Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-15 Mark Kimmitt


 * Note: Please limit posts to this page to brief statements about the nature of the dispute until a volunteer adopts the case. Keep ongoing discussions about the topic to the appropriate talk page(s), but feel free to provide links to the talk page(s) where discussion has happened (and may be ongoing) for the convenience of the informal mediator and other parties. This will help keep discussion from fragmenting out across more pages and make it easier for a volunteer to review the case. Thanks!

Who are the involved parties?
and

Raineybt's summary
There has been a debate for over a month as to the section Mark Kimmitt between the two involved parties. One requestfor informal mediation was rejected as the debate had just begun, to date we have over 75 edits and have gone through a third party opinion with and have sought input at [], however, the back and forth edits continue.

The issue begin discussed is the length and level of detail to include related to two investigations during Mr. Kimmitt's nomination to the Assistant Secretary of State position. I have argued for a shorter summary, that does not dominate the article, as the investigations delayed, but did not derail, Kimmitt's nomination, and that the length proposed by is far to long compared to the remainder of the article. User:DGG stated at the BLP noticeboard the following: "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." however this has also not resolved this issue. has argued that the longer summary is appropriate, and has inserted significant portions of the report that are more critical towards Kimmitt while leaving out portions that are more positive toward Kimmitt. I have argued that the inclusion of the overall conclusion of the report, that "BG Kimmitt's leadership style was occasionally inconsistent with the standards expected for senior Government leaders", has included a more positive comment that ""several witnesses...emphasized...that he has strengthened the overall performance of his office" and included the final recommendation as a proper summary.

A secondary issue is a long list of postings on the articles talk page that in my opinion are clear violations of WP:BLP. I have deleted these a number of times in accordance with the policy, but these have been reverted by. I would like an opinion on this information as well, specifically involving 's alleged "inside information" regarding redacted information from the official investigation reports.
 * I also look forward to responding to gregorywill's summary, but will wait until this issue is taken up by a mediator to specifically respond point by point, so as not to add too much to this discussion prior to a third party review.

GregoryWill's summary
I agree with most of what Raineybt said in his summary, with the following exceptions and additions:


 * The comment at the noticeboard referred to an earlier version that said that the article was too long referred to a previous version. The current version that I have been supporting is less than half as long as the one that elicited that comment (and only slightly longer than Raineybt's version).  Relatedly, one of the reasons the Controversy section seems long in relation to the rest of the article is that Raineybt keeps deleting a Career Timeline because he says it "doesn't add to the article."  A casual glance will show that this is probably the most useful portion of the article, so it is unclear to me why Raineybt insists on deleting it.


 * Another issue, far more important than the length, is that of accuracy. Raineybt's version summarizes an extremely critical IG report by selectively quoting the mildest lines in the entire report.  He claims that I have "removed" the positive findings of the IG -- in fact, my version includes every word of his summary.  It is simply not true that I have left out positive findings.  I am happy to add any further positive findings he likes, but none exist.  Please, please read the actual IG report.  If the IG report is too long, read the two page summary of findings.  I have reproduced a copy on the talk page.  It will be immediately apparent that Raineybt's version of events is heavily skewed to distract attention away from the true findings of the report.


 * A related issue is that of objectivity. From the edit history, there is a great deal of reason to believe that Raineybt is either a sock puppet for Kimmitt or a close relative.  Raineybt has repeatedly demonstrated non-public information about Kimmitt's personal and professional life (for instance, he mentioned Kimmitt's prior firearms violation, which has never been publicly revealed).  And he repeatedly tried to delete any reference to the IG report entirely, befor finally coming up with the sanitized version that he offers today.


 * The bottom line is that Raineybt is inappropriately trying to make the article a vehicle to help Kimmitt's career. Raineybt's would like to keep the article nothing more than a terse summary of Kimmitt's awards.  In reality, Kimmitt's mismanagement was the subject of an unprecedented, scathing IG Report that held up his nomination for over a year and was the subject of intense debate in the Senate.  Surely the article should reflect this.  I have appended the IG's summary findings below.

