs) (10,168 bytes) (→Early life and education: Reduced shoplifting info per talk page discussion, still including info that he pled guilty.) (undo)

Wording: In 1997 Kundra pled guilty to shoplifting four dress shirts from a JC Penney department store, an incident the White House said was resolved long ago.

5) 17:15, 20 September 2009 67.243.39.12 (talk) (11,511 bytes) (→Early life and education: modified shoplifting from "convicted" to "pleaded guilty") (undo)

Wording: In 1997 Kundra pleaded guilty to shoplifting a number of dress shirts from a JC Penney department store

6) 22:37, 21 October 2009 Truprint (talk | contribs) (12,158 bytes) (→Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO): leave from Fed CIO 7oceans (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)) (undo)

Wording: During this time it was revealed that Kundra had been arrested in 1996 for theft of less than $300 and pleaded guilty. The White House spokesperson characterized the incident as a "youthful indiscretion" for which Kundra performed community service.

Eleven (11) reverted edits by SusanLesch on this exact subject matter over this time

02:43, 24 October 2009 SusanLesch (talk | contribs) m (13,192 bytes) (Undid deletion of sourced information) (undo)

01:24, 18 August 2009 SusanLesch (talk | contribs) (10,137 bytes) (→Early life and education: re-adding shoplifting, also adding resolution) (undo)

03:19, 17 August 2009 SusanLesch (talk | contribs) m (10,074 bytes) (Reverted edits by 57.67.16.50 (talk) to last version by SusanLesch) (undo)

03:19, 17 August 2009 SusanLesch (talk | contribs) m (10,074 bytes) (Reverted edits by 57.67.16.50 (talk) to last version by SusanLesch) (undo)

02:11, 17 August 2009 SusanLesch (talk | contribs) m (10,074 bytes) (Reverted edits by 67.102.233.237 (talk) to last version by SusanLesch) (undo)

01:54, 17 August 2009 SusanLesch (talk | contribs) m (10,074 bytes) (Reverted edits by 170.170.59.138 (talk) to last version by SusanLesch) (undo)

01:48, 17 August 2009 SusanLesch (talk | contribs) (10,074 bytes) (Undid exclusion of cited material) (undo)

01:07, 17 August 2009 SusanLesch (talk | contribs) m (10,061 bytes) (Reverted edits by 67.102.233.237 (talk) to last version by 57.67.16.50) (undo)

00:22, 17 August 2009 SusanLesch (talk | contribs) m (10,476 bytes) (Undid exclusion of cited material) (undo)

22:44, 16 August 2009 SusanLesch (talk | contribs) (9,814 bytes) (→Early life and education: shoplifting) (undo)

00:19, 12 August 2009 SusanLesch (talk | contribs) m (9,951 bytes) (Undid, unexplained removal of cited content) (undo)

Five (5) reverted edits by 67.243.39.12 on this matter

19:07, 21 September 2009 67.243.39.12 (talk) (11,372 bytes) (→CIO agenda: renamed section, removing the "agenda") (undo)

18:26, 20 September 2009 67.243.39.12 (talk) (11,511 bytes) (Undid revision 315125731 by 7oceans (talk) See WP:WELLKNOWN) (undo)

17:15, 20 September 2009 67.243.39.12 (talk) (11,511 bytes) (→Early life and education: modified shoplifting from "convicted" to "pleaded guilty") (undo)

17:02, 20 September 2009 67.243.39.12 (talk) (11,510 bytes) (→Early life and education: fixed typo) (undo)

16:56, 20 September 2009 67.243.39.12 (talk) (11,509 bytes) (→Early life and education: Restored the shoplifting charges paragraph.) (undo)

Three (3) reverted edits Atama on this matter

16:08, 23 October 2009 Atama (talk | contribs) (13,097 bytes) (Undid revision 321571382 by 173.12.38.241 (talk) Don't remove information while discussion is occurring.) (undo)

18:49, 22 October 2009 Atama (talk | contribs) (13,097 bytes) (Undid revision 321391461 by 7oceans (talk) Rv sourced content removal without explanation. Possible sock/meatpuppetry.) (undo)

17:20, 18 August 2009 Atama (talk | contribs) (10,248 bytes) (Undid revision 308711369 by Horologium (talk) Rv removal of sourced information.) (undo)

-7oceans (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors cooperate in order to improve the encyclopedia. That is why consecutive edits are similar. I invite you to try it! Please suggest a wording of Kundra's leave of absence from Fed CIO that you would approve. Then we can cooperate to arrive at a consensus.Truprint (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you really talking about improving the encyclopedia SUSAN LESCH I mean Truprint I mean Reconsider I mean Reese I mean other colors they all sound the same and are growing in different colors and shapes. I feel bad for all the articles they touch. Becuse they are very lonely and unhappy with their own lives. Have nothing constructive to do. Instead of helping people who are dying they kill people who are alive. They burie alive people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.12.38.241 (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Need timeline

If I can interrupt the edit war, it would be nice to have dates on some of his jobs prior to CIO. The given source for Director of Infrastructure Technology for Arlington County is dated 2002 but does not give his dates of employ in that position. None of the other Career positions have dates either. Rees11 (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are start dates for the DC CTO and Arlington DIT jobs: "Vivek Kundra was appointed by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty on March 27, 2007 to the Cabinet post of Chief Technology Officer (CTO) for the District of Columbia." "Earlier Kundra served as Director of Infrastructure Technology for Arlington, Virginia. Within nine months after taking the post on September 11, 2001 [...]" http://www.iterasi.net/openviewer.aspx?sqrlitid=szofenlvcuu7jwqafj3auw Truprint (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, that appears to be an archive of a page that is no longer available, so I presume we cannot use it. Original article was supposed to be at http://octo.dc.gov/octo/cwp/view,a,3,q,579512,octoNav,%7C32786%7C.asp Truprint (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus?

Other than the anons, I count one editor in favor of removing the paragraph about the March 12 suspension, and six in favor of keeping it. Does that constitute consensus, and if so, can we agree that the material should now stay in? Rees11 (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the contentious information because I do not believe there is a consensus to keep it. In fact, if you read through the discussion section, this issue has been debated before and there was previously consensus that this information is not notable. The comparison to Bush's wiki page is an important one because it demonstrates that there is precedent for not including this type of information (I can also point you to many other such precedents if you are interested). Additionally, why are we not counting anonymous postings - just because they didn't take the time to create a login or because they support an alternate opinion? User:EditorTwo —Preceding undated comment added 16:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC).

