Talk:Vivek Kundra

Fraud info (again)

There's been a small edit war about the inclusion of information detailing the fraud conducted by an official in Kundra's office. A consensus was reached here that the fact that the official was arrested should be included. Now a new source states what the actual details of the fraud are, it seems sensible to include this. I didn't add the details myself but I have now replaced them twice, most recently I reduced the details somewhat to only be: "The fraud involved more than $500,000 in bribes and kickbacks as part of a long-running contracting scam."

If you disagree with this being included please state why. WP:UNDUE was cited as a reason to remove it, this seems to be concerned with the representation of viewpoints rather than facts however. Smartse (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

For some reason the {{reflist}} above isn't doing what I wanted, here is the bare ref instead:

<ref>{{cite news|title=Ex-security head in D.C.'s Chief Technology Office pleads guilty in bribe case|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/18/AR2009121804043.html|date=Saturday, December 19, 2009 |publisher=[[Washington Post ]]|accessdate=2009-12-19}}</ref> Smartse (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You insist on adding details about Acar that do not belong in this biography. These details are not specifically relevant to Mr. Kundra, and by adding them they are not in the spirit of WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV or WP:HARM. --Mary Gracee (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is the same as WP:UNDUE and is a policy about viewpoints not facts. I don't see how adding context to a passage that it has already been decided should be included is "doing harm" (WP:HARM). This seems like a totally neutral point to include in my opinion too. If you think these policies are being violated then please point out which parts you think are relevant. I've renamed the section back to what I named it as well, as you shouldn't refactor other's comments. Smartse (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

After looking at the paragraph again, I'm not sure it should be included at all, it just doesn't seem terribly relevant to the man as a whole - but I won't challenge consensus if it has been made that it should be included. Falcon8765 (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason the paragraph looks irrelevant is because it is written backwards. It is not supposed to be about the fraud, it is supposed to be about the leave of absence. Putting the leave first makes that clear: "Kundra went on leave from the Fed CIO position on March 12, 2009 after an official at his former DC technology office was arrested for fraud. Kundra was not a subject of the investigation and resumed the Fed CIO position 5 days later." Truprint (talk) 08:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit War 12/22/2009

You insist on adding details about Acar that do not belong in this biography. These details are not specifically relevant to Mr. Kundra, and by adding them they are not in the spirit of WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV or WP:HARM --Mary Gracee (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The sentence you are trying to add is not appropriate in this article for the following reasons:

-It violates WP:BLP with respect to WP:HARM#TEST because you are trying to use guilt-by-association as Kundra was never a target of the investigation.

-It violates WP:WEIGHT or WP:UNDUE because it suggests an increase of scrutiny over Kundra. The consensus was to limit scope not expand it. The whole paragraph should not be included at all.

-It violates WP:NPOV because this is a conflation that introduces a negative point-of-view, even if that is not your intention.

-It violates WP:RECENT because it draws attention to recent news events, and has no longevity in a biography of Kundra's entire life. -- Mary Gracee (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed ad nauseum and, after much debate, a compromise on the wording was reached. In fact, many people gave strong arguments as to why the Acar incident does not even belong on this page. If included at all, we should stick to the original wording. Moreover, the cited source (the weekend Washington Post article) does not once mention Mr. Kundra's name. Clearly, further emphasizing the incident on Kundra's page is not appropriate. Therefore, I am removing it.CaptainAB (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the new content is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Anyone think its strange how all these single purpose accounts suddenly pop up whenever there is an issue relating to the temporary dismissal? -Reconsider! 04:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Leave of absence changed, again

The leave of absence paragraph was changed, again. On January 2 and 3 the source was changed to an article that is primarily about Kundra winning an award. Also the phrase "quickly returning to work after being cleared" was added. We already say the leave was 5 days, the reader can decide if that is "quick." Also we say Kundra was not a suspect, to say he was "cleared" implies otherwise. The changes should be reverted. Truprint (talk) 08:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently wrong with the changes. The new source still covers the issue of his leave and the added emphasis on his innocent is understandable, albeit redundant. What is concerning is the large numbers of SPI/sock accounts. -Reconsider! 10:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The new source is insufficient, it does not even substantiate the dates in our article. Truprint (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm you're right, though it is not a particularly pressing issue. Go ahead and change it. -Reconsider! 02:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverted to the old source. Also added a second, the Associated Press story, to substantiate the date for the start of the leave of absence. I did not modify the text, but my complaint stands.Truprint (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the need for two references. The first reference seems to have the date March 12 and the reinstatement date March 18. I will remove the second ref. The first reference is more than enough for this non-sequitor. -- OmbudsTech (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see how one can infer when the leave began from the arrest date mentioned in the first article, so I agree that the second article is unnecessary to establish the date. But what are you calling a non sequitur? Truprint (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Cloud computing and Apps.gov

