Talk:Carl Truscott

Two sources

Head's up! New article about Truscott appeared on the Washington Post alleging he has authorized questionable spending... The October 16, 2006 Federal Times also has a front-page article concerning this subject, "A flat-screen TV in the office bathroom?". --Tregonsee 16:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

primary source for contentious claims

Use of a primary source for contentious claims is not valid per WP:BLP. Please do not reinsert such material without a proper strong secondary source. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Extremely strong secondary source added. You're welcome! 161.185.150.180 (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The nature of the claims requires a very strong secondary source. That, alas, is not what has been presented for the contentious claims. Collect (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. Department of Justice Inspector General is as strong a source as it gets. It's far stronger than any other source referenced on this page. 161.185.150.179 (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You should read WP:PRIMARY and perhaps WP:NOTABLE - basically -there needs to be independant reliable reporting of the issue , if not the we don't report primary reports of government documents. Also the way your adding it is also WP:UNDUE and violates WP:BLP - if you are interested, read a few of our policies and guidelines, if not then please stop adding the content as you have been. Off2riorob (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, if I'm adding it wrong, let's fix it together. It appears to me to be a highly biased article. It bases all the information in the bio from a bio published on a conservative/progressive reform lobby website that doesn't exist anymore. There is no independently sourced information to verify the claims and awards listed on the bio.

However, the scandal on his misconduct is reported from the following independent reliable sources:

Dept. of Justice Office of the Inspector General - http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s0610/final.pdf

The Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/04/AR2006080401496.html

The NY Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/washington/12brfs-005.html

The Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/11/AR2006101101050.html

The Associated Press - http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/10/11/211516.shtml

The Seattle Times - http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003300558_ndig12.html

USA Today - http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-11-atf_x.htm

SFGate.com - http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-10-12/news/17314524_1_atf-employees-significant-atf-carl-truscott

and about 100 different websites.

So let's work together a come up with a mutually agreeable addition of this information to this article. Attention whore (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I am unsure that a WP article making vague allegations that a person wanted too fancy an office etc. rises to the level of the charges made in the deleted material - or that unatributed claims belong in a WP:BLP. The NYT could be used to say "according to the Inspector General, Truscott ordered his staff to assist with his nephew's school project" for sure. The seconf WP article would then also require us to note that "Truscott conceded that he should have limited the assistance given to his nephew." and so on. The NYT only used the first part of the AP report -[ either one can be cited, but not both. ST appears to be a precis of the AP article as well. And USAToday specifically noted that the material did not rise to "official misconduct." Any section should present the balancing material as well as the allegations and, frankly, I think the charges amounted to "tempest in a teapot" which any reader will also feel if the balancing material is added. In fact, the only real charge amounts to the homework assistance (unless, of course, asking someone to say when coffee has been served is a major item). Collect (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I definitely think we should re-write the material that was deleted to be more clear and factual, as should the whole article be edited to reflect information that can be sourced outside of the article. "...the bureau reduced violent crime to an historic 30-year low" is a completely ridiculous statement. Violent crime where? The entire country? The ATF was the only reason for a drop in violent crime? Words such as "groundbreaking analysis" should be removed unless properly sourced. If he received all valor claimed, that should be correctly sourced or removed as well. The 2nd WP article listed is probably the most detailed and complete in that it's not just a rehash of the AP article and discusses the findings of the DOJ report, so that would probably be the best secondary source to work off of. Attention whore (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I will have a look, as I saw, the situation was basically misappropriation of some funding, the usual stuff when people are in office - some disagreement that he could have spent money a bit wiser, his cousin or son nephew was making a movie and there was found nothing there, in the end the person resigned and no result or action was taken against him - its good under the situation if proposed additions can be discussed here . thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Rob, glad you're back. It's probably worth noting re your very last sentence that the Inspector General's report says, "Because Truscott resigned as the ATF Director on August 4, 2006, we make no recommendations regarding his actions." ( emphasis mine ). You might like to look at the conclusions of the report, toward the end, just before the appendices.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

@Attn: the peacock language you identify is copyvio, straight from the web page hosted about the subject by his current employer. That needs to go, obviously.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright-violating material removed, along with laudatory passages.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The statement made above by Collect, that "USA Today specifically noted that the material did not rise to official misconduct" is incorrect, and the accompanying summary seems to me to miss the point:

(1) First, as USA Today relayed, the Justice Department's Inspector General only found that Truscott's financial decisions didn't rise to the level of official misconduct, i.e. (see link) that he had the legal right to make them as he did.

(2) Second, to focus on that finding is a straw man: The allegation wasn't that Truscott didn't have the right to make the financial decisions he made, merely ;-) that they were "egregious acts of gross mismanagement of public funds and failures of leadership," a conclusion the IG's report and the secondary sources document and support.