The comment by Rees11 shows pretty concisely that the consensus is for the content to be included in some form. As I've already said above, if you aren't happy with what is said then please edit the wording but do not just remove all the content. It has already been said that making comparisons with other articles is meaningless, we reach consensus for each article, rather than for the whole of WP. Currently anonymous IPs cannot edit the page due to the continued removal of content and edit warring by them. The admin that protected the page encouraged the IPs to use this talk page to discuss the content but they have (so far) chosen not to do so. Following my earlier reasoning I'm going to once again replace the content and urge editors who are unhappy with it to work on the wording of the content and not just blanking the whole section which is against the current consensus. Smartse (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The data posted above speaks volumes on the single minded purpose in a concerted attempt to post one thing about his college prank. Various strategies have been used in various section. I question what constitutes vandalism? Is it posting trash on BLPs and then debating them or is it removing trash and discussing it offline? Is it throwing mud and asking yourself how the mud looks like? We are debating a clerical protocol. - 7oceans (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

My intention was to describe Kundra's temporary suspension from Fed CIO. You seem to be mostly concerned with the issue of his arrest. I invite you to suggest an alternative formulation of Kundra's suspension info so we can see if there is the possibility of cooperation.Truprint (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't count anons because there is no way to count them. There is not a one-to-one correspondence between IP addresses and editors. Anons are by definition anonymous. Also note that the count of editors in favor of removal is still one, since EditorTwo and 7oceans are the same person. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/7oceans. Rees11 (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

In attempt to put this editing war to an end, I reworded the controversial paragraph to be more objective and relevant. I retained the information on the leave, but I took out the specific information about Yusuf Acar because this is not Mr. Acar's wiki page. I also removed the "youthful indiscretion" entry because it is not notable or relevant (several editors seem to agree about this point). Author2010 (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone reverted my edit for addition of uncited material. Maybe someone here can do that for me.

"In fact, Kundra's aggressive policies on transparency and accountability, for which he has received numerous accolades, may have contributed to exposing the misconduct." is not in the source given: http://www.techcouncilmd.com/News/tcmnews_110708.html -SusanLesch (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

@ "Author2010" and various socks: if you are serious about compromising on the concerning issue then you should stick with one account and wait for others to contribute to a consensus before going ahead with your proposed changes. -Reconsider the static (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

@Author2010: The statement about Kundra's policies catching the crook also seems to contradict the arrest warrant, which states that the misconduct was exposed by a whistleblower who notified the FBI after being approached by Acar in April, 2008: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/090313_CAPITAL_WARRANT.pdf Also, it is misleading to describe Acar as a "mid-level employee", he was the Information Security Officer.Truprint (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I see someone went ahead and removed the part about the arrest, but also took out the rest of the paragraph too, which I thought we had agreed should stay. Was this a mistake? I've restored the part about the leave, and left out the part about the arrest. Sorry if I misunderstood. Rees11 (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing. Whether the arrest should be added to a different section can be discussed in the Shoplifting section, below.Truprint (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have altered the original posting to make it appropriate for objective reporting. This is not Mr. Acar's wiki page and all of Acar's information is irrelevant to page. -- 7oceans (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added back that he was "put on" leave rather than "taking" leave, I think it is an important distinction to make. Smartse (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the recent edits made by Rees11 are an improvement. I would also state the official's title, Information Security Officer, and that he was selected by Kundra, as documented here: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/JonettaRoseBarras/No-surprise-here-41291297.html But the current formulation captures the essence of the story so perhaps my suggestions are unnecessary.Truprint (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to put in his position. I would like to put in his name, because now it sounds like we're trying to hide something, but I see that's been discussed already. Rees11 (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

So now you're using opinion pieces from the Washington Examiner as a reference? An opinion piece that only uses anonymous sources? Actually, Truprint, according to the affidavit you cited above, Acar was working for the DC Govt. since 2004 and engaging in misconduct since that time. According to the Wiki article on Kundra, he only took the DC job in 2007. How could he have hired the guy? Also, many respectable media outlets like the Washington Post refer to Acar as a mid-level employee - titles do not mean everything and can be misleading. Additionally, while some sources say Kundra was put on leave others say he took leave. Another point of ambiguity. And, since this is a continuing investigation, who knows what role Kundra or his policies played in helping uncover this? I can refer you to sources that say Kundra was a good guy in all this. CaptainAB (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean Kundra hired Acar, I mean he promoted Acar to the ISO position. That is what the article claims. Also, the DC OCTO org chart shows that the ISO reports directly the CTO: http://octo.dc.gov/octo/cwp/view,a,3,q,579533,octoNav,%7C32786%7C.asp So Acar reported directly to Kundra. I am satisfied with the current formulation that says he "worked for" Kundra. I oppose the "mid-level employee" description because I feel it implies that Acar did not report to Kundra directly. I agree with your point about anonymous sources, so maybe my source does not sufficiently establish that Kundra promoted Acar. I think we can find out when Acar became ISO if you believe that is important. Please do not withhold your sources, anything that sheds light on the incident and the relationship between Acar and Kundra could be helpful.Truprint (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you unhappy x-employee? --15:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.12.38.241 (talk)

According to the Washington Post and several other sources, Acar was 1 of 50 managers in the DC tech office (they refer to him as a mid-level manager in the articles). I am not intersted in when Acar became Acting ISO since this is not his page and I assume none of us know how the promotion process works in the DC tech office - my previous post was just meant to clarify your statement that Kundra "selected" or hired Acar. Also, CNN, MSNBC, Computerworld, Infoworld, and many other sources indicate that Kundra took leave; countless others say he was on leave; and some say he was put on leave. Thus, I am changing the Wiki article to say he was on leave because that is the most responsible and unbiased formulation. Finally, since you asked, here are a couple of sources I found on how Kundra's policies could have helped the investigation (there are also others): http://stephensonstrategies.com/2009/03/16/when-its-over-bet-vivek-kundra-will-be-seen-as-good-gov-hero/ , http://techpresident.com/blog-entry/let-vivek-kundra-do-his-job . I will not include the bit about how his policies could have helped because it is an ongoing investigation and I don't think the whole issue deserves this much attention. CaptainAB (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The source we're using says "put on leave." If we change it, it would have to say "some sources say he was put on leave while others say he went on leave." I think that's just too awkward and adds more detail that we don't need. I don't think the article should say Kundra hired him, even if he did, because that would be wp:synth. I think it would be useful to give the official's actual position, but if that's hard to determine it's probably not worth the effort. Rees11 (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to point out to CaptainAB that "favorable to Kundra" isn't the same as "responsible and unbiased" (quite the contrary). We are an encyclopedia, not Vivek Kundra's public relation department. The fact that multiple sources disagree as to whether or not Kundra was put on leave, or took leave, seems important to note both in terms of accuracy and because (to me at least) the ambiguity seems interesting. Perhaps the least awkward way to do this is to state that there are conflicting reports as to whether or not leave was voluntary, and then cite references showing the contradiction. -- Atama頭 16:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I am really surprised by these recent comments (though maybe I shouldn't be given the rest of this discussion page), and now I have to question your neutrality. When there are tons of conflicting reports on the nature of his leave, many of you feel still feel compelled to say that he was put on leave. It is exactly because Wikipedia attempts to be an encyclopedia that I suggested the formulation "Kundra was on leave" because that is the most neutral and accurate way of putting it. The most favorable way to Kundra would be to say he took leave - that is not what I suggested. As to Rees11's point, it is easy enough to use a source that says "was on leave." CaptainAB (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying now, I apologize. Yes, that is somewhat more balanced than saying he was put on leave. I still maintain that it would be best to note the conflicting reports, but a reasonable alternative would be your suggested wording. -- Atama頭 20:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have yet to see these conflicting reports.Truprint (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Doing a quickie search here, let's see what I can come up with.

