Talk:Mark Kimmitt

message: Up until this point, this article appears to have been a lamentable attempt at propaganda and a sad misuse of Wikipedia resources. The anonymous writer has really told us nothing of the individual named in this post other than a wish for the General's death. I took the liberty of deleting that statement since it reflects poorly upon the Wikipedia community as a whole. There are other sites available for base necrophilia.  Zlerpster 01:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sad Example of Wikipedia-Misuse 

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Discussion continued 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Third Opinion: Controversy 

message: *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)
replies: text: * 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)

text: * 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)
replies: text: *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)

text: *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)
replies: text: *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)

text: *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)

text: *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)
thread_title:  Discussion continued 

message: *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)
thread_title: Is Gregorywill's Controversy Section Poorly Sourced?

message: *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)
thread_title: Is Gregorywill's Controversy Section Disproportionate in Length Compared to the Rest of the Article

message: *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)
thread_title: Is Gregorywill's Controversy Section Biased or Non-neutral in Tone

message: 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)
thread_title:  BLP/N input sought 

message: :::*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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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)

text: *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)

text: *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)

text: **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)

text: *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)
thread_title:  Deletion of posts on discussion page 

message: 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)
thread_title: Discussion Continued

message: 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)
thread_title:  What is going on here? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Self Serving? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Mark Kimmitt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified