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

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Mark Kimmitt
Status	Open
Request date	04:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	gregorywill (talk · contribs)
Mediator(s)	Prince of Canada
Comment	Opened, awaiting response.

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab active cases|Mark Kimmitt]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|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!

Request details

Who are the involved parties?

raineybt (talk · contribs) and gregorywill (talk · contribs)

What's going on?

Raineybt's summary

There has been a debate for over a month as to the section Mark Kimmitt#Nomination Delay 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 Jclemens (talk · contribs) and have sought input at [[1]], 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 gregorywill (talk · contribs) 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. gregorywill (talk · contribs) 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 gregorywill (talk · contribs). I would like an opinion on this information as well, specifically involving gregorywill (talk · contribs)'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 Canada ^{t | c} 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 Canada ^{t | c} 20:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

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 Canada ^{t | c} 20:49, 17 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 Canada ^{t | c} 20:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)