• Computer World says: Kundra takes leave [5]
• The Hindu and Indian Express say: Kundra takes leave [6][7]
• New York Daily News (quoting the Associated Press says: Kundra on leave [8]
• The Washington Post says: Kundra placed on leave [9]

That's just a handful. As you can see, reports are all over the place. -- Atama頭 22:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Careful, the Washington Post article actually says, "He has been placed on administrative leave..." The idea that he suspended himself is a little bit amusing. Is that the distinction you are trying to make?Truprint (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That was the lone example I found of someone saying his leave was involuntary. That's why I said "placed on leave" rather than simply being "on leave". My point was to show the variety of reports; a few saying he chose to take leave (even saying it was "his decision"), the AP choosing the neutral wording that he was "one leave" without saying whose decision it was, and the Post saying that he was suspended. -- Atama頭 23:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Then we have the NYT saying the Governor of Virginia intervened to have Kundra re-instated, which certainly makes it sound like the leave was involuntary. But this is attributed to a "person familiar with the situation" rather than stated as fact. I suspect what really happened is that he was asked to leave but the White House never said publicly why he left, so that they could then re-instate him without looking silly. I still think making the sentence any more equivocal makes the situation sound more sinister than it really is. Rees11 (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind "neutral" wording, just as long as it is not confusing.Truprint (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on the discussion, I rephrased the leave information to make it more neutral. I'm still not sure whether the information belongs in the article at all, but at least it is more objective for now. CaptainAB (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I for one like it. Well done. -- Atama頭 20:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain why, given sources from the Washington Post, NYT, and AP, you chose washingtontechnology.com? After arguing for the "neutral" wording of "was on leave", you quoted a source that says he "took leave." You also removed any mention of the specific charges, instead using the weak "various federal violations." The arrest was for bribery and fraud, while the formulation "various federal violations" creates doubt about the seriousness of the charges. We also know the "official" was the Acting Information Security Officer, why the vague "official" moniker? "While Kundra was never a subject or target of the investigation, he was on leave from his CIO position for a five-day period ..." is ambiguous and confusing. It can be interpreted to mean that his leave of absence had nothing to do with the arrest.Truprint (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've said this before, but I think the vague wording makes the situation seem more sinister than it really is. It sounds like Kundra is guilty of some horrible crime, so horrible that we can't even talk about it. Rees11 (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel the latest edit that lists the charges and changes the leave wording a bit is a big improvement. I just think it is necessary to change the source, too. The washingtontechnology.com article is not acceptable, ending with the gratuitous "Kundra has gained a reputation for technology innovation..." spin. What is wrong with the NYT articles I originally cited? The WashPost and AP articles Atama cites are good too. Not all of them have the specific charges and the date Kundra was reinstated, so be careful when selecting.Truprint (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we are really splitting hairs here, now. We want to replace a source because it contains one potentially positive sentence about Kundra (a sentence which doesn't even appear in the Wiki article). I actually changed the source for the sentence upon Rees11's observation that it would be inconsistent to have a source that said he was put on leave and a sentence that said he was on leave. This was the most objective and to-the-point article I found. And what is wrong with using Washington Technology? Kundra is, after all, in the technology field - I would think this source would be the most relevant and a-political. To tell you the truth, I'm not even sure why we're including this information in the first place - as Rees11's most recent comment demonstrates, it makes it sound like Kundra was guilty of those crimes when he had nothing to do with them. Let's remember, this is not Acar's Wiki page - and to list out every single charge is completely unnecessary. If you read through the comments in this section, it is very telling that we're talking more about Acar's charges than the actual subject of this Wiki page. CaptainAB (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the objection to the source is that it was picked over a more mainstream source like AP. It would be like referencing the Devils Lake Journal for a story that was also covered by the New York Times. As a matter of fact, the New York Times has almost the exact same article except it's not nearly as positive about the matter (and mentions the shoplifting arrest) so I'm sure you wouldn't like that. -- Atama頭 22:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the suggestion that my viewpoint is biased, especially when I could make the same claim against many of the editors on this discussion page (i.e. those constantly trying to remove any positive statements about Kundra while doggedly trying to include any potentially negative points, no matter how irrelevant). Regardless, I think it would be preferable to use an a-politcal trade journal over the notoriously slanted large-scale media outlets that are often more interested in gaining readership than simply presenting facts. And, Atama, you make a good point - the source we use shouldn't be a back door way for including information on the youthful indiscretion. CaptainAB (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I will recommend not going down that road, where you discuss notoriously slanted large-scale media outlets. Mainstream newspapers are among the most respected sources in the project and rejecting their reliability without a specific reason is not going to lend your arguments credibility. In my experience, once people start saying that the AP and other major news sources are untrustworthy, their claims fall apart. In particular, I don't understand how a journal that partners with DC area technology business organizations should be considered less biased when reporting about Kundra than an international press agency. Your rhetoric is getting to be a bit polemical here. -- Atama頭 00:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a fragment. Disconnected with the context. Seems to be a lot of discussion about posting indictment of a former employee? Makes it appear that he did something wrong. -- Bismuthe (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Being forced to go on leave (under his own judgment or orders from the administration, sources differ) seems unusual and notable. I'm strongly in favor of a more explicit statement that the White House had announced that he was neither a subject nor a target of the investigation. -- Atama頭 04:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Atama on both points. Also, Bismuthe's comment made me take a second look at the current wording, and I see it sort of buries the lead in the second sentence. After you read the first sentence about the official's arrest, you ask, why is this relevant? The second sentence tells you why, sort of. A more direct and relevant formulation would look like: Kundra went on leave <when> <why>. <resolution>. We put the <why> before the rest, and it looks awkward in my opinion.Truprint (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Posted reformulated sentence as per discussion above. It addresses the <what>, <when> <why> format. Please see in text. -- Bismuthe (talk) 01:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

OK so I just suggested re-ordering the information, not changing it. I am afraid to suggest any more changes because 1 suggested change gets multiplied into many changes.Truprint (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't mean to create so much drama. Noticed that a few people weren't happy with the leave formulation the way it was, so I just tried to offer an alternative as per the discussed format. I wrote:

"Kundra went on leave from his White House position on March 12, 2009 for a four (4) day period, in response to a federal investigation of an official at his former DC CTO office. Kundra was never a subject or the target of the investigation."