What would you like to change about that?
Raineybt and GregoryWill would each like to keep their versions of the controversy section.

Raineybt would like to immediately remove the information from the talk page that he claims is a violation of WP:BLP. GregoryWill does not agree that the comments violate WP:BLP, but he has agreed to remove any comments from the talk page once the editorial dispute is resolved.

Mediator notes
Hi. First, I've removed the IG notes, as they're not (yet!!) relevant here.

Second, what I would like to do is ask you both to answer the following questions. Please answer them briefly and concisely, without reference to actions by the other editor.


 * 1) What would you like to see changed about the section as it stands right now? It looks completely NPOV to me, so please aim in your answers to keep it that way.
 * 2) What would you see as an acceptable compromise?

Let's start there, and see how we go. Cheers. Prince of Canadat 09:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, a request to both of you: Please, starting with your ideal version of the section, write a version that comes as close as possible to the version of the other party, and post them here. We can then use those as a starting point for creating a final version.

Please take into account the objections the other party has raised when you are writing your new versions, and try to meet those objections halfway.

Thank you. Prince of Canadat 20:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC) -

I will be closing this case as unresolved, as the two of you have returned to edit-warring. If you both want to pursue mediation of this issue, I will welcome your return to the discussion. However, I will only mediate between you if you both completely refrain from editing the article, the talk page, and each other's talk pages as of the datestamp of this message, until mediation is completed.

If you both wish to continue with this, and agree to the above conditions, please sign your usernames below with four tildes, and nothing else. Please do not make any comments, simply sign your names to indicate agreement. I'll give you a few days to consider. Until then, please refrain from further edit-warring on the article page. Prince of Canadat 03:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Gregorywill (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC) --Fresh (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wonderful! This is excellent.  Thank you both for agreeing.  Raineybt/Fresh (which would you prefer to be referred to as?), could you please visit the subpage and outline a version of the section per my comments above?  Once you have done that I think we can fairly speedily move towards a resolution of this matter.


 * Thank you both, very much, for agreeing to put aside any editing of the article until we reach a resolution. I wish to state categorically that I will not pursue any sanctions against either of you for edit-warring up to this point, and indeed will oppose any such suggestions, based on your good faith in agreeing to continue mediation. Now, while I understand that MedCab decisions/proposals/findings are non-binding in a policy sense, I will however ask that you both commit to abiding by the final proposal that I suggest, with the caveat that either of you may request, once, review & suggestions from another disinterested party before the case is closed.  While Raineybt/Fresh is composing his ideal version of the section, I would like to ask you both, again, to sign your names below to indicate your agreement to abide by the results of this mediation. Once that has been done, and Raineybt/Fresh has provided his ideal version, I will comment.  Don't worry; I know that both of you are acting in extremely good faith by continuing with this mediation, and I know that neither of you wants this issue to have to go to formal mediation or arbitration.  Please sign below to indicate your agreement, and again, thank you both. Prince of Canadat 05:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Gregorywill (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC) --Fresh (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC) (see note below, would like clarification) - Okay guys, I've posted a stab at a version that seems to come about halfway between what you both want. Your opening para was identical, which helped. Can you both please comment on the content only, no comments about each other? Thanks! Prince of Canadat 09:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC) - Gregorywill, I know that you feel the IG report is very important. How would you feel about placing the entire report on Wikisource, and then wikisource in the text? That would allow the text of the article to briefly summarize the context of the report and its findings, while ensuring that users would be one click away from the full text, and able to draw their own conclusions. Prince of Canadat 12:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC) - Hi guys. As you're both working on getting closer to something you can both agree to, I'd like to start looking at the rest of the issues we need to address.
 * Moving toward consensus & next phases
 * 1) Possible BLP violations on the talk page. I have asked an expert to weigh in on the matter, as my knowledge of BLP is not that extensive.  I'm confident that we will be able to resolve the content issue within the next couple of days, and can move on to BLP.
 * 2) Working together. While I understand that this is at heart a content dispute, it's been recommended to me by several MedCab people that it's often a good idea to get disputing editors to work together on a project to enhance the spirit of collaboration that should be the outcome of any mediation process.  So, as we wrap up everything, I would definitely like to get you two to work together on an new or stub-class (or one that just needs lots of cleanup and expansion) article that is completely unrelated to the one currently under dispute, and take it from poor to GA status.

I just wanted to put that out there for now. We can work out the details as we get closer to resolution. Prince of Canadat 04:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from raineybt
I would like the section to remain as it as now. I don't believe the list of positions adds to the article (as opposed to the awards, which do), and I believe the summary is an appropriate length and tone to effectively summarize the issue. There have been discussions between the two editors, and I feel that the current section is a fair compromise to present the issue as a part of the total article.

I would also like to discuss the sections on the talk page that I feel are against WP:BLP, make a decision on if they are or are not, and remove those that are.--Fresh (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * One point that I would like clarification on as well - what is the expected conduct related to page edits while in process with the mediation cabal?--Fresh (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To clarify my question: if we assume that the outcome will not be to leave the section solely as-is, what will you accept as a compromise? We will deal with the talk page separately, later.


 * I would like both of you to refrain from editing the article until this is completed, but I have no authority to stop either of you. Prince of Canadat 20:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like clarification on where the article should stand while this is in mediation. Gregorywill and I had been compromising and discussing the article for over a month, and changes were made between what I had initially inserted and what Gregorywill had inserted.  Once we began this proceeding, Gregorywill then reverted all of that to the version of the article we had disagreed on.  Which version of the article should stand while this case is in mediation?--Fresh (talk) 03:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best if we simply left the article as it stands as of the datestamp of this comment. I understand changes have been made, but let's just agree to leave it alone until we complete this process.  Prince of Canadat 04:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up, and I appreciate you taking this issue on. I will do my best to respond quickly so that we can bring this case to a conclusion.--Fresh (talk) 04:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Proposal: Why don't we remove the section entirely until we decide on the version that should be posted, so that all edits are made offline?  I am a bit miffed that the version that is on the site at this point is the version proposed by Gregorywill because of the timing of the request to not touch the article?--Fresh (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Removing the section is no longer under debate - I agree a summary should be included, we disagree on the language. However, I do not agree that the current version posted should be Gregorywill's, as I assume (based on the reversions of the article) Gregorywill believes it should be mine.  As it is under debate, why should one version be supported and one not?--Fresh (talk) 01:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is best for the section to remain as-is, with a version to be hammered out here that you are both relatively comfortable with. Prince of Canadat 08:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from gregorywill
I would like the section to remain my version (I'm not sure which version is the "now" version, as it's reverted back and forth). Both my section and RaineyBT's APPEAR to be NPOV; the question is which one is a truer summary of the Inspector General Report.

I would accept as a compromise starting with my version of the section, and making reasonable changes as RaineyBT sees fit (these changes might need to be moderated, to make sure that the "change" is not simply a reversion to RaineyBT's version). I would also be willing to compromise on what goes on the talk page. If RaineyBT is really adamant about eliminating the Timeline section, I guess I would be willing to let that go, so long as the Controversy section remains my version.


 * Okay. Correct me if I'm wrong: you are content to find a midpoint between your version of the section and RaineyBT's?


 * I would like both of you to refrain from editing the article until this is completed, but I have no authority to stop either of you. Prince of Canadat 20:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Eliminating the section altogether is what RaineyBT wanted from the beginning. The mediation will hopefully be complete soon.  Rather than argue about the interim article, why don't we just concentrate on finishing this up.  I, for one, am tired of the back-and-forth.  Prince of Canada, we appreciate your mediation efforts.  Gregorywill (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is best for the section to remain as-is, with a version to be hammered out here that you are both relatively comfortable with. Prince of Canadat 08:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving towards consensus
Kimmitt's nomination for Assistant Secretary of State was delayed because of two investigations into anonymous letters sent to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Upon receipt of each letter, Sen. Joseph Biden requested that the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (IG) investigate the allegations.