(3) "Asking someone to say when coffee has been served" wouldn't be a big deal, but that's not what Truscott did. He ordered female administrative staff to prepare meals for him and his guests and then to announce "luncheon is served" as if they were his personal servants. That is a big deal: It violated multiple Federal laws and exposed the ATF to civil liability under employment discrimination regulations that typically generate enormous payouts.

(4) While the IG didn't find financial misconduct, it did find numerous violations of ethics laws and regulations, but chose not to take action because Truscott had already resigned. The implication in the language used (see above) was that action would have been taken if he hadn't resigned.

Everyone is entitled to entitled an opinion, of course, but mine is that dismissing the findings of a Department of Justice investigation that resulted in the resignation of the Director of one of its principal agencies as "tempest in a teapot" is not consistent with the neutral point of view that must be adhered to in making edits to this article.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

When all is said and done - the USA Today article specifically stated that the official acts did not amount to "official misconduct" which is precisely what I said (the report was about ATF hiring practices and money spent on office furnishings primarily). Saying that an exact quote was "incorrect" is not helpful to any discussion aimed at improving the article. It said that although Truscott had "exercised poor fiscal judgment in many cases," his financial decisions did not amount to official misconduct. As the report made precisely zero allegations of "official misconduct" in any case (although he was chided for having workers help his son nephew which was not cited as "official misconduct" in the report). There were zero charges placed against Truscott. There is no reason for WP:BLP to be violated in this or any other BLP on Wikipedia. Seeking to SYNTH a resignation with implied "guilt" is contrary to WP:SYNTH entirely as well, and contrary to WP:BLP. It is reasonable to state that he was investigated, it is not proper to impute anything else. Collect (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"This violates BLP" is your invariable argument when expunging negative material from the biographies of conservative politicians. Along with other editors who've made the same observation, it's my impression that this argument is a cover for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Our policy on the biographies of living persons doesn't give one carte blanche to remove well-sourced but unflattering content from any article, and the content that you've removed from this one is impeccably well sourced, directly relevant to the subject's public role and, indeed constitutes a major or even principal episode in that role.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

( ← outdenting ) Some corrections are called for re statements made above by Collect: First, it was Truscott's nephew, not his son that received the help from ATF staff for his project. Says the report, "The project involved at least 20 ATF employees engaged in technical, time-consuming work over [an interval of] an approximately 10-month period."

Second, the multiple assertions made above such as "having workers help his son nephew which was not cited as 'official misconduct' in the report" are erroneous. The report explicitly states on page 10 that this "violated several ethics regulations, violations we clearly would define as misconduct." This is reiterated on page 154: "Contrary to the statement in Truscott’s letter to the OIG, which asserted that our report did not find any administrative misconduct by Truscott, these violations do constitute misconduct."

I'm sure that Collect was simply unaware of these facts in making his statements; they were no doubt good faith mistakes.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Resignation

I propose we add this addition under Career>U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in place of the current entry: "Truscott was appointed by the attorney general to serve as ATF director, a role he held from 2004-2006. He resigned abruptly in August of 2006 amid allegations of aberrant spending practices and ethics violations that were later confirmed by a scathing Justice Department Inspector General’s Office Report." Ref: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/11/AR2006101101050.html Short, sweet and to the point. We should also, as previously mentioned, edit the other sections where there is no source for the statements or claims made. Attention whore (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it seems a bit undue - we can and perhaps if cited should add something - abruptly can go and aberrant also and ethics and scathing - please attempt to remain uninvolved WP:NPOV and to report in an uninvolved manner as WP:BLP requires us to. If you really want to add something to this article about the report and the resignation - I suggest and request you read a couple of the links I have provided and offer something a bit closer to policy compliant - I have read the whole report and many claims were not found to be worthy of action and as the subject resigned - no action or blame on this living subject was appropriated. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It all cited and I'm not sure why it seems undue. If you check Google, based on pages, this information seems to be pretty much almost all that is noteworthy about this subject. I'll agree to removing scathing. Abruptly is absolutely accurate, and one of the main emphasis of the report is ethics problems, so removing that would make no sense. As for the word aberrant, removing that would would make the statment of "allegations of spending practices" inaccurate and non-sensical. I am extremely familiar with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, but thank you for the links. Attention whore (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Rob (Off2riorob), you might like to look at the information I've just added to the above section, specifically at the cites I provided to pages 10 and 154 of the Inspector General's report that actually do blame Truscott for misconduct.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

There has been no response in over a week to this discussion. Adding the suggested addition. Attention whore (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, welcome back, thanks for the greeting and the well wishes Ohio. Off2riorob (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Scrubbing article of widely-reported negative content

