Talk:Mark Kimmitt

Sad Example of Wikipedia-Misuse

Up until this point, this article appears to have been a lamentable attempt at propaganda and a sad misuse of Wikipedia resources.-- Zlerpster 01:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Editorial Dispute Over Controversy Section

General Discussion

• The controversy section is very well documented and well within the criteria of the Wikipedia community. Raineybt has deleted all controversy over Kimmitt's appointment with no justification. I suspect that Raineybt is a sock puppett for Kimmitt himself (note that he objects to the "lack of documentation" in the controversy section, but has inserted a long and undocumented awards section).

Rainybt, in the interest of objectivity, please delete selectively, documenting your deletions and noting specifically why you feel they are unacceptable. You cannot simply delete anything controversial. No one is deleting his awards and commendations; you similarly should not delete his criticisms.

I am happy to send this to third party mediation, or any other mediation Rainybt would suggest. This information is relevant, it is important, it is well documented. There is no reason for its exclusion, except to protect Mark Kimmitt from further embarassment. Gregorywill (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• I added justification for each edit, which is logged in my edit log, and all edits were within the scope of Wikipedia's rules. I initially noted that the section was NPOV, and then began making edits, which I will run through now. The first edits were to remove internet posts of questionable value, which is spelled out within WP:BLP. The second was to remove accusations that were not backed up by a reliable source, and as such were original research, which is not allowed per WP:OR. The remaining edits removed the Congressional Quarterly citation - as this was not sourced to the actual article, I could not verify it, and it should be removed based on WP:BLP.

In general, the sections were removed based on WP:BLPSTYLE, which states "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one." I left in a well sourced summarization of the issue and findings from the investigation, which I still feel is disproportionate to the size of the entire article, but which is both NPOV and succinct.

Finally, I would ask Gregorywill to refrain from personal attacks on my character when discussing this issue. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I don't appreciate being referred to as a "sock puppett" (sic). Please refrain from making any additional edits as I consider this issue closed. --Fresh (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• First, I am not sure how much better documented this could be. You may not like the content, but the citations include the Washington Post, the Congressional Quarterly, a redacted version of the DOD IG Report, and minutes of the Senate Foreign Relatinos Committee. It's hard to say that those sources are not reliable. I have reinserted them. If you object to any of those sources, please state specifically which one you think is not a reliable source and why.

The CQ article is appended below.

Second, the public relations version of the IG report that you have written is not objective -- it is specifically designed to cast Kimmitt (or you, if you are in fact Kimmitt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AUTO)) in the best possible light and ignores many of the findings of the IG. The section that I have written is a neutral story about what the IG found. I have also contributed other aspects to this biography that are non-critical, and I have not removed the long list of uninformative awards and citations. I think it should be clear at this point that I am interested in presenting an unvarnished but unbiased view of the subject.

Third, if you think that the scandal takes up too much space on the page, then I would be willing to create a separate scandal page, like Elliott Spitzer has (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer_prostitution_scandal), with a reference from the main page.

I likewise consider this issue closed, unless you would like to (a) move the entire section to a separate scandal page or (b) refer this editorial dispute to a third party. Gregorywill (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

CQ Article

CQ TODAY PRINT EDITION - FOREIGN POLICY
June 4, 2008 - 8:55 p.m.

Inspector General Finds That Employees Feared State Department Nominee

By Adam Graham-Silverman, CQ Staff

Pentagon employees say Mark Kimmitt, who has been nominated to a top post in the State Department, was "often physically intimidating" and created "a miserable office environment" that led five of them to get jobs elsewhere, according to a report from the Pentagon's inspector general.

Employees told the inspector general that Kimmitt occasionally displayed "anger that demeaned subordinates and caused them to minimize their interaction with him." They described "walking on eggshells" and "sort of a permanent fear" in the office. Several said he threatened their jobs.

The report, obtained by Congressional Quarterly through a Freedom of Information Act request, was requested by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee after it received anonymous complaints about Kimmitt.

Kimmitt's 30-year military career includes stints as deputy director of strategy at U.S. Central Command and deputy director of operations for multinational forces in Iraq. He has served since September 2006 as deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Middle East affairs, the office that was the source of the complaints.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee received the inspector general's report in January, well before it voted, 12-7, on April 22 in favor of Kimmitt's nomination to become the assistant secretary of State for political-military affairs. Most Democrats on the committee voted against him, yet he is expected to be confirmed by the Senate.

"There was a significant body of evidence that the way he interacted with employees was, in my judgment, based on what I read, not professional," said Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., who opposes the nomination. "I think how you treat people in an employer-employee situation is relevant. I don't think it's just get the job done and don't worry about how you treat people."

The inspector general's report concluded that Kimmitt "warrant[s] monitoring," noting that his "leadership style was occasionally inconsistent with the standards expected for senior government leaders."

The report states, "Kimmitt's forceful, decisive style appears to be counterproductive - it resulted in the loss of trained employees, hesitancy on the part of some employees to seek guidance, and perceptions of inconsistency, unfairness, and fear in his organization."

The report quotes Kimmitt as acknowledging, "There is something about my tone and my facial expressions that sometimes is off-putting to people."

Kimmitt also said he had requested advice and training to make the transition from military leadership to a civilian post. But he contested accusations that he was harsh and demeaning and said he never fired any of his employees.

A Catalog of Complaints

The inspector general's office, in a separate letter to the committee, also disclosed "a substantiated allegation that Mr. Kimmitt . . . failed to properly safeguard information, in violation of Army regulations," but it did not elaborate.

The inspector general also found that:

• Kimmitt accused an employee of being "a traitor" after the employee

accidentally received an important document intended for Kimmitt.

• Kimmitt "made acetate templates to measure document formats," and he

required that documents be reworked if they were a quarter or a tenth of an inch off his specifications.

• Kimmitt established an office rule that no one could speak with

someone outside their pay grade.

• A witness reported finding one employee "in tears not less than five

times after meeting with" Kimmitt; another said she preferred to have her supervisor present when meeting with Kimmitt.

• Kimmitt "yelled at subordinates for minor grooming matters."
  

Some witnesses said the quality and timeliness of the work from the Office of Middle East Affairs vastly improved after he arrived. A previous director described his "exceptional contributions" but also said he spoke with Kimmitt three or four times a month about his "abrasive aspect."

Biden Supports Nomination

Kimmitt was nominated to the State Department post July 11. On Aug. 15, the committee received an anonymous letter accusing Kimmitt of improper behavior; the committee turned it over to the inspector general for investigation.

After the inspector general issued the report Jan. 8, the committee received another anonymous letter Jan. 30, resulting in further investigation. Then, at a March 13 hearing to approve Kimmitt's nomination, Democrats raised concerns that held his nomination over to the April 22 meeting.

At the April 22 committee meeting, Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del., backed Kimmitt, saying, "I'm going to let my hope triumph over my worries." Biden said he had been close to Kimmitt's father, who had been secretary of the Senate.

Kimmitt's brother Robert is deputy secretary of the Treasury.

"I hope Mr. Kimmitt may be made painfully aware - I hope he understands with the delay his misconduct has caused as well as the public nature . . . that he will be chastened," Biden said.

After the committee approved the nomination, Bill Nelson, D-Fla., placed a hold on it, which he subsequently withdrew after talks with the State Department.

Nelson and State Department officials now say they expect Kimmitt to be approved once the Senate and the administration resolve a standoff that has held up the confirmation of about 80 administration nominees.

Discussion continued

• Having reviewed the subsection on Ali Babas, I agree that these citations are not reliable. I will not reinsert this subsection. The other subsections are well documented by reliable sources. Gregorywill (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have also removed references to antiwar.com and leftcoast.com. They are probably biased and unreliable. I think the remaining citations are entirely reliable. Gregorywill (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Accusations of lying - In neither source does it state that Kimmitt is accused of lying. Neither source states that there was no wedding party. As such, accusations of lying are violations of WP:OR and should not be reinserted. I will state the case to remove the rest of the section you reinserted, and will forward this issue to informal mediation.--Fresh (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Repeating what I said earlier, the controversy section was removed based on WP:BLPSTYLE, which states "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one." I left in a well sourced summarization of the issue and findings from the investigation, which I still feel is disproportionate to the size of the entire article, but which is both NPOV and succinct. I also do not feel that it justifies another article - this was a standard investigation that resulted in Mr. Kimmitt getting nominated. As such, reporting the allegations, and not the findings, is both NPOV and against WP:BLPSTYLE. As for the awards that remain in the article, I suggest you review Colin Powell, which is what this article is modeled after. Until informal mediation is completed, please do not reinsert any of the items that have been removed, as they are, in my view, in violation of WP:BLP, and as such should not be included until after a review.--Fresh (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• The section is "relevant to the subject's notability." (The investigation held up Kimmitt's nomination for a year, the findings were sufficiently serious to merit comment by several senators, and it was important enough to make the news.) It is "sourced to reliable secondary sources." (Congressional Quarterly, Washington Post, USA Today, DOD Inspector General, etc.) It is "presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." (There is nothing directly attacking Kimmitt; just an evenhanded account of what the DOD IG found.) I am sympathetic to your argument that it could be disproportionate in space to the remainder of the article, and I am therefore willing to move the entire discussion to a separate article, if you so desire. This was most certainly not a "standard investigation" -- I know of no similar inquiry by the DOD IG, and it nearly derailed Kimmitt's nomination. And it goes without saying that Colin Powell was never investigated for abusing his subordinates. I will not delete the spin control version you have inserted, but until the third party mediation is complete, I am going to insist that this well-documented, relevant, and neutral section remain. Gregorywill (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion: Controversy

First, the substance of the debate could have been better summarized for an outside party. I find that the sources included in the article substantiate the detailed allegations reported in the current version of the article. However, I do have a problem with the balance--the issues for which Kimmitt was exonerated are redacted, so the article reader does not know what allegations of misconduct were made and not substantiated. This has the effect of allowing the IG's report to function as a fishing expedition in this context, as it did in the nomination hearing. What is the encyclopedic value of saying "Kimmit was accused of redacted misconduct, which was not substantiated, but he WAS found to have done X, Y, and Z"? Thus, I have no concerns about the accuracy or BLP violations of the IG findings as reported in the article, but I do have concerns that undue weight is given to substantiated misconduct which was apparently never within the direct scope of the investigation prompted by the anonymous letter. Jclemens (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continued

• Thank you, Jclemens. Actually, the charge that he abused his subordinates was the major charge in the letters, and was consequently within the direct scope of the investigation. My understanding is that there were three accusations made in the anonymous letters (rainybt can perhaps correct this, if he has seen the letters): that Kimmitt abused his subordinates, that he was disrespectful to women, and that he was inappropriately pro-Catholic in the office. The report cleared him of the second two charges. I don't think you are saying that we should include the charges of which he was cleared (That seems a little unfair to Kimmitt). And yet it also seems a bit odd to delete what was clearly the most important issue in his confirmation hearing. How would you suggest that we proceed at this point? Gregorywill (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for clarifying the isses a bit more for me, Gregorywill. So if the latter two charges are neither substantiated nor included, and the first charge was not substantiated by the IG... why are there so many references to lesser included offenses if the overall charge was not substantiated? Not saying this guy's a saint--the public record clearly shows some degree of what I would consider misconduct--but why is it appropriate to include the details of these charges? I do perceive one of the tenets of the BLP policy (as interpreted by me) is "err on the side of being nice if they're still alive", and I'm not sure how including this much of the public record on his misconduct is fair, in light of the overall exoneration. Jclemens (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
• No, the first charge -- abusing his subordinates -- was in fact substantiated by the IG, which found that his "leadership style was occasionally inconsistent with the standards expected for senior government leaders" and recommended that he be monitored. This is IG code for misconduct -- he was most certainly not cleared. In the rarified world of the Pentagon it was an extraordinary scandal. The IG also found that Kimmitt "failed to properly safeguard information, in violation of Army regulations." This is IG code for either inappropriate treatment of classified information, or inappropriate use of private personnel information. As for why the IG used such strangely circuitous language, apparently the original report was more direct, but Kimmitt hired a lawyer and forced the IG to rewrite the report to water down the language. It is because of the watering down of the language that some of the lesser included offenses are necessary to give the full picture of the IG's findings. Does that clarification satisfy you, or do you still think the section goes into unnecessary detail? Gregorywill (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• So is this article an effort to get at the truth which was suppressed by the IG report? Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Not at all -- Just an effort to fairly portray the results of the IG investigation. The IG found that he abused his subordinates and that he violated army guidelines on controlling information. This was THE issue in his confirmation hearing, delaying his confirmation for nearly a year. It's the only thing that was discussed in the news and the blogs regarding his confirmation hearing. It's basically the only thing that's newsworthy about Kimmitt. Keeping it out is like writing a story on Nixon but leaving out Watergate. Gregorywill (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• The misconduct section seems to stem primarily from two sources: The IG report as redacted, and the CQ article about it. I looked through EBSCOhost and ProQuest, which had 68 and 192 hits for Kimmitt's name, respectively. I didn't see anything which mentioned his confirmation hearings at all--doesn't mean it's not there, of course, just that it's not referenced in the publications covered by those sources. I found Kimmitt's name linked with the Abu Gharib scandal and other investigations of alleged wrongdoing by U.S. Forces, but nothing on his confirmation hearings. So, I'm going to respectfully disagree with your assessment of the article based on my perusal of reliable sources. Kimmitt's Iraq service may amount to a single paragraph, but the omission of such a well-RS'ed part of his career seems like a deficiency in balance in the article that should be remedied per the spirit of BLP. That is, I'd recommend adding more RS'ed material to achieve balance, so the article doesn't look like a hit piece on him. Jclemens (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Kimmitt is quoted a lot in the news because he was the spokesperson for the military in Iraq, however the only time that he was himself the subject of news was during his confirmation hearing. Gregorywill (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed that the rest of the article could use being fleshed out a bit. Unfortunately, I don't know much about the rest of Kimmitt's career. Hopefully Raineybt, who is more familiar with Kimmitt's work history, can flesh out the rest. Gregorywill (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Rainybt that the mitigating information that Kimmitt requested the IG to include in the report should be included in the section. I have therefore consolidated the two sections by inserting that mitigating information into the longer controversy section. Raineybt, let us know if you object. Gregorywill (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Is Gregorywill's Controversy Section Poorly Sourced?

• I think that the controversy section as it now stands is reliably sourced. It appears to me that Jclemens agrees. Raineybt does not. Raineybt, if you wish to continue to dispute this point, please cite specifically which source(s) you believe are not reliable. Gregorywill (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Is Gregorywill's Controversy Section Disproportionate in Length Compared to the Rest of the Article

• I think it is not. Raineybt clearly thinks it is. It sounds like Jclemens thinks it might be (Jclemens, if you're willing, we could use a decisive yes-or-no here). Gregorywill (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• We could definitely use some assistance figuring out (a) whether the section is indeed disproportionately long compared to the rest of the article; and (b) if so, whether the answer is to cut the controversy section or to extend the rest of the biography. To put it another way, it is possible that the rest of the article is too short, rather than the controversy section too long. This was an enormous scandal, and it seems wrong to water it down or whitewash it. Gregorywill (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have cut the controversy section by about 50%. It is now shorter than the awards section of the article, which should, I believe, bring it in line with the rest of the article. I hope that this ends the controversy. Gregorywill (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Is Gregorywill's Controversy Section Biased or Non-neutral in Tone

• I think that the Controversy section is neutral in tone, but Raineybt has repeatedly alleged that it is not and inserted a short paragraph in lieu of the section. I think we could use an outside opinion here (Jclemens, we'd love you to weigh in, if you're not sick of us yet!). Gregorywill (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• I believe that the Controversy section is a fair and accurate representation of the IG Report findings. Raineybt may not like those findings, but the majority of the section is actually quoted from the IG Report itself. I have also included the section that Raineybt/Kimmit requested on mitigating evidence. If there is any other information from the IG Report that Raineybt would like inserted into the section, then we should absolutely discuss that. Also, if there is a particular sentence that Raineybt would like rephrased, I am happy to discuss that as well. What doesn't make sense is deleting an entire section because you don't like the findings of the IG Report. Gregorywill (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

BLP/N input sought

I've started a thread asking for help resolving this at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mark_Kimmitt, not because I think we've reached an impasse, but because I would like the input of editors with more experience handling BLP issues like this. Jclemens (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of posts on discussion page

• Please note, that I have removed items from the talk page that are clearly in violation of WP:BLP, as they are slanderous and based on personal opinion? "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." I will take this point by point:

1) Anything based on Gregorywill interpretation of "IG code" can not be posted here. Additionally, he or she or any other person would not have any idea about the contents of the anonymous letters, and as such any speculation of what was contained in them, or what was redacted from the IG report, should be immediately removed. As such, I have removed this from the discussion above, as well as other WP:OR that is prohibited.

2) To compare this to Nixon and Watergate is, without sounding like I am personally attacking Gregorywill (I am not), misguided. Richard Nixon resigned because of the Watergate scandal. This situation is no where near that situation, therefore to compare the two is like comparing apples and oranges.

3) Gregorywill continues to use allegations, rather than findings, as the basis for these changes. The very report that Gregorywill selectively quotes accusations from was clear in its findings — Kimmitt was not found guilty of a hostile work climate, was not found guilty of harassment of any type, was not found guilty of intimidation, nor illegal behavior. The finding was clear - His behavior was found to be, “occasionally inconsistent with applicable standards” and the sole recommendation for remediation was “that cognizant management officials should continue to monitor his leadership style and provide corrective counseling as warranted.” Wikipedia should not be party to a personal attack that selectively uses accusations, not findings, as the basis for the article. I chose to use the findings; Gregorywill continues to use the charges.

4) Gregorywill asserts that “This was most certainly not a "standard investigation" -- I know of no similar inquiry by the DOD IG, and it nearly derailed Kimmitt's nomination”. These are unfounded assertions. Gregorywill has no basis in fact to assert that this investigation was unusual.

5) Again, the purpose of the Wikipedia article is meant to be factual and dispassionate. Gregorywill seems to be trying to use Wikipedia to launch anonymous (and, in most cases, unproven) allegations and personal attacks at Kimmitt. The IG investigated the allegations and the findings were noted above. We should not allow Wikipedia to be used as a platform for personal attacks and unsubstantiated allegations, but for provable facts “presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone”.

Based on the above, and the neutral third party suggestions made by Jclemens, please do not add this information again. We have gone to a third party. Please refrain from re-adding information on this topic to the article, and please do not again violate WP:BLP with unfounded accusations and personal opinion.--Fresh (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to disagree with the refactoring and deletion of the discussion. Per WP:BLP "Talk pages are used to make decisions about article contents. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted, and even permanently removed ("oversighted") if especially problematic (telephone number, libel, etc). New material should generally be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources. Repeated questionable claims with BLP issues not based on new evidence can generally be immediately deleted with a reference to where in the archive the prior consensus was reached." I think it clear from context that we're discussing allegations, and I don't think the removal of legitimate discussion about the place of content aids the discussion or reaching appropriate balance to Kimmitt's article. The material you deleted from the main article was reliably sourced to the IG documentation. If it should be reworded, fine, but the fact that Kimmitt's still alive isn't a license to remove RS'ed material critical of his actions. Jclemens (talk) 04:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• The material I removed from the talk page was assumptions about charges that were made against Kimmitt. The talk page material was not sourced, and represented that Gregorywill knew information that was redacted from the IG report or had other inside information, which I am assuming is false (the unredacted IG report was not released to the public, neither were the anonymous letters). As such, I removed that information from the talk page. Additionally, I removed information that represented that Gregorywill had inserted relating to "IG Code". These misrepresented the IG findings and restated the findings to have a different meaning than was used by the IG in the report. I apologize to Jclemens, I did not mean to remove properly sourced information from the article, but from reading your previous comments it seemed that you stated the balance in the article was thrown off based on the merit of the allegations vs. Kimmitt's career in the Army and in government. I removed specific allegations, but left in a properly sourced summary of the charges and findings of the IG's report that I believe better represents the merit of the charges, investigation, findings, and eventual outcome. Please let me know if you would like to continue to discuss, and I do very much thank you for taking the time to work through the disagreement that Gregorywill and I are currently discussing.--Fresh (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• It's all right, Jclemens, I don't really care very much whether Raineybt deletes the discussion. Anyone who wants to follow can go back to the history page. I just want to get to the bottom of this and have done with it. So, I think we're narrowing in on specific issues in dispute, which hopefully Jclemens can help us to resolve. Gregorywill (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• This is not an issue of trying to hide anything. This is a clear violation of WP:BLP, which should expressly be deleted immediatly. Please do not reinsert. Assumptions about what was in a redacted report or annoymous letter can not be posted on any page on Wikipedia. Again, please discontinue to try to personally discredit me - I am not Mr. Kimmitt, and I have stated this before, and I consider it to be a personal attack against my ethics as a Wikipedia editor (as you are trying to discredit the reasons for my edits), which I believe is against WP:NPA. I have re-removed the informatoin from the talk page, and, based on a second opinion on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mark_Kimmitt, I have removed your edits once again from the main article. I have cited, again and again, Wikipedia policy for the paring down and summarization of the IG report, and preliminary third party opinion agrees that the shorter version is more appropriate.--Fresh (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Raineybt, please stop editing my posts. They are signed by me, and it is a bid misleading -- maybe fraudulent -- to change my posts without my permission. You can, of course, delete my posts, but let's leave that until the end of our discussion. At that point, I'm happy to allow you to delete my posts, so long as you do not SELECTIVELY delete, as you have been doing. Gregorywill (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Items have been removed from talk page which contained violations of WP:BLP. My intention of removing them selectively was to try to allow a user to follow the discussion, however at your request I have removed the offending posts.--Fresh (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have not requested that you delete any of my posts. Please stop doing so until after we have resolved this editorial dispute. Doing so clearly violates wikipedia policy. Gregorywill (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Trying to resolve editorial dispute

• I still feel like we can come to some sort of consensus here, Raineybt. If you think the section is too long, please suggest the sections that you think merit cutting. I'm certainly willing to listen and consider whatever you suggest, so long as it does not continue to involve deletion of the entire section. I would also welcome suggestions from third parties as to which parts of the controversy section deserve trimming down. Gregorywill (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I rewrote the section that was shortened, to include only the IG's overall findings and to make the paragraph more factual. I believe this now better encapsulates the issues, showing both positive and negiative findings (which, Gregorywill, you have not been including) and I believe this is a good compromise to the issue.--Fresh (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have reverted to the original version. If you have something that you would like to add or subtract, please do so to the original, or explain why the original is for some reason unacceptable. Replacing a resonable, proportionate, and neutral section with a bland and uninformative public relations soundbite does not improve the article. If you would like to contribute to the article, please do so by adding information, not subtracting it. I have been responsive to all of your concerns. You said that the original contained untrustworthy citations, and I removed them. You said that the original article was non-neutral in tone, and I rewrote it. You said that the original section was disproportionate to the length of the rest of the article, and I shortened it. If you have further genuine concerns with the form of the section (as opposed to a simple desire to hide the IG Report findings), then please articulate them. Gregorywill (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Once again, I have gone back to the summary of the IG report findings that I wrote two days ago. Your first paragraph goes into the same amount of detail as the first two sentences of my summary. Your second paragraph, despite your claims, is not neutral to Kimmitt, it in fact highlights the negative findings from the investigation, while including only one positive note about Kimmitt, and states nowhere that he was cleared of the allegations. I summarize the findings of the report with language directly from the report in two sentences. Based on the comment at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mark_Kimmitt, which states "since the details are in he public record, it seems going into them here in the detail we do is excessive, especially the last section which has never been specified or proven--nor is it given an exact reference here. DGG (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)", the summary of the overall findings is more than necessary to fully summarize the issue. I have also once again removed the talk page posts that are a clear violation of WP:BLP standards, as I went through point by point earlier in the discussion why these are in violation. Please do not republish unless you similarly post information as to why these posts are not against the policy.--Fresh (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Once again, I am happy to make edits to the controversy section, but it is not acceptable simply to replace it with the sanitized version, as you have done. I have pared it down by 50% since the comment you cited in the discussion, as you know. I am happy to SUPPLEMENT the section with any reasonable material. I am likewise happy to consider amending any sentence that you feel is unjustifiably biased. I am not willing to allow you to replace the section with a soundbite that in no way captures the essence of the investigation. I recognize that Kimmitt must now be terribly embarassed by his apparently amateurish management style, but that is no reason to try to hide the results of the investigation. We all appreciate all of the effort you've put into creating this article about Kimmitt. Please now either try to make the article better or leave it alone. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a platform to promote Mark Kimmitt. Gregorywill (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have put both of the sections side-by-side for comparison. Raineybt, I am going to insist that both stay up until we get some sort of third party opinion on this. As I have said, I am happy to consider any alterations you suggest. But I will continue to undo any further deletions, unless we can get a third party in here to moderate. Gregorywill (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• I note also that you have never stated an explicit objection to the "failure to safeguard information" section. Please do not delete this section again, unless you have a reason to do so. Gregorywill (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • This was deleted when you undid my removal of posts that are against WP:BLP. You did not respond to my questions, as I had asked, and deleted information that I posted. Please try to ensure this oversight does not happen again: Gregorywill, I laid out in a previous post why I have removed items from the talk page. You continue to repost this information, without responding to why it is not a violation of WP:BLP. Please do not add this information again without posting support as to how the information that was removed is not against the policy. I also reinserted the summary of the confirmation findings. You continue to claim that this is a "sanitized version", yet the language is taken directly from the two summaries of the investigation, and has been cited. As I posted earlier, going into the detail you have is "excessive" according to a third party that you agreed would help decide this issue. You claim that I am trying to use this article as a platform to promote Mark Kimmitt, yet you seem to be using it as a platform to to put him down. I am trying to create a fair and summarized version of Kimmitt. I would ask what your motives are in continuing to use language such as that posted above referencing Kimmitt's management style.--Fresh (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Additionally, I have deleted the side by side comparison. This article is open for the public to view while this decision is made, therefore it should not be shown in a comparative state. A third party reviewer can look at the history and compare them side by side. As for the question on "failure to safeguard information", this is both not relevant to the conversation, and third party DGG agrees: "especially the last section which has never been specified or proven--nor is it given an exact reference here." I believe at this point I have laid out my argument, especially on the posts on the talk page, please do not undo without providing point by point justification as to why you are doing so.--Fresh (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Repost from before: Sorry, but I have to disagree with the refactoring and deletion of the discussion. Per WP:BLP "Talk pages are used to make decisions about article contents. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted, and even permanently removed ("oversighted") if especially problematic (telephone number, libel, etc). New material should generally be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources. Repeated questionable claims with BLP issues not based on new evidence can generally be immediately deleted with a reference to where in the archive the prior consensus was reached." I think it clear from context that we're discussing allegations, and I don't think the removal of legitimate discussion about the place of content aids the discussion or reaching appropriate balance to Kimmitt's article. The material you deleted from the main article was reliably sourced to the IG documentation. If it should be reworded, fine, but the fact that Kimmitt's still alive isn't a license to remove RS'ed material critical of his actions. Jclemens (talk) 04:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Raineybt, please answer specifically the following questions, without evasion:

1) Do you believe any portion of my controversy section is poorly sourced? If so, please state specifically which source you do not approve of. If not, then please do not continue to raise the argument that the section is poorly sourced.

2) Do you believe that any portion of my controversy section is non-neutral in tone? If so, please state specifically which sentence(s) you believe are non-neutral in tone. If not, then please do not continue to raise the argument that the section is not NPOV.

3) Do you believe that this section AS REWRITTEN is excessive in length? Please do not cite to the previous comment that referred to the section before it was pared down. As you know, the section has been cut by more than 50% and is now shorter than the far less informative awards section.

4) What specific objection do you have with the information section? Please do NOT cite to the previous comment, which again referred to a previous version of the article. If you have an objection to the information section, please state it clearly.

Unless you state clearly your objections to the section as it stands, I will assume that you have no valid objections and continue to insist on the controversy section as it now stands. This discussion is getting a bit frustrating because I cannot figure out any concrete objections. Please do NOT simply say that you have made this clear before. If you feel that you have answered these questions before, fine, please repost what you feel are the answers. But it would be most helpful if you would give a simple yes-or-no to the first three questions and a specific response citing a BLP rule for the fourth. Gregorywill (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• I still do believe that the length is excessive. Point by point - 1) I do not believe it is not reliably sourced at this point, that has been taken care of. 2) I do believe that the section is non-neutral in tone. I believe that you have highlighted the identified findings from the case that are negative against Kimmitt without giving equal weight to findings that mitigated certain issues or praised Kimmitt. Additionally, you contrast the findings as you reported them with the phrase, "Despite the IG Report's findings...". The findings cleared him of all charges in the second investigation and the first stated that allegations were true, to a point, rather than the black and white manner in which you treat them. I will say, however, that I do not object to the section as rewritten solely because I believe it is not NPOV. 3. I believe the section as rewritten remains excessive in length. I continue to site Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mark_Kimmitt - with a short conclusion of the two one page summaries that were delivered to the committee, and a citation of the full report, any user could read as much of the report as he or she wished. 4) As for the question on "failure to safeguard information", this is both not relevant to the investigation or controversy, and third party DGG agrees: "especially the last section which has never been specified or proven--nor is it given an exact reference here." Hopefully this clarifies the objections to the current section as you have written and my specific reasoning to the updated version. As it stands, these investigations merely held up Kimmitt's nomination (and as such, deserve to be mentioned), however, they did not cause him to not get voted into the position (which is very different from your previous reference to Nixon and Watergate, which caused Nixon to resign). As such, this is a minor incident and should be treated as such in a biography that covers over 50 years of Kimmitt's life.--Fresh (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If I may

I propose a compromise--Let's take Gregorywill's version of the talk page, and Raineybt's version of the article, and work from there. I'm getting sick of the reverting without much forward progress. Will you both abide by something like that, or shall I just un-watchlist this thing and let the two of you edit war over an article no one else appears to care about? If we need to, we can tag the talk page statements as disputed, I suppose, if that will satisfy BLP concerns, but I strongly prefer to see the article be minimalist and the debate be expansive. That's my take on it--what do the two of you think? Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I accept using Raineybt's version as a basis, but I will edit it to add sources and flesh out the IG's findings, which his version misrepresents through selective quotation. I also insist that the IG's finding on misuse of information be included, so I will add that as well. Hopefully, we can come to some agreement now and move on. Gregorywill (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have edited Raineybt's section in the following ways:

1) I have added the IG findings from the IG Report's one-page summary.

2) I have reinserted the section on misuse of information, along with a cite to the redacted version of the IG report.

3) I have noted that the positive findings about Kimmitt were at his request. Even this I think is a generous statement, given that none of this supposed mitigating information is included in the IG Report summary.

I hope that this will end the dispute. Gregorywill (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Gregorywill, thanks for noticing that the external links were dead. I reinserted the section and added the correct link to the state department page. I removed the army history timeline, and again shortened the portion of the article relating to the nomination delay, as I believe both to be too long and not informative to the article as a whole. While Kimmitt's service record is impressive, each post is not individually important, and took away from the entire article. As for the nomination delay, I again removed a significant amount of the summarization - you seem to once again focus on the negative portions of the summary, omit positive or mitigating findings, and the section is still out of proportion with the rest of the article. Additionally, there is still no context for the inclusions of the weapons charge, and there seems to be no reason to include it in the article.--Fresh (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• • The version that you have posted clearly violates NPOV. While true, it is a very strange spin on the events in question. Summarizing an extraordinary inquiry into Kimmitt's ethical and policy failures as a manager by cherrypicking only the most innocuous sentences from the report is grossly misleading. It is analagous to summarizing Watergate by saying that Nixon was never charged or impeached. I have reverted to the other version and will continue to do so until you accept a more neutral version. I have no connection to Kimmitt, have never worked for the man (thank god). I have no dog in this fight, no reason to be biased. Can you say the same? Gregorywill (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm not sure what you're talking about regarding the weapons charge; I have heard nothing about that. Maybe you were referring to the charge of disclosing classified information to foreign countries? If so, the Foreign Relations Committee thought it was relevant enough to inquire about it, so I'm not sure why you keep saying that it is irrelevant. Gregorywill (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Among the things you removed were a greater elaboration of the positive findings about Kimmitt and citations to reliable sources for every sentence (which your version still lacks). Did you really mean to do that? I feel like I'm genuinely trying to reach a compromise here, and you're just deleting all changes without looking at them. Gregorywill (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• • • I'm also trying to reach a compromise, but I feel as frustrated as you do about not being able to reach a consensus. To your point of not looking at your changes - I believe I have made every effort to continue to respond point by point as to why I am making each change, which you have not done. I am not trying to spin the findings at all, I'm taking a summary of what was reported to the Foreign Relations committee and presenting it in a concise fashion. You note that I also removed positive findings, which I agree with, and I removed them because the shorter and more succinct summary better relates to the rest of the article. You state that you "have no dog in this fight, no reason to be biased", yet you make comments such as you "have never worked for the man (thank god)." This does not sound like a comment from someone that is not biased. I continue to go back to comments from those third parties that have sided with the shorter summary being more appropriate, and will continue to do so.--Fresh (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • You have not answered what your relationship with Kimmitt is. Please do so. It is legitimate to inquire as to any bias. I have made many modifications to accomodate your concerns and you have, to date, accepted zero changes. Your version is clearly heavily biased to make Kimmitt look as good as possible under the circumstances. Do you really think that NONE of the modifications I have suggested make sense? You have removed citations that you acknowledge to be reliable sources, presumably because they are unfavorable to Kimmitt. Your version disguises the name of the report, presumably because you don't like the word "investigation." Your version takes a peripheral note (that he strengthened his office) -- not even a finding -- that comes very briefly on the last page of the summary, and you turn it into the central finding of the report while ignoring the overwhelming bulk of the summary, which clearly states that Kimmitt is guilty of ethical and policy lapses. You italicize occasionally when this emphasis does not occur in the actual finding. And yet you remove findings that begin with we find that... Compromise means that when I give a little, you have to give a litte. Well, I've given a lot, and you have made no changes whatsoever. In your next version, I want to see you make some sort of change, besides just eliminating the well-sourced work that others have done. 96.231.124.5 (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • Upon re-reading the report, I did notice that the IG used italics to highlight adding occasionally to the initial conclusion, rather than to be used in the conclusion itself. As such, I have changed the text in the main page to reflect as such. This was not done intentionally. That said, I find your attempt to change the tenor of the argument clever, but not persuasive. You continue to print inaccuracies such as the recent “which clearly states that Kimmitt is guilty of policy and ethical lapses” (there was no such finding, or even an accusation of policy and ethical lapses) and refuse to accept the suggestion made by JClemens--“Let’s take GregoryWill’s version of the talk page and Raineybt’s version of the article”, which I have agreed to, though I still feel the talk page violates WP:BLP. The "initial results of inquiry" (as stated on page two of the report) is explicit: "that his leadership style was inconsistent with standards expected for senior Government leaders." This is highlighted in my summary. I then, as a point of NPOV, add the response that the IG reported after discussing the issue with Kimmitt (if the IG felt it necessary to receive comment from Kimmitt and others, then I feel it should be included in the summary), and then the recommendation. This is a fair and accurate summary of the conclusions without going into undue detail, that will only detract from the value of the overall article. To your final point - I am in no way biased for or against Kimmitt, but will continue to debate this topic because I believe (as do others that have weighed in so far) that the shorter summary is better for this Wikipedia entry. You claim to be unbiased, but your own comments and persistence in cherry-picking the worst aspects of the investigation reveal a problematic attitude to your comments. My question to you is as you presented it to me- what is your relationship to Kimmitt? While you have said what your relationship isn’t, it is clear that there is a relationship here, and it would be helpful in understanding the motivations behind your edits. Your comments are anything but neutral.--Fresh (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Gregorywill, I would ask that the effort I put into responding to your requests before making edits is a courtesy that you would extend to me as well. Instead, today you reverted three changes, including a change that you had requested and a change to add a category for Kimmitt, and you put no reason for your justification on the talk page. Please do not alter the article if you are not willing to justify your actions as I have.--Fresh (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I have already justified all changes, unlike you. This has become a bit silly. I have made every effort to modify the content to accomodate your concerns, and you have done essentially nothing to accomodate mine -- you simply revert to the frivolous public relations version of the article that deliberately obscures the nature of the IG investigation. It is obviously untrue that you have no connection to Kimmitt, as the history makes clear that you have slowly built this article over a long period of time, supplying details that are unavailable elsewhere, and supplying multiple photos. I can hit undo just as easily as you can, and will continue to do so until you accept some of my very reasonable suggestions. Let's take just one: why do you insist on concealing sources that you have admitted are legitimate and reputable (CQ, Washington Post, etc)? There is only one possible explanation -- that you are trying to shelter Kimmitt from legitimate criticism from the media. If you want to claim to be unbiased, then start by adding cites to those into your version of the article. Otherwise, we're just going to continue having this silly "undo" war. Gregorywill (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • So, I take it by your silence that you acknowledge that you have no justification for removing citations to the Senate record, the Congressional Quarterly, and the Washington Post? Gregorywill (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I am going to try to be civil as we continue to have what I feel is a less and less constructive discussion over these issues. You have not justified all the changes, and I have made specific mention on each point. Additionally, I changed italics based on your comment and added a category that fits the article, which you then reverted, making me question if you are reading anything that I am putting down at all. You feel I am deliberately obscuring the investigation, I have made points time and time again on why I feel I have not. Again, I will ask you to stop linking me to Kimmitt - every change I have made in the history has been properly cited, and no information, at any point, has come from any personal knowledge. Your comments, on the other hand, make it seem as if you have a personal relationship (or vendetta) against Mr. Kimmitt, as you have referenced time and time again personal knowledge about the investigation that was never released publicly, which I can neither confirm or deny (as I don't have access to any of your supposed "inside" information). I have, again and again, not made the argument that my summary is better because of your lack of citations, I have continually stated that my summary is more concise and a better representation of this incident than yours. My opinion has also been backed up by multiple third party users, which we both agreed we should reach out to, yet you continue to ignore these opinions as well. What will it take for you to stop reverting this article, and to answer questions I have posed to you: what is your relationship to Kimmitt, and why do you feel that the opinion of third party mediators should be ignored?--Fresh (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I have no relationship whatsoever to Kimmitt, except for his reputation in the Pentagon. What is your interest in Kimmitt? You cannot possibly maintain that you don't know him. You have maintained a sustained interest in this article over a very long period of time, and you have gotten very agitated defending him. You have repeatedly posted photos of him, perhaps at his request? Kimmitt is reputed to be exceedingly vain. Gregorywill (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Please demonstrate good faith by inserting the sources that you acknowledge to be good sources into your section on the next go-round. Gregorywill (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• I believed my single sourcing to the actual investigation was appropriate, however I have no objection to adding additional sources. Once again, you insert another negative, non sourced, alleged "rumor" about Kimmitt that is a violation of WP:GRAPEVINE. And I ask why you continue to question my motives here. I have a number of articles that I maintain, just like any other editor on Wikipedia, for a number of different reasons. I would ask the same thing of you - what is your interest in Kimmitt? The pictures I have posted have been available from public sources, and have been brought in to keep the article up to date. I will not justify any additional questions about my motives - my motives are the same as any other editor on Wikipedia, to develop an accurate, concise account of many different topics.--Fresh (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• A casual perusal of the history reveals that on 18:38, 25 May 2007, you edited this article to reflect that Kimmitt lives in Virginia. This is not publicly available information. Pray tell how you came upon this information if you have no relationship with him? I think it's pretty clear that you are either Kimmitt himself, or someone related to him. How else would you have been so eager to update his article less than a day after his appointment to the Assistant Secretary slot? Why else would you defend him so hard from perfectly well-documented abuses? You can't possibly be a former employee, since he is so entirely disliked by everyone who worked for him. Please be honest for once, and reveal what your relationship is to him. Gregorywill (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• However, since you finally accepted the first ever edit to your section, why don't we do it like this. Every day, I'm going to make a change, from least controversial to most controversial, so that we can see which changes you REALLY object to. Apparently you were able to find no objection to the addition of cites that you have kept out until now. So we'll try it this way. I'm going to make a new change -- a small change -- every day. And please justify each time you undo it. Today's modification is: I have corrected your misquotation of the IG findings. Gregorywill (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I accepted a number of the edits already. You inserted the section on the delay in the nomination, which I had not included, and I agree a brief summary is encyclopedic and should be included, however it should not dominate the article. I have no objection to your insertion of the sources, as I never had a problem with the sources, I had a problem with the length of your section compared to the rest of the article and Kimmitt's accomplishments, and the overly negative tone in the way you presented it. I also don't have a problem with what you added today, as that is directly from the summary, but I doubt there will be much more that I think should be included as the section now is a fully summary of the issue. To respond to your question of how I know he lives in Virginia - the category had been added to Robert Kimmitt's article, and I made the assumption that, as brothers, they were from the same place. Additionally, the information was included in the White House press release (The President intends to nominate Mark Kimmitt, of Virginia), therefore the information IS publicly available. Why was I so eager to update this page? Because it is one of the pages I have chosen to watch, and I take that as a responsibility to keep those pages up to date.

I would also like to turn the question around to you - why are you so eager to slander Mr. Kimmitt? Your quote "he is so entirely disliked by everyone who worked for him" is a ridiculous blanket statement which can not possibly be true. It is, however, not public knowledge, so how can you claim that you have no relationship to him? Your talk page posts and overly negative slant to all your postings, which show bias, and your interpretation of the events and presentation of that interpretation as fact does not help this article. What "abuses" are you referring to? There is no mention of abuses in the findings of the report. Your interpretation of the findings is negatively biased and should not be included in the article or talk pages.--Fresh (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • The press release was not released until after you already posted the information that he lived in Virginia. You'll have to think of a better story. Gregorywill (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• • I have added back in the timeline. I hope we can all agree that it satisfies NPOV? Gregorywill (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• I explained the reasoning behind adding the category. If you choose not to read it, thats fine. Second, I had already stated before why I took out the portion of his timeline - this doesn't add to the article, and should be left out to keep the article concise. Once again, you did not answer any of my questions, after I took the time to answer yours. If you overlooked the question, I will post it again - why are you so eager to slander Kimmitt?--Fresh (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I find it amusing that you think that your list of meaningless, pro-forma awards is important, but that the positions Kimmitt actually held is unimportant and uninformative. In any event, I'm happy that we now have isolated some disagreement. I'll make another change now. Gregorywill (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have no interesting in slandering Kimmitt. Everything I have said has been true. I work in the Pentagon and was amazed at all the stories of his sophomoric managerial incompetence and petty cruelty, so I thought that it would be worth noting the IG findings in the article. Then I discovered that someone close to Kimmitt was doctoring the truth to make it more conducive to Kimmitt's advancement. Please do explain how you knew where he lives before it was in any press release. Gregorywill (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• • What you've added does not change the article at all, you simply add another citation at the end of the sentence rather than the end of the paragraph, so I don't know what value it adds, but I'll leave it as is. Your opinion on the awards Kimmitt has received is, frankly, shocking to me, if you are actually a Pentagon employee. How can you say that a Bronze Star is meaningless? You demean anyone who has received on and has fought for this country. I find that appalling. On your continuous posts on this talk page - none of this is "truth", it is all opinion and hearsay, which is more dangerous in that you present it as truth. I have no interest in the advancement in Kimmitt, and as is I don't think this page will do anything for his career. I continue to repeat what I said before - his brother's page had already included the category People from Virgina, and as such, I included it on his page. I don't see that it is that far of a leap of faith that a family would be from the same place. I do admit it was not supported by an external fact at the time, but it was made on assumption rather than personal knowledge. I still have a hard time believing, however, that your motivation is merely based on stories you have heard, but that is not a point of debate - the debate is over this article alone. I will stand by what I continue to state, that the summary is complete as to the findings and that nothing else needs to be added, which is not "doctoring the truth" but keeping the summary short.--Fresh (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• • The Bronze Star has some value, but the NATO Yugoslavia award is purely pro-forma. You can find it as appalling as you like, but Kimmitt didn't have to do anything for that, except get himself deployed. Gregorywill (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• • And while you're at it, you might explain how you knew his wife's name. 21:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Read the sources. Kimmitt's wife's name is included. To clarify, I did not assume Kimmitt lived with his older brother, but that they were from the same place (my interpretation of "People from Virginia"). That said, I am done with discussing any issue that is not directly related to the article. The awards are awarded for a reason, and no matter what Kimmitt did to deserve them, they are more than people who didn't sign up to protect this country, and they should stay. I don't know why you would remove the result of the second investigation - there were two investigations (mentioned in the first sentence), therefore the results of each should be noted. This seems beyond debate, and I don't understand why you would remove it.--Fresh (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Although it should be obvious, I will point out that Kimmitt did far more to deserve the IG findings (which you have tried to conceal) than he did to deserve the NATO medals. Gregorywill (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• • I have moved the statement about several witnesses saying that he improved the functioning of the office from the findings sentence, because it is not a finding of the IG report, but merely mentioned offhand. Gregorywill (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I will limit my response to your changes and ignore your opinion in an effort to quickly end this back and forth. The finding from several witnesses is included in the report, it is included in the summary, and it should be included to balance the findings of the report. The additional findings do not add to the overall summary. As such, I have removed them. Additionally, I believe the summary is clearer presenting the information in the order that the report presents it. As such, I have moved the quote "several witnesses..." above the finding on monitoring.--Fresh (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Contents of IG Report

We initiated the investigation to address allegations that Brigadier General (BG) Mark T. Kimmitt, U.S. Army, Retired, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East Affairs (DASD·ME), demonstrated leadership deficiencies that compromised his suitability for assignment to a senior Govenunent position. According to a complaint refened to this Office, BG Kimmitt was often physically intimidating; yelled at subordinates for minor grooming matters; used personally insulting phrases such as "[REDACTED]" "[REDACTED]" and "tough broad"; and angrily and publicly rebuked subordinates. Additionally, the complaint alleged that BG Kimmitt sought [REDACTED].

We investigated the complaint at the request of Chairman Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, in connection with BG Kimmitt's nomination to be Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs. We concluded tbat BG Kimmitt's leadership style was occasionally inconsistent with the standards expected for senior Government leaders as expressed by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in its "Guide to Senior Executive Service (SES) Qualifications," and DoD 5500.7-R, "Joint Ethics Regulation (JER)." With few exceptions, witnesses generally corroborated the leadership style attributed to BG Kimmitt by the complaint. No witness testified that he was physically intimidating, whether in personal stance, hand gestures, or other means. However, witnesses described him as a demanding, confrontalional manager, occasionally displaying anger that demeaned subordinates and caused them to minimize their interaction with him. Some witnesses further indicated that BG Kimmitt resorted to threats of job loss or career harm as a "motivational" tactic and made demeaning comments when criticizing individual work products.

Although some witnesses heard BG Kimmitt use profanity, they noted that he used it to express frustration and did not direct profanity at anyone on a personal basis. In that regard, we found no evidence that BG Kimmitt resorted to "name calling" (that is, no witness heard him refer to an individual as a "[REDACTED]" or "[REDACTED]" as alleged), however, testimony corroborated that he referred to a State Department representative as a "tough broad." Moreover, testimony indicated that morale In BG Kimmitt's organization was negatively affected by BO Kimmitt's leadership style, combined with the heavy workload and long hours. Finally, we found that BG Kimmitt's leadership style discouraged subordinates from free and open communication with him. Witnesses indicated that the resultant lack of guidance and direction from BG Kimnlitt caused subordinates to take action or produce a work product that later generated his criticism. While some witnesses, to include his supervisors and several detractors, viewed BG Kimmitt as "effective," we also found credible witnesses who told us that they obtained other employment to escape the unpleasant work environment.