Counted that if he was at work on 12th and 17th, he would be on leave for 4 days. Wanted to keep it to the point. -- Bismuthe (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Granted that there was a lot of craziness going on today, but I don't think Bismuthe's formulation was unreasonable. In fact, I think it makes more sense contextually and is easier to read (issues several people had with the first version). Aside from the debate about four days vs. five days, what's the big objection to Bismuthe's proposed text? Maybe those who don't like it can offer some suggestions on the discussion page?CaptainAB (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bismuthe's edit says Kundra went on leave in response to an "investigation", it was actually in response to an arrest. The previous edit named the charges the official was arrested for, the proposed edit suggests there was no arrest. That is a rather aggressive reformulation, in my opinion. I don't see any justification for it in the discussion.Truprint (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely, we can come up with something in between? CaptainAB (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to re-order the information like: "Kundra went on leave March 12, 2009 after an official at his previous DC technology office was charged with bribery, conspiracy and money laundering. Kundra was not the subject of the investigation and resumed the Fed CIO position after a five-day period." I would also replace the source with some combination of the NYT, WashPost, and AP articles.Truprint (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I seem to keep getting dragged back into this discussion. Don’t think this is conservative enough. Descriptive adjectives regarding indictment of a former employee make it appear that he did something wrong even though there is a disclaimer (sort of). Articles about living people are required to meet especially high standards. -- Bismuthe (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see any need to modify the current version. Previous changes were not particularly constructive in the sense that it either removed important details, or it simply reworded the paragraph to mean exactly the same thing as the previous version. -Reconsider the static (talk) 05:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me but there are zero descriptive adjectives in the edit. What on earth is Bismuthe talking about? Truprint (talk) 05:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for Bismuthe, but I think he/she is saying that it is not appropriate to list all of the official's charges because it makes it sound like Kundra was also implicated in the bribery, money laundering, etc. I agree: if we're going to include the leave information, I think it's very important to be careful in doing so. Basically, it is excessive to list all of the official's charges on Kundra's Wikipedia page. I think it is more than enough to say that the official was charged with various federal violations. CaptainAB (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"Federal violations" is too vague, as it can denote a whole array of different offences which, if left to the imagination of the reader, could cause even greater implications for Kundra. I don't think that there is any harm in stating the charges, as long as Kundra's innocence is explicitly stated, which it is. -Reconsider the static (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Would it be satisfactory to characterize the charges as "fraud" ? Truprint (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Facetiousness apart, that is the reason why I chose to use "federal investigation". Descriptors (nouns: excuse me!) that have nothing to do with Kundra, imply increased scrutiny and may push WP:WEIGHT. We may not be able to reach agreement on what descriptors are appropriate. Since they are not relevant to the subject they should not be there. -- Bismuthe (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Replacing the specific charges with just "fraud" might be a good compromise. "Various federal violations" does not explain why Kundra had to go on leave. "Fraud" does and pushes less WP:WEIGHT. "Investigation" is not even true. Truprint (talk) 11:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Its probably better to place greater emphasis on Kundra's innocence rather than trying to "sugar coat" the facts. -Reconsider the static (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think fraud is a good compromise for now, but I do think we should take WP:WEIGHT seriously and consider whether we should be listing another person's charges on Kundra's wiki page at all. Since he was not the subject of the investigation, the charges are not relevant and it almost makes it seem like we're implying he's guilty by association. In the meantime, I'll change the Wiki article to say "fraud and other misconduct" (which definitely does not "sugar coat" the facts). Also, I will add the word "target" to the second sentence in order to emphasize Kundra's innocence. CaptainAB (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The new edit contributed by CaptainAB and Reconsider the static looks good to me. I still prefer the AP, WashPost, and NYT sources as being more informative, any chance we could change it? Truprint (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The addition of "arrested on charges of" seems reduntant and unnecessary. We have been advocating for brevity throughout the rest of the wiki article, why not here? Saying that the official was charged with fraud and misconduct is the equivalent of saying that he was arrested on charges of fraud and misconduct - the only difference is that it is more succinct and neutral. CaptainAB (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Stating that the official was arrested does not compromise the neutrality of the sentence. I should point point out that stating that Kundra was "...not the subject or target" is redundant. If he is not the subject of the investigation, then obviously he wasn't the target either. -Reconsider the static (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Point taken - I will remove the redundancies in both sentences. CaptainAB (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Shoplifting (2)

I hesitate to bring this up because I know it will lead to another "wall of text" discussion, but I would suggest removing the last two sentences of the CIO section ("During this time..."). "It was revealed" is wp:weasel words. The source (NYT) attributes this to "Internet reports." It doesn't seem relevant to the rest of the paragraph. Rees11 (talk) 03:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This AP story about the Kundra arrest is based on the police report and the court record: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=7114944 If you believe the Kundra arrest is not relevant to the rest of the paragraph, then I suppose you want to move it to another paragraph. You would only want to delete it if you believed it was not relevant to the article.Truprint (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The story used to be in the "Early life" section but has since been moved to where it is now. I originally proposed that we be certain to state that he pleaded guilty to be fair. Frankly at this point I'm neutral to keeping it, on the one hand I think it is interesting to note in his biography that a person of such an important position had such an incident in his life. On the other hand, such a small amount of text has caused so much controversy that I wonder if it's worth it. I think that people are going to be fighting it for as long as it's in there. Is it worth it? -- Atama頭 05:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It would improve the article if it moved per Truprint. In my opinion, it is worth saying but not worth fighting. (The current source, Katharine Q. Seelye just wrote a quick NYT article crediting techpresident.com for the idea, which means "Internet" reports as well.) -SusanLesch (talk) 06:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the history. Given the AP report I'd say it should stay in but am left wondering why it's not in the Early life section and why it's sourced to the vague NYT story. But I see this has already all been discussed to death so I am now sorry I brought it up. Rees11 (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid that you may be violating policy regarding a BLP by reverting my edits and censuring me for "vandalism" for removing cited material.

To quote EdJohnston (administrator) who has addressed this at User talk:EdJohnston#Re: Report at WP:AN3: "Check WP:3RR#Exceptions. In general, removal of sourced content is not vandalism but is an action in a content dispute. (The other editor sincerely believed that the article was better off without that material)."

For a BLP, refer to WP:Vandalism#What_is_not_vandalism:Reversion or removal of unencyclopedic material, or of edits covered under Biographies of Living People. Some material — sometimes even factually correct material — does not belong on Wikipedia, and removing it is not vandalism. Check to make sure that the addition was in line with Wikipedia standards, before restoring it or reporting its removal as vandalism.