I have added in a sub-section on cloud computing under the Federal CIO. This is a substantive operational shift that Kundra has put into place for the Federal government. Surprising that this section did not mention this or any of the recent initiatives that have certainly caught the eye of the IT community. -- OmbudsTech (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Chief of the Year

The recognition as Chief of the Year appears to have been mentioned twice. Once in professional recognition and again in the Federal CIO. Since the second reference is redundant I have removed it from the Federal CIO section. -- OmbudsTech (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits under Career Section

The recent edits under the Career Section regarding Aneesh Chopra and USINPAC are irrelevant and not notable. Thus, I am reverting the changes. CaptainAB (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Chopra & Kundra worked together in the Virginia government long before they were asked to cooperate as Fed CTO & Fed CIO. Thus they already had a working relationship when they were appointed by Obama. Given that Obama stressed the need for the Fed CTO & CIO to work together closely, perhaps their previous relationship was a factor in their appointment? Is this information not essential to build a coherent picture? This information has been widely reported, it is a shortcoming that our article is missing it. We should also add something about the friendship between Chopra & Kundra, reportedly they engage in policy discussions using their Blackberry's.

The fact that Chopra & Kundra credit USINPAC with their early political appointments helps explain their rise to power. We need more information that explains how Kundra got started in politics.Truprint (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If Kundra & Chopra's previous working relationship was a factor in their respective appointments, that should have been made clear by the White House--we are not in a position to conjecture. That doesn't seem to be the case anyway since Chopra's appointment came several months after Kundra's. Moreover, Wikipedia is not the proper forum to address a person's entire political network (there are clearly other resources for that). And do you seriously want to include information about them exchanging emails via blackberry? Is that at all notable? Seriously?

As for USINPAC, that information is not Wikipedia-worthy, either. First of all, Kundra's wiki page should not be an advertisement for USINPAC (that is what their website is for). Secondly, the reference does not help explain how Kundra got started in politics--based on the chronology, Kundra had already entered local politics by that time (in Arlington County). Thirdly, almost all political figures have some groups or individuals lobbying for them--so this is not noteworthy or interesting at all. Fourthly, we don't know what role USINPAC actually played.

For these reasons, I'm reverting the changes again. Please don't just "undo" my changes--if you have any objections, please discuss them here first. CaptainAB (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's be honest about what is going on here. I made an edit, you reverted it, twice, before a consensus was reached.

The edit discussed Kundra's relationship to Chopra., not his "entire political network." The fact that they worked together in state government when they were unknown and now must work together in similar capacities at the highest level is of course notable. I encourage you to get the opinion of other editor's.

The inclusion of the USINPAC attribution is an entirely unrelated topic. We know nothing about why Kundra was selected for these early posts. The one thing I did find is the quote from Kundra basically saying that USINPAC was instrumental in getting him the Virginia job. I think any information that helps explain his rise to power should be included.Truprint (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I re-added the info about the history with Aneesh Chopra. Your opinion that the information is not relevant is strange. A week has gone by without any replies to my last comment. If a majority of reasonable editors agree it is not relevant then I will defer, but I do not expect that to happen.Truprint (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I felt like your initial formulation was irrelevant, inappropriate, and misleading. Clearly, none of the other editors felt compelled to include it either. However, in principle, I am not opposed to including the fact that they both previously worked under Tim Kaine. I have placed the information under the Federal CIO section where it says that Kundra, Chopra, and Zients will be working together because it makes more sense there. CaptainAB (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

My initial formulation was none of those things, your judgment is clearly biased. You are also being dishonest again about what you did: you actually deleted my latest formulation without a reason.