These deletions by user Collect won't do; they're in no way supported by policy, not by WP:BLP or any other. Similarly with subsequent edits from single-purpose IP user 74.11.216.66, which Collect has rightly been reverting just now. I've reverted to the version supported by three recent editors: Attention whore, Material scientist, and Nlu. The Inspector General's findings of ethics violations were very widely reported upon, as could have been easily determined by a simple search, and as I'll show very shortly in a separate talk page section. More specific to Collect's deletions, included in the above, this removal of a link to the Inspector General's Report about Truscott was also without basis in policy: There's of course no rule at all against including highly-relevant primary sources in articles; editors are merely prohibited from making their own interpretations ( aka "original research" ) based on primary sources. See WP:PSTS for more information.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Um - no "negative content" was "scrubbed." Note particularly that all unsourced or poorly sourced material in a BLP should be removed. See WP:BLP. Secondly, the "report" is, by definition on WP, a "primary source" and thus can not be used to make any statements not in the source itself. Third, "external links" should no more use "primary sources" than the article itself should use. Lastly, I ask that you cease the incessant attempt to personalize the discussions on any talk page. Thank you. Collect (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I find it hard to understand how, after being presented with so many reliable sources, above, on this talk page, Collect sees fit to jaw about "unsourced or poorly sourced material in a BLP". Re the Inspector General's report about Truscott that Collect deleted, he evidently didn't read the post with which I began this section. Re my "incessant attempts to personalize the discussions on any talk page", I can't help that: I'm just reprehensible that way, and horrid.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that having every post use my name makes other editors think that every point you wish to make has some relationship to me personally. I take WP:BLP seriously. About anyone at all. Also note that I use the proper noticeboards as a normal dispute resolution process. Collect (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to raise any objections to my editing style or habits at my user talk page. I also dislike some aspects of yours, and I'd be perfectly willing to discuss the matter there.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I am still curious as to how "No post-resignation actions were taken against Truscott because the majority of allegations stated in the report were disbanded in the conclusion of the Inspector General's Report due to proof undermining the allegations." is not supported by the conclusion of the Inspector General's report. My goal is to provide an unbiased ending to the ATF section about the Inspector General's Report, which "He resigned in August of 2006 amid allegations of irregular spending practices and ethics violations that were the subject of a Justice Department Inspector General’s Office Report.[2]" does not. Every single person who reads that sentence automatically assumes Mr. Truscott has been proven guilty by all accounts, and what I posted earlier shows in an unbiased manner that he was not. I would have assumed that what I posted before was legitimate as it doesn't post Mr. Truscott in either a good or bad light, and it doesn't say that ALL allegations were removed, and it doesn't ignore the fact that there were allegations.

I have restored the previous spot with the exception of the disputed last sentence in ATF paragraph. There is no reason to remove the rest of the perfectly legitimate article. Collector, how would you prefer to have the last sentence worded? I believe we should sum up the entire article in a concise and correct manner. If anyone does in fact read the conclusion, there are nine main points brought up, and only four of them hold some sort of basis for the allegation. The other five are stated to be erroneous. The original sentence of "He resigned in August of 2006 amid allegations of irregular spending practices and ethics violations that were the subject of a Justice Department Inspector General’s Office Report.[2]" does not bring to light that the majority of allegations were discarded in the conclusion of the report, something which I am trying to add into the wiki page. If that is somehow against the terms of posting, please show me where. I might be new to this, but I see no reason why we need to revert back to the wording which is biased towards guilt.

I look forward to learning more about Wiki posting rules and working this out. SinglePurposeUser (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

More on secondary source reports after Inspector General's findings

(1) ATF director steps down amid probe of spending, August 05, 2006, By Dan Eggen, the Washington Post ( via the Orlando Sentinel )

QUOTE: Carl J. Truscott, a 22-year veteran of the Secret Service who took over as ATF chief in 2004, was under fire for his spending and management practices at a time when the agency was considering sharp cuts in the number of new cars, bulletproof vests and other basics it provides agents... Sources familiar with the project told The Washington Post earlier this year that Truscott planned to purchase, among other things, nearly $300,000 in extras for the new director's suite, including a $65,000 conference table and more than $100,000 for hardwood floors, custom trim and other items.

(2) Inspector General Says Truscott Violated Ethics Rules, Washington Post, Thursday, October 12, 2006

QUOTE: Fine's 157-page report confirms these allegations and many more, concluding that Truscott frequently broke regulations or exercised poor judgment in making decisions that had a serious impact on the ATF's operational budget when the agency was cutting back on vehicle maintenance, bulletproof vests and other basics.

The report also says that Justice investigators were "troubled by Truscott's lack of acceptance of responsibility" for his actions and their repercussions.

"From relatively minor issues, such as decisions on how to furnish the Director's Suite in the new Headquarters building, to major policy directives, such as how many new employees to hire, Truscott attempted to deflect responsibility to his subordinates, misrepresented the amount of involvement he had in the actions, or otherwise sought to distance himself from his own decisions," the report says. "We found several instances where Truscott's statements to us about his conduct were contradicted by numerous other witnesses, and in some instances, by documents as well."

Truscott was particularly fixated on adding "unnecessary amenities" to the director's suite and the building's gymnasium, the inspector general's report said, including millwork estimated at $283,000.

(3) Where It's Always Christmas; Ruth Marcus. The Washington Post. Oct 25, 2006.

QUOTE: ... the Justice Department's inspector general last week chronicled the exploits of Carl Truscott, former head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives -- and the resources Truscott abused were taxpayer dollars, not private funds. While his agency was having to cut back on bulletproof vests for agents, Truscott was arranging for deluxe features in the director's suite of the agency's new building, including a flat-panel television in his private bathroom and a parquet floor modeled on those in the vice president's ceremonial office. Unlike his predecessors, he traveled with an extensive security entourage, and because the director "did not like to wait," security personnel met him at the airport to bypass lines. He violated government ethics rules by using "significant ATF resources" -- about 20 agency employees ended up being drafted to help -- on his nephew's high school project to produce a video about the ATF.

(4) ATF Officials Who Challenged Director Moved to Lower Posts, The Washington Post, Monday, February 12, 2007

QUOTE: An inspector general's report issued after his departure showed that Truscott -- who previously served as head of President Bush's security detail at the Secret Service -- engaged in a wide-ranging pattern of questionable expenditures on a new ATF headquarters, personal security and other items. The report also said that he violated ethics rules by forcing employees to help his nephew prepare a high school video project.

The initial negative story about Truscott was reported by Dan Eggen of the the Washington Post, and followed up by that paper in subsequent reports, but was also quickly picked up via the newswires ( AP, etc. ) and reported across the United States, via the following media properties, among many others. These results are from the ProQuest and Gale/GeneralOneFile proprietary databases; I've indicated online sources for some, where they could be found quickly; I haven't checked the availability of online sources for all, however:

(A) A.T.F. Staff Was Ordered to Help With Homework, Associated Press, October 12, 2006, via NY Times.

QUOTE: The former director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ordered his staff to help with his nephew’s high school homework, wasting the agency’s time and violating ethics rules, an inquiry found... An estimated 20 bureau employees were pulled in to help with the documentary...

(B) ATF helps chief's nephew with school. (2006, October 12). Chicago Sun - Times,p. 26. Retrieved March 9, 2011, from ProQuest Newsstand. (Document ID: 1144241351).

ABSTRACT: The nephew's project -- a documentary about the ATF that took 10 months to complete -- was one of a half-dozen examples of lapses in judgment Carl J. Truscott committed before he resigned in August, according to the report by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine.

(C) Report Says ATF Was Ordered by Then-Chief to Help on Homework. (2006, October 12). Los Angeles Times,p. A.15. Retrieved March 9, 2011, from Los Angeles Times. (Document ID: 1144172971).

QUOTE: The man who resigned in August as director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had ordered his staff to help with his nephew's high school homework, violating ethics rules, says a report released Wednesday.

(D) ATF chief stepping down amid probe into spending ; New building over budget: Agents' supplies may be cut; Seattle Times,p. A4. Retrieved March 9, 2011, from Washington State Newsstand. (Document ID: 1089778991).

ABSTRACT: A report on ATF is expected soon from Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine, whose office has been investigating allegations that Carl Truscott put through or proposed hundreds of thousands of dollars of unnecessary plan changes and upgrades to ATF's new 438,000-square-foot headquarters. Justice investigators also questioned ATF employees about a costly trip Truscott and others took to London last year and about allegations that ATF employees helped assemble a school video report for a relative of Truscott, according to officials interviewed in the investigation and who declined to be identified. Truscott has declined to comment on the allegations.

These and related stories were also carried by The Denver Post; The St. Louis Post-Dispatch; The Times Union, Albany, NY; USA Today; Tulsa World, Tulsa, OK; The Houston Chronicle; The Record, Bergen County, NJ; The Boston Globe, and a great many other media outlets, as already noted by user Attention whore, above.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Mismanagement versus misconduct

I wrote earlier that a focus on the findings of official misconduct over the use of ATF time and resources re the nephew's video production project misses the point, and I'd like to explain that. Basically, I think it's important to remember that the DOJ investigation was not just an inquiry into "misconduct", but also into "mismanagement", as the title of Inspector General's report makes explicit.

A reading of the first couple of pages of the Inspector General Act of 1978 makes it clear that coming to conclusions about management competence, efficiency, effectiveness, and deficiencies and problems with the same is every bit as much within the purview of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) as is coming to conclusions about violations of administrative law.

To cite just one example of this, and one that's echoed in many of the secondary sources, the OIG's report focuses heavily on Truscott's unprecedented expansion of hiring new personnel, against multiple warnings from senior ATF and budget officials that his expenditures went far beyond what the ATF could pay for. The report says this left the budget for actual operations so constrained that some agents were using expired ballistic protection vests, and that the ability to pay for respirators, cars, necessary travel, agent training, security and access control systems for ATF buildings, internal investigations of misconduct, support for external law enforcement agencies such as the fulfillment of firearms tracing requests, and other expenses critical to the ATF mission was severely compromised.

Truscott's very expensive modifications to the already-completed-when-he-arrived design for the ATF headquarters building only made the problem of insufficient funds for operations worse, according to the report, which mentions, among other things, a design change he initiated that would have spent $243,000 - $283,000 just for wooden doors and millwork for his own office. I'll have to re-read the report to be sure whether it does or does not, but if it doesn't explicitly identify that as mismanagement, it's certainly the case that implicit disdain for that and similar actions is ubiquitous throughout the report.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Are an Inspector General's findings adjudicative or only allegations?

Hi everybody. I've posted a question to the reference desk that asks whether a U.S. Inspector General's findings are adjudicative or just allegations? Whether they're "findings of fact" or just unsubstantiated assertions, in other words. I think it would be a breach of good faith not to have disclosed this, but please don't let's carry over any possible differences of opinion on this question to that venue. Please give subject experts who show up there the chance to try to answer it, that is, without having to wade through any wrangling. If anyone thinks I've framed the question I posted improperly, or would like me to update or modify the way I phrased it, I'd certainly be open to revising it if you'd like to ask me here to do so. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say they are only adjudicative if acted upon in some legal way which these were not. Off2riorob (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see if any genuine subject-area experts like administrative law judges show up at the reference desk (we have such an amazing wealth of collective expertise on Wikipedia) to give an opinion about that. Our article on U.S. administrative law does make it clear that the OIG has both rule-making and adjudicative authority, besides its investigative function, though. But I'm not sure whether the results reported in the OIG report about Truscott are comprised under just investigation or under adjudication, as well. As I say, it's an interesting question, and one that I hope we'll get some expert help with.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The report itself used the word "investigation." WP editors are not involved in making any legal decisions at all - we only use what reliable sources present, subject to WP policies. Collect (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The report is structured as, "Allegations, Evidence, Findings", repeated as a cycle over 11 main heads, and then followed by a "Conclusions" chapter. It's worth knowing the legal status of those "findings" and "conclusions"; I'd prefer not to echo media reports that explicitly say the subject was guilty, for example, of ethics violations if it turns out that the OIG's findings aren't actually adjudicative. But you're right that it's not strictly relevant one way or the other; our policies tell us to report those findings whether they're were adjudicative or not, although I'm surprised that you'd really want to. ;-)  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

WP editors are not lawyers. "Findings" therefore must be reported as "Findings." And I would note that the negative findings should also be listed as findings, lest anyone think we only cherry-picked the juicy bits. We are also not a tabloid nor a newspaper, but an encyclopedia trying to write articles which will remain correct in the future. Collect (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

And gravity at the surface of the earth tends to make things fall down. You really don't have any clue about how condescending it is to repetitively flog the same utterly obvious themes to editors who know the policies as well as you do, I suppose? Or do you keep that up for some other reason?  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I "flog" themes only when others seem not to understand that WP editing policies on WP:BLPs can not be over-ridden. Collect (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Like this part of BLP policy, for example, the overriding of which forms one of your primary activities here? Go read this essay, which says, in part:

When novice editors breach policies, it is quite possible that they are unaware of them, and educating them is helpful. On the other hand, most editors who have been around for a while are aware of these policies. If you believe that they have broken (or are about to breach) one, it is frequently the result of some disagreement over the interpretation of the policy, or temporarily heated tempers. In such situations, sticking to "did you know we had a policy here" mentality tends to be counter-productive in resolving the issue, as it can be construed as being patronising and uncivil. (emphasis mine)

Evidently I'm not the only one who finds such behavior condescending. My editing orientation manifests an extremely high degree of respect for BLP policy, and I'm not the only one here who thinks so. I actually think that I'm very much more compliant with that policy than you are, but you don't hear me yammering at you constantly to try to prove that. It's reasonable to demand that you return that courtesy. In short, knock it off.  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Read your own words. You asked a question, and I answered it in a single sentence. Collect (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Your edit summary said you want brevity. Very well: Your constant repetition of "did you know we had a policy here" is indeed "counter-productive, patronising and uncivil", and it solicits an equal condescension and incivility in reply. So far I've tried not to respond in kind, but I've reached the end of my patience with you in this regard. Please drop it.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Policy considerations

Several editors have stated their opinions on policy issues in the section on this talk page labeled primary source for contentious claims, and I doubt those are likely to change. So I'd like to ask for other editors' views on the policy issues that govern the topic under discussion here:

• Does our biographies of living persons policy disallow substantial content drawn from the media coverage of the DOJ Inspector General's report and Truscott's resignation?
• If not, how significant are the DOJ investigation and IG report in the career of the subject of this article?

I'm sure we all want to be as sensitive as possible, within the bounds of fairness and WP policies, to the subject of this article, so discussion of any other issues and, especially, policy-related matters that touch on these questions would also be relevant and helpful. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought this was almost sorted, its been a while - what had we, a small comment that he resigned with a link to a WP:RS report about it, we should mention he resigned in a short carefully worded npov comment but without out any accusations imo because there were not really confirmed, anything less is looking in the direction of censorship. Off2riorob (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The Inspector General made findings against Truscott and he quit. The report was published and reported in the newspapers. No BLP problems as far as I can see. TFD (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thats not how I have understood the issue from reading the citations and report. At the time the subject resigned there was an ongoing investigation. Which when completed took no action against the subject of this article. As such BLP issues are not always the definative issue as regards editorial considerations. Off2riorob (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Rob is spot on that BLP considerations aren't the only ones that should inform our collective decision about how much of the media uproar resulting from the Inspector General's report should be reflected in our article: We should also try to be as decent as possible to the subject of this article, within the bounds of candor, to mention just one other relevant factor. But since BLP policy is one of the things we're discussing here, I do think it'll be helpful if we're all reading from the same page in that respect:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it... Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source.

Besides being a great argument against becoming a public figure ;-) I think that part of BLP policy makes it pretty clear that we do have an obligation to include some of the criticism made by media reports in our article. And policy aside, if we don't include that criticism with due due weight, someone will certainly drop by before long and add the material, perhaps in a very disrespectful or tabloid style, and probably with more weight than many of us think is actually called for.

That kind of back and forth, between all negative information being expunged in favor of praise, on the one hand, and painting the subject as a worthless human being on the other, has actually been going on for years over this article. I think if we'll work together with appropriate humility, and with everyone willing to compromise their preferences a little, that we actually have an opportunity to finally put that to a stop.

It's my opinion that there's no way we'll be able to achieve a version that will remain stable, though, without each of us making a conscious effort to suppress our pride and politically-competitive motivations. I certainly know from my own experience how easy it is to slip into a competitive attachment to one's own preferences, and to cast aside all appropriate humility in the process, without meaning to or being aware of it.

But I think we can all agree that our readers deserve an accurate, stable article, and that our subject's supporters shouldn't have to check in every two weeks to see whether he's being trashed, either. Let's try to keep that as our common goal, and keep the competition that seems to arise so easily from our widely differing political views at bay this time out, okay? Thanks all,  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I know they had a few issues and there was no charges or any legal faults, and that no action in any way was taken against him as a result of the findings on the report - what is the major finding against him? Off2riorob (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Rob. Broadly speaking the Inspector General found financial mismanagement ( I'll add more about that shortly, but for now please note I didn't say "financial misconduct" which has a different and very specific legal meaning in the U.S. ), and violation of ethics rules under Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The specific CFRs that the IG found he'd violated are detailed on page 73f of the report: They have to do with the 120 hours (my guess) that ATF employees spent dealing with the nephew's project. The CFRs actually do have the force of law, and the IG did consider Truscott guilty of those violations.

I'm wondering, though, if (like user Collect) you're suggesting that because the IG chose not to prosecute criminal charges, or haul Truscott before an administrative law judge, that we don't have to say much about this, or that we shouldn't, for that reason?  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as I remember although there were mismanagement issues there was only that one thing that they called the ethic violation. Off2riorob (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• - A 2006 report from Glenn A. Fine, completed after Truscott had resigned his position, concluded that Truscott had violated ethics rules by instructing 20 employees to help his teenage son nephew prepare a high school video project, in total 120 hours. Off2riorob (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There have been many discussions on BLP/N about the extent to which allegations which are not presented to any court belong in biographies. See the David Copperfield (illusionist) talk page inter alia. The policy of WP is to have encyclopedia articles about living people to be written conservatively. Reporting allegations without reporting on, for example, denials of such allegations falls under WP:BLP. WP is not judge, jury and executioner, and should not present allegations as fact. Collect (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not relevant. Accusations in civil and criminal matters are unproved until adjudicated. Findings of the Inspector General are matters of fact. In both cases we need substantial evidence to question these findings. TFD (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No one is questioning the findings are they? I thought it was more the report worthiness and weight of them that was at issue? Off2riorob (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

@Collect: I'm sure there have been many such discussions, but they don't trump policy. In the example given in BLP policy of a politician accused of having an affair, that's obviously meant to be understood as having been unproven, as well. The standard is "notable, relevant, and well-documented", not "proved in a court of law". As far as reporting denials, I'm certainly in favor of that, even somewhat beyond the point that they've been echoed in secondary sources as opposed to just being stated in primary ones.

@TFD: Are the Inspector General's assertions findings of fact? Something sanctions or fines or dismissal or whatever could be based on, without further adjudication? Or are they just something like a public prosecutor's investigation notes that he uses to determine whether he'll file charges: allegations, effectively?

@Rob: I think you're correct that what we need to be discussing is due weight.  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

1. In point of fact, none of the discussions supports allegations where specifically no findings of legal wrongdoing were made. 2. Examples included the affairs of well-known politicians (Truscott was not even a politician, and has broader protection, if anything). 3. In the case at hand the denials were from additional sources, not just Truscott. 4. WP:BLP as policy absolutely states that when in doubt, leave it out - the harm done by "allegations" in a BLP far outweighs any benefit to WP users. 5. You likely should read the ongoing discussions about "pending changes" and the concerns there. Collect (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

But surely if its covered in multiple reliable citations it is notable and verifyable and can be mentioned with consideration to weight and blp issue? I am always on the err on the side of caution in regard to BLP and living people but we have to be careful no to censor and so violate npov. Stuff that is widely published in reliable sources is almost impossible to keep out of a wikipedia article as someone just keeps wandering by and thinking, hey thats not in his article and so adding it, I have found that its much better as experienced editors to discuss a policy compliant addition than attempt to keep such content out of an article. Off2riorob (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

And I certainly have supported mention of the report, but not of extended commentary about material in the report due to WP:BLP. The only specific item which likely belongs is that he had ATF staff assist in his son's nephew's schoolwork. Collect (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be be close to agreement on that then. Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm of a different opinion than Collect, of course, re the impact of policy on this, although I'm glad we're discussing it. I do want to comment on Rob's astute and very practical observation, though, where he notes,

"Stuff that is widely published in reliable sources is almost impossible to keep out of a wikipedia article as someone just keeps wandering by and thinking, hey thats not in his article and so adding it, I have found that its much better as experienced editors to discuss a policy compliant addition than attempt to keep such content out of an article."

We can argue until the cows come home over our opinions and interpretations concerning BLP matters, but although I wouldn't in any way diminish the importance of policy, those arguments become moot if the article keeps ricocheting between extremes of painting the subject as without redeeming value on the one hand and what I've called a "scrubbed" version on the other. Rob's perfectly right that if we can't agree on a presentation that is widely perceived as fair by most editors that someone on one side or the other will certainly be by soon to "correct" that bias.

We do need to come up with a policy-compliant addition that will prevent that, and one that we can all agree to revert to as a consensus version when extreme changes are made in either direction, and especially without regard to whether we favor that direction or not. Nothing less will put an end to the oscillation this article has seen for years, and the subject certainly deserves and end to that, as do our readers.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In which case, I suggest we use the existence of the report, and the homework bit as being the salient parts. Stuff about coffee serving, gym costs and staffing levels are not associated with any actual "wrong doing" in any case. Collect (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a fairly small point, Collect, but it would make it easier for me to trust that your interest here is to fairly represent the facts if you'd stop using descriptions that you know to be untrue in order to minimize the subject's culpability.

You made a very similar "coffee" remark, above, and I know you know that's completely inaccurate. Two female administrative employees were required to prepare full meals for Truscott and his guests, serve them and attend them like waitresses at a table they'd been required to set up with linen tablecloths, fine china, and silverware, bus their dishes, bring in desert, and wash everything up afterwards. They were being used by their boss as personal servants. That's not only grossly insulting and against the law, it's spectacularly bad judgment.

You're free to say what you please, of course, but we'll get a better result here if you wouldn't treat this as a competitive game by making dismissive and misrepresenting remarks like your "coffee serving" comment and, more generally, by any similar misrepresentations of the actual facts. I'm not angry, and I realize you're just operating in competitive mode when you do that, but keeping that up is not going to generate a productive outcome for the article or the subject in this case.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow! My point was that the affiar about having people "serve meals" as you phrase it was minor and regarded by the IG as minor. I had not thought you would say I was lying about it. Perhaps you would get better results by not saying others "misrepresent" things as often as you so assert? If the IG found the material to be of no great consequence, so should we. Perhapos this will "serve" you well as advice on WP. (from report: She said she did not recall Truscott directly asking her to do this. and She stated that Truscott usually offered to help clean up. In short, the most the IG could end with was We concluded that Truscott’s expectations for the role of his Administrative Assistants in this regard were inappropriate." Which is really a fairly off-handed way of saying "did not rise to the level of anything actionable" (to be precise: we did not find that Truscott violated any regulations or agency policies.) Collect (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The consensus appears to be that the findings of the IG can be reported, and this conversation can be concluded. TFD (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in, Rob TFD; things looked to be heading downhill, I suppose, so I'm glad you did. And you're right, of course re consensus. I probably won't touch this section again unless there's some fresh reason to do so. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think if someone wants to add something it is time to present it for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree re everyone who's participated since this section went up, but I also think we need to honor that seven-day norm thing re talk pages for contentious articles. I wouldn't want anyone who has this watchlisted but is just offline for a few days to feel they'd been shorted of their opportunity to have their say. It won't do any harm to let this section sit here for that reason, rather than closing/archiving it on-page, as I presume TFD might have been suggesting.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would like to see what you want to add, no one else is around, go on, show us what you want to add. Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I misunderstood. I thought your "add something" meant "add some policy commentary to this section". I'd like to see a broader participation beyond just you, me, Collect, and TFD, because I think more participation will translate to a better shot at long-term stability, but I'll run something up the flag pole here within 24 hours. Sorry if the time lag seems unreasonable: you can either say "I'm extremely slow" or "I'm extremely careful" in cases like this, depending on how annoying I've seemed to you lately. ;-)  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

- no, no hurry, no worry. I'm intrigued thats my position rght now - I was looking at the article, its not very good is it, the content that is there now, a lot of uncited, I almost removed it but thought better of the removal, as it wouldn't have really left much. Never mind adding this naughty step stuff what about improving the actual article? Off2riorob (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. In all seriousness I really am extremely slow at producing any kind of writing that I feel is of acceptable quality. I don't care much about talk pages that way, but article space is really different to me. Anyway, I agree entirely re improving the article; I said as much to an IP who'd been reverting Collect a few days back, actually. I'm focused on sorting the "naughty step stuff" (delightful phrase; I suppose you must be a Brit) right now, but once that's done and the article has a chance at staying stable I've promised to try to find some positive content that we can put in to help prevent the article from being only about the negative, if we can find any such content. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick update: I'm afraid I'm going to have to put this off a bit longer, Rob. Something's come up with work that's proving rather time-consuming, and it's likely to keep me mostly offline for the next couple of days.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been monitoring the discussions on this page for the past couple of weeks as the arguments on both sides have been presented. I'm kind of the person who started this debate up by as Rob mentioned, wandering by and thinking "hey that's not in his article" and adding it. I believe that you can't have an accurate article on this subject without mentioning the report and it's contents. I haven't been adding my input to the debate because it's pretty much the same as Ohio's and he is doing a much better job of arguing it. Attention whore (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Too kind, AW. I'm really glad you're staying involved, though. I was aware of your earlier contributions, of course; thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention. I've just been doing bits and bobs on other articles the past few days ( I'm more or less swamped with RL stuff right now ) and I've been pretty much slacking off on this one. I promised Rob I'd put up a proposal very soon, though, but that doesn't mean others can't do the same here in the mean time, of course. ( I think creating a new section for that would be best. ) I did find one primary source that we should nevertheless be able to use to add some positive stuff to the article. I'll mention it below, along with one or two others that may be of interest, as well. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

A few new sources

A primary source, but probably should be admissible for Truscott's educational and career background, and awards:

• http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2004/04/040104-doj-ag-ashcroft-appoints-truscott.pdf

Here's another that's kind of curious. Apparently the guy who peached on Truscott, in large measure, got no thanks for doing so:

• http://articles.cnn.com/2010-05-28/politics/atf.whistleblowers.ties_1_atf-special-agent-deputy-director?_s=PM:POLITICS

The following is just an html copy of the pdf Attention whore gave us above, way above, of the OIG report:

• http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s0610/index.htm

And here's a search string that should return about 75 press releases from ATF that have Truscott's name in them. I've looked through most of them very quickly; if anyone wants to do so more carefully, and then use the results to look for corresponding secondary sources (e.g. see if any secondary sources expanded on their press releases), that might be a way to add some relevant content, too. Sorry I don't have time to do more than throw out these suggestions right now. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The ATF press release should be fine for c.v. stuff (I get amazed at how some people question such stuff sometimes). The "index" is the same as the index for the actual report - it does not claim to be anything else. The CNN article appears to be more about Domenech than anything else ("For years, Edgar Domenech had been part of the machine that had created this circle of destruction, the self-promotion of the senior managers, with all the perks, and using the agency for the personal playground," Cefalu said. is unrelated in any way to Truscott, Truscott only comes in because Domenich seems to blame him for everything) - the AIG did not make any findings that Truscott violated law with regard to the '$207 million ATF headquarters" building (as an aside - the building was under construction when Truscott became director - the allegations were about a much smaller amount spent on furnishings and the gym per the OIG report so the $207 million might be questioned). Collect (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 August 2012

"Mr. Truscott was appointed by the attorney general to serve as ATF director, a role he held from 2004-2006. Under Mr. Truscott’s leadership, the bureau reduced violent crime to an historic 30-year low, expanded its role in explosives investigations, developed a National Center for Explosives Training and Research and constructed a new training academy. Most importantly the 5,000 men and women of ATF were able to make effective contributions to the Department of Justice’s highest priority – the prevention of terrorism – through intelligence sharing, investigations, regulation, training, laboratory services and an expanded international presence."

Source: Biography From: http://www.asero.com/content/ourteam/ctruscott/

John221x24 (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That is not considered a reliable source and not suitable as material for the article. Journals, newspapers, magazines and books which are published and vetted are considered reliable sources.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carl Truscott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140527131834/http://www.secretservice.gov/press/pub0704.pdf to http://www.secretservice.gov/press/pub0704.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707172914/http://www.asero.com/content/ourteam/ctruscott/ to http://www.asero.com/content/ourteam/ctruscott/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)