I am going to remove this content yet again while it is being discussed ad infinitum. I feel that it has been resolved with examples of how it is not notable. -- 7oceans (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic material is information that is similar to that listed on Wikipedia:Unencyclopedic the content that you (and your socks) keep on removing does not come under any of these points. It is definitely significant in this person's life that they have been arrested and that they were put on leave from a senior position in a government. How can you say that this has been resolved and that it is not notable?! Smartse (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Unecyclopedic material OR edits covered under BLP. I type slowly but I will parse through the reasons clearly again if you would like. -- 7oceans (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Argument No. 1: Violation of legal intent Kundra received a probation before judgement (PBJ) for that college prank by a judge who may have had the facts. These laws and processes were created for a purpose. When by law a person does not have a criminal record, and a person can legally claim so, isn't it defamatory to publish it with a world audience? The fact that it was the intent of the judge to strike it from public record means that it was not a "notable" or a "relevant" incident. Do you claim to know more about this than the judge? WP:BLP states clearly "from both a legal and ethical standpoint it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other undesirable information from these articles as far as possible". This was a misdemeanor in legal terms. -- 7oceans (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Argument No. 2: Libelous Connotation Seasoned editors as above have posted for eternity in yet another Shoplifting section above: "In 1997 Kundra was convicted of shoplifting a number of dress shirts from a JC Penny department store". The fact that it is stated that he was "convicted" is legally false or defamation since no conviction took place. The fact that it is written or printed on wikipedia makes the defamation LIBEL. See Defamation. No article uses the word conviction. It is up to the editors and the subject of this BLP to resolve this. Almost all jurisdictions in the United States consider printing "false information" on the web as libelous. If seasoned editors can make this mistake are you suggesting that a casual reader would be able to discriminate between "pled guilty" and "convicted". WP is a respected source of information "World Wide". The fine connotations would be lost to a user who does not understand the legal language. In the world's eyes you would be convicting him. A judge who had the facts dismissed the case. -- 7oceans (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Argument No. 3: Presidential Precedent It has been discussed before that George W. Bush (the 43rd President of United States) was arrested THREE TIMES. 1. The first arrest in 1966, of George W. Bush was for theft at a hotel. Age almost 21 ("The First Son," Minutaglio, p. 99; "Dallas Morning News," September 6, 1998). 2. The second arrest in 1967, of George W. Bush was for disorderly conduct at a football game. Age 21. [10] 3. The third arrest in 1976, of George W. bush was a very serious crime -- drunk driving. Age. 30. Cited on CNN [11] and [12]. Though all of these are well cited the first two arrests of George W. Bush in 1966 and 1967 were omitted becuse it was seen as an college "youthful indiscretion" or prank and was not considered notable by our peers to be inserted in his WP page. - 7oceans (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Point 1: "from both a legal and ethical standpoint it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other undesirable information from these articles as far as possible" this only applies if the content is added without citing a reliable source. As it has been mentioned by the NYT it should certainly be mentioned. As I've said before information only has to be verifiable, rather than being the truth. Your reading of that guideline would seem to be suggesting that any negative information about people should be removed, if that's the case you could do with editing Bernard Madoff, Adolf Hitler and many other articles. Point 2 - there is no mention of a conviction in the version that you keep on removing - it says that he pleaded guilty to the offence. I don't understand this reasoning therefore. You also seem to be moving towards making legal threats which isn't a great idea. Point 3 - as I and other editors have said time and time again this was a decision made for GWB's article but that makes no difference to this article. I've suggested that you make a change to the wording if you are unhappy with it but you seem extremely determined to see this content removed, your organised use of sockpuppets is really quite disturbing. You still haven't produced and valid arguments as to why the content should be removed. Smartse (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Let us discuss this one point at a time. Are you comparing President George Bush's pranks to Hitler or Madoff? - 7oceans (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No.... I am saying that there is "defamatory and other undesirable information" in the Hitler and Madoff articles, your reasoning that negative content is somehow not allowed is a stupid argument. Smartse (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope that you do not continue down this line of calling people "stupid". WP:NPA. I believe that you are sidestepping the main point of argument No. 1. I will patiently repeat it again. This is not notable because a judge who had all the facts ruled to strike it from public record (as not being notable). You are just insisting on posting gossip about a college prank. Also please do not revert the content while it is under dispute. - 7oceans (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add my two cents: The "youthful" indiscretion is nothing more than that and it is not notable. There is established Wikipedia precedent for NOT including such information, and several editors seem to agree that it does not need to be included. As far as the leave issue, there is sufficient ambiguity surrounding the circumstances to avoid including it on Wikipedia. The investigation is ongoing and all of the details have not be released. CaptainAB (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

CaptainAB is actually 66.171.128.239. Just a note that I disagree. Both events are notable and have good sources. Nobody here has explained why this article must be lily white. And I worry about Wikipedia—a few highly motivated IP addresses can change content to their liking. I am, for the second time, leaving the scene of some kind of crime. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the "During this time it was revealed that" language I chose is poor and should be removed. I still think the Kundra arrest belongs in the article, but if a real majority concludes that it is not notable and relevant, then I will defer to their collective wisdom. His suspension is another story and is being discussed elsewhere.Truprint (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This article has definitely brought some interesting, biased IP-based editing to the forefront. --Bobak (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, SusanLesch, Captain AB is Captain AB. Just because I don't agree with your opinion, does not mean my comments should be cast aside. Talk about dangerous - anyone who has an opposing view is considered a "sock" or is disregarded. I think more than enough legitimate reasons have been given for removing the content. CaptainAB (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Great, now CaptainAB is CaptainAB (at the previous edit was not, according to the Revision history of Talk:Vivek Kundra). Also excuse me for not taking you seriously. I was one of two persons actually accused of sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SusanLesch. I don't plan to return here. Nice to meet you. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks CaptainAB! I was feeling that I was watching Lord of the Rings. The communal chant that ruled this island was angry with me just because I reverted their edits and am asking that it be discussed offline. It turns out that I was right. I am not opposed to putting a negative posting, but I feel that if a judge makes a decision it should be respected. - 7oceans (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow that's subtle. An account that was created yesterday suddenly starts engaging in discussions and appears to know what is going on. Coincidently they support someone who is already confirmed as editing under 5 different accounts/IPs. Totally not suspicious. I don't care if the checkuser came out as "unrelated", it is pretty obvious that 7Oceans is behind this. As for the content concerning the shoplifting incident, I support moving the sentence to the 'early life and education' section. Also, the recent arguments by 7Oceans brings to mind WP:WL, in particular "Using formal legal terms in an inappropriate way when discussing Wikipedia policy" and "Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions". -Reconsider the static (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's fairly easy to follow this discussion page: the same legitimate arguments from keeping out the controversial material are repeatedly being made and repeatedly being ignored. From reviewing the discussion page, I also gathered that Truprint is a new user, right? I think that's how Wikipedia is meant to work - users come and go (and even non-users review and comment, by the way). Anyway, I still think that both incidents should not be included for many of the reasons outlined above: Wikipedia precedent, not notable, sensitive context, and incomplete information. From my perspective, the recent arguments by 7Oceans are very clear and convincing and don't seem to misinterpret Wiki policy or inappropriately use legal terms. CaptainAB (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith here since you were cleared by Checkuser, and address your point. 7oceans has not made any legitimate claims in their attempt to whitewash the article and remove notable, sourced controversies. Complaints of libel are absolutely meaningless as long as we have a reliable source and we represent that source accurately, any libel charges would have to be leveled at the New York Times. Defamation claims are baseless for the same reason. The other argument, that because some piece of information was excluded from a completely different article that something else should be excluded here, that doesn't even really merit an argument. -- Atama頭 18:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'll assume good faith and hope that you aren't a meatpuppet. You are right, we welcome new editors, but is quite strange how many new editors have appeared in this discussion on a page that only receives a few hundred hits a day and that may make some people question your motives as to why you want this information removed. I've already explained why the arguments used by 7oceans are invalid and I can't see how this can change. 1 - we decide what is worthy of inclusion/exclusion for each article separately, 2 - notability concerns article subjects not content within an article about a notable person, almost anything is worthy of inclusion (maybe not what his favourite breakfast is, but maybe even that), 3 - sensitive context is not a reason to not include information in an article, 4 - saying that posting this information is libellous is pretty close to wikilawyering. If you suggest some new arguments for why it should be removed I'd be happy to listen to them. Smartse (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is serious about being a legitimate resource, shouldn't it be consistent? Why include such useless information in one article and not another? Does it depend on how many political friends/enemies you have? And why is "notability" even included as a possible objection under Wikipedia policy if it holds no merit. This is ridiculous - maybe I should question your motives for wanting the information included so badly. CaptainAB (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that WP:HTRIVIA might help answer your questions. Essentially, what may be appropriate at one article may not be appropriate at another article. Relevance of one misdeed to a particular biography may differ from relevance of another misdeed at another biography. That's why we don't have the kind of consistency you seem to be asking for.

If we were to address why does George W. Bush omit the earlier arrests and only mention the alcohol- and drug-related controversies and troubles with the law, while some argue to include the shoplifting charge in this article, it could be context. It's difficult to read the Bush article and not see that he had some trouble earlier in life. That is represented well enough already. On the other hand, with a much cleaner record such a minor infraction as shoplifting might add more weight in a biography like Kundra's. But this is only speculation, I've never edited the Bush article and I don't know the reasoning there. For the most part, as long as policies and procedures are being followed, we expand each article on its own merits. Another reason to avoid such comparisons is that it's possible that the Bush article is wrong. Perhaps those earlier brushes with the law should be included.

Finally, some of us are giving you the benefit of the doubt (which is a leap of faith considering that 7oceans has "poisoned the well" so to speak) and saying that you should question the motives of other editors isn't going to win you any favors. I suggest you should observe WP:AGF yourself. -- Atama頭 19:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the information on the "trivia" policy, but unfortunately, it was not very helpful in explaining your logic. What is clear to me is that it's not necessary to include the information on the "youthful indiscretion." And, I, for one, don't believe it belongs on Wikipedia at all. CaptainAB (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The euphemism "youthful indiscretion" is just the White House's opinion of Kundra's theft. Their opinion might be noteworthy, but it is not fact. If we include the incident, we cannot just present one opinion and withhold the facts.Truprint (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That may be your opinion, CaptainAB, and I respect that. I also think that any attempt to gauge consensus should take it into account. However, without a better rationalization for your opinion, I doubt that many others will be swayed to your way of thinking, and you seem to be in the minority. For what it's worth, I'm still on the fence myself, and I'm not as convinced of its importance and/or the propriety of its inclusion as I once was. -- Atama頭 00:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You do realise that the ‘consistency’ argument can actually go both ways. Why do we have to change this article in order to be consistent with GWB’s? Why can’t it be the other way around? There may have been a consensus on GWB(I'm not familiar with the history of the page but I'll take your word for it), but you could restart a discussion on the issue. The point is, precedents have no value on Wikipedia editing processes, so your decision to change Kundra’s instead of GWB’s is an illustration of your bias. Atama said it perfectly “Bringing up problems with other articles shows that you have no real basis for your claims and are fishing for a justification for your recent disruption.” -Reconsider the static (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me help explain the concept of precedent. Since George Bush's article was created/edited before Kundra's article (i.e. first in time), that article created a custom/approach for dealing with such issues. Since that article does not contain information on two college indiscretions that were covered by media outlets, I do not think we should include the controversial information in this article, either. Similar reasons (and additional reasons) have been provided by others as well. Furthermore, I actually think the burden lies on those who want the information included to explain why it is necessary since we are talking about a sensitive issue and some have already expressed objection. None of the reasons I have seen thus far are convincing. CaptainAB (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

We have hundreds, likely thousands of biographies of living people. Choosing a single article and deciding that we should use it as precedent doesn't seem to be rational, and while at times precedent is used to justify certain changes to articles, it's not the basis for content disputes. Consensus is the basis, and when consensus is against you there's not much you can do (as I've found to my dismay from time to time). Note that when you say "provided by others", those "others" were a single disruptive editor who was falsely pretending to be multiple people and was indefinitely blocked from the project for their misbehavior. -- Atama頭 20:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the common denominator between the following list below:

SusanLesch

Reconsider the static

Truprint

Rees11

Smartse

Atama

So focused on procedures that serious concerns are sidelined. They all remind me of Joker (character) from the movie “Batman”. If you don’t believe me, then carefully read and analyze all their postings. They are great entertainer or entertainers. It is good to see that they are entertaining themselves after anyone who does not agree with them is blocked.

This is a propaganda and an attempt to manipulate opinion and evoke emotional reactions without offering a constructive argument or serious explanation.. Fortunately, it seems that ordinary people still have the independence of mind to know when they are being bullied.

The biased opinion or entertaining caricature above has no credibility and truly reveals the purpose of these editions to use wikipedia for a smear campaign. Refer to Wikipedia policy on WP:BLP. It states:

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." These are merely attempts to vandalize this wiki page and have no place here" -- 67.102.233.233 (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Both incidents should not be included for many of the reasons outlined above: Wikipedia precedent, not notable, sensitive context, and incomplete information. Don’t be intimidated by them. Wikipedia policy holds merit

@atama, @CaptainAB : OK, it is not essential to say he was "put" on leave. Just stop short of saying he "happened to be on vacation when" ;-) Truprint (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah! all this referenced material is turning the article into an entertainment tabloid. A sensationalist tabloid in fact. It must be removed, because we can only put positive information about Kundra. Anything else is just straight out biased and a smear campaign. Stand up to the evil editors who insist on reinstating the paragraph! Kundra 4eva! -Reconsider the static (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion, in regards to any further 7oceans socks that appear like the recent IP above, is to follow WP:RBI. -- Atama頭 06:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Professional Recognition

The sentence that begins "The MIT Sloan CIO Symposium..." is lifted verbatim from the DC OCTO press release. I feel it is inappropriate. It is also vague.

Kundra was selected as a 2008 MIT Sloan CIO Award Finalist and a 2008 InfoWorld CTO 25 award winner for his innovation in IT project management. His project management system imagines an organization's IT projects as stocks, the user response to each project as the stock price, and the collection of projects as a portfolio that the CIO must optimize for return on investment. http://www.mitcio.com/images/judges/vkundrafinalist.php http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/2008-infoworld-cto-25-vivek-kundra-district-columbia-048

This project management system appears to be a precursor to the Federal IT Dashboard that Kundra would go on to create as Fed CIO. It also appears to be the accomplishment that brought him national recognition and is likely a reason why he was chosen to be Fed CIO. Needless to say, its omission from the article is a significant oversight!Truprint (talk) 07:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The phrase that begins "for his pioneering work to drive transparency..." is unsourced opinion. The same phrase appears in the White House press release announcing Kundra's appointment, and the entire paragraph appears almost verbatim in Kundra's BIO at cio.gov. It is hard to pinpoint the origin, but it appears to be part of a stock biography used by Kundra. http://www.cio.gov/members/memberbio.cfm?lastname=Kundra&firstname=Vivek Truprint (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The phrase that begins "leadership in public safety communications..." is copied verbatim from the biography portion of the White House press release. The entire sentence does not belong in Professional Recognition, I would delete it.Truprint (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