It is telling that the information in your edit is restricted to the content of a Governor Kaine press release that you chose for a source. If we deleted all the information from this article that is sourced form Democratic party press releases, the only thing left would be award announcements. Any effort to add information, perspective, or context that does not agree with the Democratic party message is quickly blocked. One wonders how the article would be any different if it was written by the Democratic party itself.

I have more important things to do. I won't be back. Truprint (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Spam and Google

Google's gmail system being hacked is not particularly relevent here, as Google is not under federal government tenure, and the control of Vivek over the company is extremely limited. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree that the content being inserted is farfetched. The USCIO has no juridiction over Google or private institutions such as MIT. -- 57.67.16.50 (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems to us that wrt GOOG hack, any issue discussed by US Sec of State vis a vis hacking allegedly by or with the knowledge of a foreign power, i.e., China is a national security issue. One of the goals of Kundra was supposedly setting policies relating to cybersecurity, so we cannot have it both ways. Either put up on the results or remove the following "Kundra has made it a priority to focus on the following areas:...(3) cyber-security," —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.182.27.165 (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed that there is a fragment posted 'Cybersecurity; Kundra simply labeling this issue "crucial."'. I understand from the reverts and the discussion here that 189.164.97.160 (changing IPs) is insisting on ascribing the responsibility for "cyberattacks" on Google to Kundra. I find this irresponsible insistence since Kundra can have no say in security at a private company. The State Department has to get involved to protect American business interests overseas. These arguments are illogical and misguided and I would recommend that this fragment be removed. -- OmbudsTech (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed this edit here and now it is back again. The IP address edits (now 189.164.154.72) lack NPOV and seem to be bent upon attacking Kundra over the issue of cybersecurity. 1)This edit is just stuck in the middle of a sentence like a sore thumb and does not belong there (just poor construction). 2)The IP 189.164.154.72 reverted it stating that the word(!) "crucial" is a quotation? It violates WP:VERIFY and 3) it is the original interpretation of this IP to cast an innuendo that somehow Kundra lacks commitment regarding security (WP:WEASEL). Even the word "crucial" means absolutely essential (if in doubt see link). I think we have a consensus here that these attacks regarding cybersecurity are motivated and need to be removed. WP:BLP calls upon editors to remove questionable content immediately and I am going to proceed to do this again. - HealthMind (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Cybersecurity

Adding internal link to Howard Schmidt's page in Wikipedia. I think having extensive quotations from Schmidt is UNDUE in Kundra's page. -- HealthMind (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Shortened statement regarding WP:UNDUE. The editor is welcome to add direct quotations in the page of Howard Schmidt. -- HealthMind (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Moved to section on cloud computing which is the most relevant I think the reference has the right weight and relevance here. --HealthMind (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

I am watching this article. This is an Encyclopedia. This extrordinary series of bad-faith edits in the last days are really annoying. Hopefully a longer block than his previous 24 hours would keep this page from being vandalized so badly by changing IP address.

- MaryGD (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The edits aren't being made in bad faith but it is edit warring none the less. I've warned the IP that they are at WP:3RR and that they risk being blocked if they revert again. Smartse (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If HealthMind is the /decider/ of what is bad faith (and her using terms such as 'annoying' to refute someone else), then there is nothing that can be said or done to change that; and the result speaks for itself. If however one wanted to be objective, then some progress can be made. The others' objections to using direct and relevant quotations from the very articles that are specifically cited as a basis for the conclusory remarks in a given paragraph is quite problematic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.164.86.232 (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We should all assume good faith regardless and no one person decides anything here, we decide by consensus. The reason I've reverted you was because I see no reason why the quotes are relevant to the article and others felt the same way before I reverted you. Why exactly do you think these quotes are so necessary? Smartse (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you think the statements of Mr Kundra deciding/implementing cybersecurity policy without the clarifications of Mr Schmidt's specific input are not misleading? I am not married to specific words, but it seems others dismiss my comments out of hand, instead of reaching consensus on specific intent and purpose. I used literal quotations from the cited references to avoid any legitimate bias claim, but now all that has resulted is name calling; with me being branded by others as a bad faith editor. This type of ruse by others is classic bias. And I notice that they try to hide their identities by anonymous account names, plural, to mask IP addresses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.164.88.207 (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to do anymore reverting, but I still don't see how (and you haven't explained how) the addition of "In that article, Mr Schmidt says of the cloud initiatives championed by Mr Kundra, "I’m a big proponent of moving thing to the cloud, but moving it right." More specifically, Mr. Schmidt says he will "make sure, as we’re looking at the technology components, asking the critical questions about the security." is necessary in the article. It's a biography about Kundra, not about cloud computing or Schmidt. So I'll ask again, why is it necessary?