The IG concluded after the first investigation that "BG Kimmitt's leadership style was occasionally inconsistent with the standards expected for senior Government leaders", that "several witnesses...emphasized...that he has strengthened the overall performance of his office", and that "cognizant management officials should continue to monitor his leadership style." The IG reported that the allegations in the second investigation were not substantiated and warranted no further investigation.

At Kimmitt's request, the IG also "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 trigger confrontation."


 * I feel strongly that this version, like RaineyBT's version, does not capture the nature of the IG report. Please, please read the IG report, or at least the introduction section, which I posted a little while back.  Summarizing the IG findings as they are here makes the IG report sound like a mild inquiry that found nothing of interest, rather than a year-long investigation that found that he abused his subordinates and nearly derailed his career. Gregorywill (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What, specifically, do you think needs to be included? I need something concrete to work with. Prince of Canadat 11:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to have two paragraphs, one with more of the negative findings, and the other with the mitigating evidence. The IG report makes clear that "several witnesses...emphasized...that he has strengthened the overall performance of his office" is not one of the findings.  The findings are lengthy and uniformly negative; only after the findings are laid out, does it discuss -- briefly -- the mitigating evidence from witnesses that Kimmitt asked to be included in the report.  I think that the wikipedia summary should reflect this.Gregorywill (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. If you could please, taking the version above as your starting point, find something halfway between what is above and what you want included, that would be great.  Use the same page as before.  Fresh, could you please do the same? (& add any comments you have about this version below).  Thanks. Prince of Canadat 11:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out some of the inaccuracies (in the facts) that gregorywill has laid out. First, the investigation was not a year long - the investigation began on September 5, 2007, when a letter was sent to the inspector general, and the report was dated January 8, 2008, just over 4 months later, significantly less than a year.  There were no findings that Kimmitt "abused his subordinates", the findings specially state that "no witnesses testified that he was physically intimidating, whether in personal stance, hand gestures, or other means."  I don't want it to sound like I consider abuse only physical, but there is no mention of Kimmitt "abusing" anyone within the report, therefore I don't believe this leap to a conclusion should be made on Wikipedia.  To say that this "nearly derailed his career" is also personal opinion.  To support the summary that is included, this sentence is included in the summary of the report, prior to presenting the evidence to Kimmitt:  "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 Government leaders."  This states, in the words of the Inspector General, the results, which seems to make a lot of sense to also present as the results on the encyclopedia page.


 * To the request that gregorywill and I work together on another article - I would be much in favor. If we could suggest an article I'd be excited to collaborate.--Fresh (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. We'll decide on an article shortly. How is your (new) version coming? Prince of Canadat 03:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am certainly willing to work on a joint project. I think I've lost track of what's supposed to be happening now, though.  Are we waiting on RaineyBT's rewrite?  Gregorywill (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Prince of Canadat 10:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * All - sorry for the delay, I've been a bit busy the past few days, but my new version is up on the project page. Hopefully we can get this wrapped up this week.--Fresh (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrapping up
Okay, how's this? I think it hits the salient points that you are both concerned about, without giving any undue weight to either side. Or to put it another way: you'll both be mostly-satisfied-but-a-bit-unsatisfied, which is the best we can hope for in such situations.

Kimmitt's nomination for Assistant Secretary of State was delayed because of two investigations into anonymous letters sent to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.[2] [1] [3] Upon receipt of each letter, Sen. Joseph Biden requested that the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (IG) investigate the allegations.[2] [1]

After a four month investigation, the IG concluded after the first investigation that "BG Kimmitt's leadership style was occasionally inconsistent with the standards expected for senior Government leaders" and that "cognizant management officials should continue to monitor his leadership style."[4]. "[T]estimony indicated that morale In BG Kimmitt's organization was negatively affected by BG 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."[7] The report also stated that at Kimmitt's request the IG "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 trigger confrontation."[7]

The Department of Defense 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.[9] [7] The exact nature of this violation has not been disclosed.

I think that looks relatively neutral and balanced. I would also again suggest that the IG report in full be added to Wikisource, with the appropriate link contained within this section, indicating that interested readers may view the entire report there themselves. (This draws more attention than leaving it in a reference).