My own personal standard for Awards is that they should only be included if there is independent, secondary coverage. Otherwise articles tend to get cluttered up with self-congratulatory "awards" that no one cares about except the recipients. A real, notable award like an Academy Award or Nobel is easy to find secondary sources for. So by my standard, this entire section should be removed. But that's just my standard, not WP's. Rees11 (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the bigger problem is that much of this article was copied from press releases. This is not an objective biography of the subject, it is just his résumé.Truprint (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the "...for the pioneering work" sentence due to the lack of sources. Not to belittle his 'achievements', but the entire section needs to be reworded so that it is more objective. -Reconsider the static (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Surely there must be some published biographical info out there that isn't just copied from a press release. Rees11 (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to be accusatory, but I'm starting to get a little concerned by some of your motives now. You seem to be very inclined to include any controversial material about the guy, but want to get rid of all of his achievements. All of the awards in that section are legitimate and have been cited properly - just because they are not academy awards doesn't make them any less significant. And that section seems very factual to me - nobody's spinning anything - he clearly won those awards. CaptainAB (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be accusatory or question our motives. Try to assume good faith. Rees11 (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the legitimate awards should stay, and the reasons why he won them should be stated accurately. MIT Sloan "recognition" was actually 2008 MIT Sloan CIO Award Finalist. That and the Infoworld award were for the project management system Kundra implemented at the DC OCTO. The system should have a whole paragraph devoted to it somewhere in the article. That he was praised by the White House when he was hired as Fed CIO is not an achievement and should be removed.Truprint (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the vague MIT Sloan recognition with 2008 MIT Sloan CIO Award Finalist, and removed the opinionated summary that was just copied from the dc.gov press release. I still think it is important to mention the project management system for which he won this and the Infoworld distinction. See my suggested writeup earlier in the discussion.Truprint (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Truprint! You don't like ANTHING POSTIVE about anyone? Still allergic to all flowers and love thorns. Your mission to to destroy everyones page on Wikipedia. I feel sory for your family, life partner if any? Why so much poisen and pain? Do something nice for yourself. Go to the Garden and smell flowers. They are not that bad. Always think of the consequences before posting. I have seen people, commit suicide, get many diseases becuse of stress, die of cancer and war. --173.12.38.241 (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The section looks scanty. The <what>, <when>, <why> approach may be applied here. Having professional recognition without a reason why it was there makes it look abrupt. Please feel free to add it in. -- Bismuthe (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The remarks are for Bismuthe. If the section is scanty why don't you fix. Are you expecting Truprint to write positive things? That is never going to happen. Read all the posting and don't be lazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.12.38.241 (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Added.Truprint (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO)

The 2 sentences beginning with "The Federal Chief Information Officer is responsible for..." are copied right out of the White House press release. I don't think that is proper.Truprint (talk) 08:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Works of the US Government are in the public domain so there is no copyright issue. Still, I would hope we could be slightly more creative than this. Rees11 (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the investigation, two people were actually arrested [13]. Should alter the sentence to ensure accuracy. -Reconsider the static (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't say only one was arrested. I think only the one arrest is relevant to this article. Rees11 (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It is somewhat misleading because by not mentioning the other people, it suggests that no-one else were arrested. By the way, what is the consensus on the 'youthful discretion' sentence? The discussion on this particular issue seems to have stopped, but the sentence has already been removed. Also, if there are no objections, I will remove the appraisal by the White House, as suggested by Truprint.-Reconsider the static (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Atama has expressed doubts about including the Kundra arrest, otherwise nobody seems to have changed their position. So 1 & socks No, 1 Maybe, 4+ Yes for including is my count. Professional Recognition needs to be de-press-released, go for it!Truprint (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to remove the White House appraisal in the professional recognition section (while keeping the other awards intact), but I am against including a sentence about the youthful indiscretion. I'm not sure how we determined who was a "sock," but if you read through the discussion section, there were clearly other folks early on (aside from 7Oceans) who disagreed with including that information. Therefore, I'm not sure if Truprint's tally is comprehensive. Either way, there is clearly not consensus to have it included. CaptainAB (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Recognition by the White House is notable. However, the fact that Kundra was appointed CIO makes it somewhat redundant. -- Bismuthe (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

In answer to CaptainAB, the only other editor aside from the sockmaster who we know disagreed with the inclusion of shoplifting was Horologium. All others who disagreed were IPs with similar editing patterns or confirmed sockpuppets of 7oceans. The consensus has long been to maintain it. Though I will say that I'm not as committed to keeping it as I was before. -- Atama頭 04:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the main issue with the White House statement is that the source is not impartial and the statement itself is not particularly concrete. Stating that someone is "known" for particular skills is in this context, rather vague and cannot be verified by a third party source. For example, I've come across quite a number of university articles where they claim that they are "known" for a particular course/degree. Known by whom? The statement can't really be verified, and is often a self-proclaimed assertion. I think I've reviewed my stance on the shoplifting incident. While I would not object to the inclusion, the question is whether or not it is really necessary to mention it. -Reconsider the static (talk) 07:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you part of the investigation or just an unhappy x-employee? --173.12.38.241 (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This is irrelevant, particularly as all the info is well sourced. As I've notedd on your talk page I also consider this to not be assuming good faith. Please join in the debate rather than making changes to the article that have already been discussed at length in the previous threads on this page. Smartse (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Again this question is for Reconsider and Truprint not their best friends. Are you part of the investigation or just an unhappy x-employee? Everyone who does not agree with you is a sock? Address issues and don't bully others. Show some respect for Wikipedia policy and procedure. --173.12.38.241 (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no connection whatsoever to Vivek Kundra. I don't think CaptainAB or Bismuthe is a sock. If you review my edits I think you will find I have been very respectful of WP policies and procedures.Truprint (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Great, just when I thought that things were starting to improve. Accusations of sockpuppetry are based upon the suspicious circumstances from which new editors appear to support a very persistent blocked user. This has little to do with principled opposition. And to answer your question, no i'm not an ex-employee, I'm a secret agent working for the GOP. -Reconsider the static (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, WP:RBI. It's not worth even replying to the disruptive editor. If you continue to engage the socks in discussion then they are legitimized. -- Atama頭 00:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that ignoring them will actually legitimize their case. Implementing RBI will just reinforce their accusations because it gives the appearance that we are "silencing opposition", even though we have good reason to block them. Besides, recent edits have raised my suspicions in regards to Bismuthe. A confirmed 7Oceans sock defending Bismuthe's change to the point of edit warring. -Reconsider the static (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll vouch for Bismuthe, I believe they reached this article because they stumbled across Closed system drug transfer device after working to improve Biomaterial. That article has been subject to a big debate about COI, which led them to WP:COIN and from there to this article. Looking at their contributions bears no resemblance to the 7oceans socks. -- Atama頭 00:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent comments have raised my suspicions of Reconsider the static. Bismuthe tries to come up with a reformulation of the leave issue because others expressed a need to do so and he/she is considered a sock? Maybe the disruptive editor was emboldened by the immediate reverts by you and others. Like I said before, I don't even know why the new version was so horribly bad. And if you didn't like it, maybe you should have tried changing it or offering suggestions on the discussion page instead of entering into an edit war. What was Bismuthe's other fault - that he/she suggested expanding the professional recognition section to include reasons for the awards? Oh, my, we definitely have a sock on our hands (pardon the sarcasm). CaptainAB (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