We did not substantiate the allegation that BG Kimmitt [REDACTED] review the matter further.

By letter dated November 28, 2007, we provided BG Kimmitt the opportunity to comment on the initial results of our inquiry: that his leadership style was inconsistent with standards expected for senior Govermnent leaders. In his initial response by e-mail on that date, BG Kimmitt provided the names of 11 additional witnesses he recommended we interview. By letter dated December 10, 2007, BG Kimmitt provided a written response in which he disagreed with our tentative conclusions on his leadership: In his response, BG Kimmitt asserted that the "Facts" section in our tentative conclusions letter was premature because we had not yet interviewed the additional witnesses he identified; that his current performance should be considered in the context of previous evaluations and his career as an Army officer; and that some of the facts within the tentative conclusions were disputable. He contended that the OPM Guide to SES Qualifications was a guideline only, and that our use ofthe phrase "inconsistent with the standards expected for senior govel11ment leaders" erroneously implied that his behavior "repeatedly and habitually violate[d] standards." In conclusion, BG Kimmitt wrote,

"I acknowledge that a number of the incidents recounted in these investigations are inconsistent with the expectations of a member of the Senior Executive Service, and I further acknowledge that my leadership style should take great account of the human dimensions of my position. I recognize that my leadership style is tough, but I do not believe that it is generally inconsistent with thc standards set out in thc SES Guide or the Joint Ethics Regulation. However, I am aware that my leadership style needs to strike a better balance between the military axiom "Mission First" and empathizing with those that would accomplish the mission, and I have consistently worked to improve that balance."

After carefully considering BG Kinnnitt's response, interviewing 14 additional witnesses (to include the 11 recommended by BG Kimmitt), and reevaluating the evidence, we slightly modified our initial conclusions in the matter to its current form: that BG Kimmitt's leadership style was occasionally inconsistcnt with applicable standards. Additionally, we obtained testimonial evidence that tended to mitigate the adverse impact of BG Kimmitt's leadership lapses. In that regard several witnesses, primarily BG Kimmitt's superiors, emphasized that BG Kimmitt brings superb qualifications and intellect to his position; that he has strengthened the overall performance of his office; and that he operates in a stressful, demanding environment, which could triggcr confrontation. Notwithstanding BG Kimmitt's qualifications and accomplishments, we believe that cognizant management officials should continue to monitor his leadership style and provide corrective counseling as warranted.

Discussion Continued

You have summarized the IG findings with three quotes, one of which is complimentary to Kimmitt. Out of more than two pages of official summary, there is exactly one sentence (about 4% by length) that is complimentary to Kimmitt, and that sentence comes only at the end of the summary after a lengthy explanation that it was at Kimmitt's own request. Are you truly arguing that this single sentence represents one third of the findings of the IG Report? Gregorywill (talk) 07:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I asked around today, and apparently Kimmitt DID have a firearms violation problem. Please explain how you knew that if you have no connection to Kimmitt. Gregorywill (talk) 08:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

From your silence, I assume that you accept my prior edit. Today's edit involves rearranging the order of the IG reports. Gregorywill (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Your edit changing the quote was inaccurate and unnecessary. I have removed it, along with your additional changes which add no value to the article. I am tired of this back and forth. I am going to request that the mediation cabal takes a look at this page, as we have gone a month without apparent resolution.--Fresh (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• All right, then I have reverted it to the version that I think is appropriate. With your permission, I'd like to delete all of this commentary and make a terse summary of the dispute that will be easier for mediators to follow. Agreed? Gregorywill (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• • No. This would undo our entire conversation, and would make all efforts worthless over the past month. We have made certain changes and have agreed on a number of these changes on both sides. This would just put us back farther. Additionally, there is significant rational as to why each change was accepted or rejected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raineybt (talk • contribs) 18:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• RaineyBT, the mediator has asked that we each write down our compromise versions of the section. See the mediation page. Gregorywill (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What is going on here?

I stumbled upon these pages of discussion about Mark T. Kimmitt. There is something here I don't get . . . someone (or two people) apparently has (have) little more to do than argue whether or not this Mark Kimmitt was mean to his subordinates at one point or another is his career. What I see is a record of a man who served his country for 31 years with honors galore. We don't always get along with our bosses; deal with it. Mr. Kimmitt left the Defense Department, isn't that what you wanted? I'd say to the authors who are putting a great deal of column inches into Mark Kimmitt's page -- move on. Do your jobs. Find a new hobby; it seems your lives right now are all about tearing down the good name of a U.S. Army retiree and veteran of three wars.

Do you ever wonder what all this back and forth is doing to the object of your obsession? You know, he probably has feelings, too, but you'd never guess that this matters to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimocha (talk • contribs) 13:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Kimmitt was famous for his poor management, an embarrassment to the Department of Defense, a shameless self-promoter who drove a third of his employees to leave government service. I served in the Department of Defense during his tenure, although fortunately not under Kimmitt, and the stories of his childish rages were the stuff of legend. Friends at State say that he was just as bad there. If he is going to try to use Wikipedia to promote himself, it seems reasonable that the entire truth, which is very well documented, should come out as well. Gregorywill (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Self Serving?

I reinserted the medals for Mr. Kimmitt for the following two reasons:
1. Other Generals, including David Petraeus, have medals and awards within their page. The awards are notable and should be included within the article.
2. Gregorywill, who removed the listing as "self-serving", was the same person that added the awards to the article. I have to ask why this would have been added months ago during a dispute over a different section and would be removed at this point? --Fresh (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, Raineybt/Fresh/Kimmitt, you added the awards section yourself in 2007. Please see the article history. Gregorywill (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Please stop accusing me of being Kimmitt as I take it as a personal attack and will recommend your block if you continue to do so per Wikipedia: Personal Attacks. Additionally, why would you remove the CFA? It is part of Kimmitt's State Department bio and you were the editor that added it per Revision as of 14:38, 13 August 2008. I misspoke when I stated that you inserted the awards and distinctions - I was thinking about the military time line. I agree that I added the awards section, and also stand by it being included as notable. --Fresh (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No information about Ret. BG Mark Kimmitt's business ties, esp. w/Iraq, after he left Govt. service is included in current article.

In a CNN television interview Kimmett indicated that he was going back and forth to Iraq for business - what business? No mention of Kimmett's activities as a businessman. The wikipedia article on Kimmett is lacking too much. see "Michael Hastings Confronts Piers Morgan Over Media 'Mythologizing' Petraeus & Ignoring Poor Record" <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shKGAggOKMI>

--greg

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mark Kimmitt. 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/20050509113008/http://www.babinc.org:80/events/pdf/Kimmitt_bio.pdf to http://www.babinc.org/events/pdf/Kimmitt_bio.pdf

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Kimmitt. 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/20070927045220/http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/chicago_council_event_past_prog_detail.php?eventid=3 to http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/chicago_council_event_past_prog_detail.php?eventid=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 03:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)