To be blunt: this is pretty much my final suggestion. I don't think it's possible to get either of much closer to writing a version that the other one will be happy about, as your positions are so diametrically opposed (this is not a comment on either of your attitudes!); I'm aiming for "well, it's not everything I want but it's close enough," here. Unless either of you has a huge glaring problem with that version, please sign below to indicate acceptance:


 * Fresh: To start, I apologize for my delay - I missed the suggested close edit, and was away for a bit.  That said, I agree that it does seem like a "no one gets everything" type situation.  The only thing I would request removed is the phrase "at Kimmitt's request" - the report doesn't state that Kimmitt requested they obtain additional evidence, merely that Kimmitt provided names of those to talk to further.  Otherwise, I think this is a good compromise.  Thanks so much PrinceofCanada for working through this.--Fresh (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * gregorywill: Gregorywill (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC) I would be a lot happier with the inclusion of the sentence, "[W]itnesses described him as a demanding, confrontalional manager, occasionally displaying anger that demeaned subordinates and caused them to minimize their interaction with him." But I guess I can live with this.

Moving on, we need to discuss BLP vios. In all honesty, BLP is not an issue with which I am terribly familiar--most of my wikitizing involves concepts and dead people. However, there is one part of BLP policy that is absolutely crystal clear: any material that appears to violate BLP is to be removed on sight, period. Shoot first, ask questions later. I'm well aware of how difficult that makes it to discuss the issue without re-adding the information, but we do not have a choice in the matter.

Given that I have next-to-no expertise on the subject, I would like to ask that the two of you do the following: Please sign below to indicate that you both agree with this (but don't go and do anything quite yet!)
 * 1) Raineybt/Fresh: archive everything that seems to be a BLPvio to a fairly generically-named archive of the subpage (like, say, 'Archive 2'). gregorywill, I will ask that you allow Raineybt/Fresh to interpret 'BLPvio' widely, ok? Because...
 * 2) gregorywill, I would then like you to go to the BLP noticeboard and state the facts: there is material in the archive that one user thinks is BLPvio and needs to be deleted, and the other user thinks it doesn't, and ask that a BLP expert examine the archive and remove anything that should be removed, and then...
 * 3) Using what was removed as a guideline, both of you be a little more circumspect in what you say in the future, on this article or any others.

gregorywill: Gregorywill (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Fresh:--Fresh (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And finally, moving on to a joint project. Could each of you please suggest two articles that are currently stubs or awful, that you would like to work on to get to GA (or even FA! now that would be an amazing act of collaboration) status?

Again, I would like to thank both of you for being so open to the process, and working hard to achieve a resolution. We're in the home stretch! Prince of Canadat 09:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And we're done!
Kimmitt's nomination for Assistant Secretary of State was delayed because of two investigations into anonymous letters sent to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Upon receipt of each letter, Sen. Joseph Biden requested that the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (IG) investigate the allegations.

After a four month investigation, the IG concluded after the first investigation that "BG Kimmitt's leadership style was occasionally inconsistent with the standards expected for senior Government leaders" and that "cognizant management officials should continue to monitor his leadership style.". "[T]estimony indicated that morale In BG Kimmitt's organization was negatively affected by BG 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." The report also stated that the IG "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 trigger confrontation."

The Department of Defense 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 exact nature of this violation has not been disclosed.

One minor change per Fresh, after re-checking the report, removing 'at request'.

So now..
 * 1) Fresh, please deal with archiving the relevant portions of the talk page.
 * 2) gregorywill, please deal with having a BLP expert look over the talk page after Fresh is done.


 * 1) gregorywill, please replace the current section with the compromise.
 * 2) Fresh, please add references once gregorywill is done.


 * 1) Both of you, let's finish figuring out your collaboration article here, as I think the case can be closed now.

Again, I would like to commend you both for your openness and honesty in dealing with this dispute. Both of you have shown an excellent willingness to compromise and work together. Well done!

- Prince of Canadat 04:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)