At last count I think there were 6 confirmed socks of 7Oceans. With this in mind, it is difficult to assume good faith, especially when one of the socks suddenly re-appears to defend Bismuthe's edits. This may be purely coincidental, as Bismuthe's history highlights a more reserved editing pattern, but the circumstances still calls for suspicion. Perhaps "meatpuppet" may be a more appropriate term. That may also explain the clearance of CaptainAB in the 7Oceans investigation. Anyhow, in terms of the actual issue, Truprint has already explained why the wording is inappropriate. The use of euphemisms and vague terminology such as "investigation" instead of arrest, and "federal violation" instead of stating the actual charges, only obstructs the facts of the situation. -Reconsider the static (talk) 04:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and respond to opposing arguments in a constructive manner (as many of us are trying to do). This whole "sock"/"meatpuppet" rhetoric is getting very old. CaptainAB (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Administrator for E-government and Information Technology at the Office of Management and Budget

I was confused by the statement: "He has indicated that he will also have the role of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) administrator for e-government and information technology." I could not find anything to support that in the reference, did I miss it?

This Washington Post correction claims that Admin for E-Gov. and IT and Fed CIO are in fact the same exact office, created in 2002, and that Kundra is just the first to use the Fed CIO title: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091803626.html

That is consistent with what I skimmed from the E-Government Act of 2002. The act refers to "Federal Chief Information Officer within the Office of Management and Budget" in the preamble, then refers to the same office throughout the document as the "Administrator for E-Government." http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ347.107.pdf

I believe that the office described by the act is the same office held by Kundra. If so then we should remove the sentence from the opening paragraph and add something like this to the Fed CIO section: "Previous holders of the office used the title Administrator for E-government and Information Technology at the Office of Management and Budget." I don't know where the extraneous "and Information Technology" comes from, but newspapers seem to have consistently appended that to Karen Evans' title.

Can anybody shed more light on this?Truprint (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The above interpretation is confirmed by the WP page for Office of Management and Budget, which suggests that Fed CIO and Administrator for the Office of E-Gov are equivalent in its listing of Kundra: "Administrator of the Office of E-Government & Information Technology(Chief Information Officer): Vivek Kundra" Truprint (talk) 06:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The White House press release announcing Kundra's appointment (which is cited in the Wikipedia article) says: "Today, President Barack Obama named Vivek Kundra the Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) at the White House." Thus, the first sentence of the Wiki article should stay how it is. The second sentence clarifies that the position was originally created by statute, so that should also remain how it is. However, I agree that the third sentence - "He has indicated that he will also have the role of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) administrator for e-government and information technology" - is redundant (based on the second sentence) and can be removed. CaptainAB (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I will remove the 3rd sentence. The 2nd sentence is useful information, but does it belong in the opening paragraph? Truprint (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

To start with, I don't think it needs to be removed for brevity, the lead is plenty short as it is. Essentially, the first sentence tells the reader who Kundra is and why he is notable. The second sentence tries to explain, or should try to explain, what the heck the Federal CIO is. I don't think it does that very well, so I'd recommend either adding another sentence explaining it or replace that second sentence with an explanation. The text below does a decent enough job of that, so finding some way to summarize it in a sentence would be helpful. -- Atama頭 20:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason that sentence is so odd is that it was loosely copied from the preamble of the E-Government Act of 2002. See my recent edit of Chief Information Officer of the United States for ideas about how to explain the Fed CIO office. Feel free to expand that article, too. Truprint (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The deletion of the segment on the Administrator of E-Governement and IT may have proceeded in haste. Not redundant at all. The article does not reflect that the Administrator of E-Government and IT is the CIO. The link on Federeal Cio Roadmap: http://ocio.os.doc.gov/s/groups/public/@doc/@os/@ocio/@oitpp/documents/content/prod01_002082.pdf enumerates the role and responsibilities of federal CIOs. “E-Government and IT” is one responsibility of the Federal CIO; the full scope being increased under the Obama administration at the OMB. This important change is lost in the edit. In mathematical terms one is a subset of the other. The subset is created by statute. Also convenes the CIO council: http://www.cio.gov/. Please feel free to edit in this information. -- Bismuthe (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that Federal CIO and the administrator of the Office of Electronic Government are the same thing. I removed the 3rd sentence because it implied otherwise. Truprint (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The document you linked to is actually about the CIOs of each of the Federal agencies. To confuse matters further, the agency CIOs are also referred to as Federal CIOs. I still don't think Kundra's position is anything other than administrator of the Office of Electronic Government, just using the name Federal CIO for the first time. Truprint (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It is possible that this change announced by the President about his White House management is more than nomenclature? The job description in the White House announcement: “The Federal Chief Information Officer is responsible for directing the policy and strategic planning of federal information technology investments as well as for oversight of federal technology spending. The Federal CIO establishes and oversees enterprise architecture to ensure system interoperability and information sharing and maintains information security and privacy across the federal government.” This mirrors the responsibilities of Federal CIOs: 1) Strategic Planning; 2) Enterprise Architecture (EA); 3) Budget Formulation and Capital Planning & Investment Control (CPIC); 4) E-Government and IT Implementation; 5) Program Management and Performance; and 6) Security and Privacy. E-Government and IT is one of the functions. -- Bismuthe (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The US Code already assigns these responsibilities to the administrator of the Office of Electronic Government under Title 44 Chaper 36 Section 3602. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/44/usc_sec_44_00003602----000-.html So it appears that the Obama administration was just describing the existing position as defined by congress and giving it the new title Fed CIO. Truprint (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

But then the CIO title was already defined by the E-Govt Act and is not new. This was confusing at the first pass but it is getting clearer. Even the legislation is confused and the first line regarding the CIO appears to have added as an afterthought. Parsing through the text of the Act it evolved from “Administrator of E-government” (Sec 3605) to “Administrator of E-government and Information Technology”(Sec. 305 amendment). The previous administration chose to conform to that definition.The third statement should then clarify that the CIO is also the Administrator of Electronic Government and Information Technology(a title chosen by predecessors) and then go on to describe what a CIO is. -- Bismuthe (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the top section of the article is fine how it is, but I'm open to ideas on how to expand it. CaptainAB (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree the Fed CIO position is confusing, and I think a lot of readers might still be confused. The original White House announcement gave some of us the impression that Fed CIO was either a new cabinet level position or advisor to the President. It left us confused about how the position relates to the rest of the government and what authority the position would actually have. We need a coherent edit that states clearly 1) where the Fed CIO is in the chain of command of the Federal government, 2) how the Fed CIO is selected, 3) the responsibilities of the Fed CIO as defined by legislation, 4) the relation of the Fed CIO job to other position with seemingly overlapping responsibility (ie Fed CTO). 5) the history of the Fed CIO position. I am undecided how much of this info should be in the Kundra article, and how much should be moved to Chief Information Officer of the United States, which seems to have the wrong title, btw.Truprint (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)