As far I can see you haven't made any comments except for the two above, so I can't see how people are dismissing your comments out of hand. MaryGF shouldn't have said you were acting in bad faith, although your continued edit warring could have annoyed her somewhat I guess. You also say this is a classic bias - I'm again unclear the inclusion or exlcusion of the quote doesn't seem to add or remove any bias to the article, just more detail than is necessary. Smartse (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I removed the quote which seems to imply that Mr. Schmidt will watch over Mr. Kundra's activities, whereas, from the article, it appears that the two will be working together as a team of sorts. Please explain why the quote is necessary before reinserting. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The person is using many different I.P.address:

189.164.88.207

189.164.86.232

189.164.154.72

189.164.97.160

189.182.25.226

189.182.30.51

189.164.84.85

189.182.24.12

189.164.93.129

189.164.163.139

-- MaryGD (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Your collective behavior in repeatedly refusing to allow the specific Howard Schmidt quotation, not to mention the Kundra quotation, which directly relate to the purportedly objective notes on Mr Kundra's Cybersecurity policies, would be laughable if it were not so creepy.

An odd peripheral circumstance is that many of the pro-Kundra comments can be traced to locations coincidentally, we are sure, that lie in proximity to Kundra's friends and inlaws' residential addresses, but we digress.

The narcissistic and self congratulatory demeanor of the various 'editors' of this page, borders on one or more symptoms of schizophrenia and similar anti-social disorders under DSM-5. One has to wonder how many of these people even has a real life much less a day job. Are they all just hoping for a call from the subject of the page, with an 'ata boy or 'ata girl? Or are they really that ignorant of their supposed role in maintaining objectivity?

The inane suggestion that quotes cannot be included until justified by the Posse of the Clueless, and that unless there is the approval of some unspecified number of the inmates at this asylum, speaks for itself.

If one reads through the history of this web page, not really recommending that one wastes one's time doing so, it becomes clear how biased this page is, as a pep rally for the subject of the page, and as a means to further spin the myth that somehow Mr Kundra has a clue as to what he is doing.

We will continue to watch this farce in progress, but will no longer, just as the few people that tried in the past have done, waste any more time playing the online game that calls itself an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.182.24.98 (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Note for 189.164.86.???

(ec)A quick note for 189.164.86.232. Even though your IP has changed, you're in violation of 3RR (4 reverts in a 24 hour period). You should make your case on the talk page before reverting again. Regards. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeated anon addition

An anon added:

In June 16, 2011, it was announced < ref>http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/vivek-kundra-to-leave-white-house-tech-post/ Vivek Kundra to Leave White House Tech Post</ref>

Even if this reference isn't a blog, it should be written as a referenced sentence, not as an external pseudo-link. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this what you intend Mr. Rubin ... "On June 16, 2011, it was announced Vivek Kundra to Leave White House Tech Post." ... which you deleted without explanation http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vivek_Kundra&diff=434819058&oldid=434817196 again. 99.190.80.91 (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

After careful consideration, it is a blog, so cannot be used for information about a living person. (And the < ref> was there last time. This isn't much better.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

DC Data Catalog

Vivek Kundra wasn't the DC CTO who originally created the DC Data Catalog. That was Suzanne Peck, as I documented in the 2006 InfoWorld article (http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/open-government-meets-it-161) I referenced along with the change I made.

The change left a dangling reference called SFData that I can't see how to fix.

Jonudell (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Vivek Kundra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100531040932/http://www.govtech.com:80/gt/articles/723258 to http://www.govtech.com/gt/articles/723258
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090106003044/http://www.techcouncilmd.com/News/tcmnews_110708.html to http://www.techcouncilmd.com/News/tcmnews_110708.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)