Talk:Kyndra Rotunda

I reverted portions of this addition.

Contributor characterized Theodore Olson as a commentator "on the Right" and Alan Dershowitz as a commentator "on the Left".

First we don't usually put characterizations of individuals as being on the left or right in article space. Second, where-ever Dershowitz may stand on most issues, he took an early stand following 9-11 advocating "torture warrants" (his words). [1] [2] I suggest if we were to characterize individuals, his advocacy of torture puts him clearly on the right when it comes to Guantanamo policy. I am not familiar with the other commentators picked by the book's publicists, but I challenge whether the two examples the contributor picked constitute a "diverse cadre".

I am not sure whether comments picked by the book's publicists merit inclusion of the article at all.

I fixed a bunch of ill-formed references too. Geo Swan (talk) 08:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

poorly explained edits

This article has had a lot of poorly explained edits.

This edit removed several paragraphs that I think were well referenced, and written from a neutral point of view. They were removed with absolutely no explanation.

Similarly, this edit also removed several valid paragraphs, without explanation.

I restored that material. Geo Swan (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Single purpose contributors continue to make unexplained edits to this article. Geo Swan (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As a courtesy to other contributors could we please discuss controversial issues on the talk page, not in our edit summaries?

As a courtesy to other contributors could we please discuss controversial issues on the talk page, not in our edit summaries?

There are no edits here on the talk page, other than those I have left.

This article has a lot of edits by several wiki-ids created for the sole purpose of editing this article. [3], [4], [5].

This edit, currently, the last edit to the article, says, "before modifying the prior edit, please see ticket:2010093010005573". I think User:NuclearWarfare is warning other contributors not to restore the frequently blanked section on Rotunda's sexual harrassment suit.

If NuclearWarfare is one of the very limited number of contributors who can read OTRS tickets then NuclearWarfare is an administrator, and I request clarification as to whether they were warning potential reverters they would risk administrative action if they reverted this material.

I see no obvious indication that this excised material was not compliant with our policies. No one has initiated a discussion here on the talk page, stating a concern that the material did not comply with our policies.

I am going to remind NuclearWarfare that a reference to the text of an OTRS ticket is no help whatsoever to those of us who can't read it. Geo Swan (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC) [6]

I'm sorry I was not clear, but I really cannot be—OTRS' privacy policy prevents me from doing so. I personally did not handle the ticket actually; I just came across it after it was closed. I shall ask the person who did handle the email response might be able to say more, and I shall privately alert them of this discussion. NW (Talk) 01:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have a vague recollection someone may have sent me something further about this OTRS. But this is where those comments should have been recorded, or at least a link provided. What links here isn't helping me.

  It seems to me that individuals who are the subject of articles here should be required to have good reasons to request blanking through OTRS.

  An OTRS ticket implies Ms Rotunda personally contacted the OTRS team about the section of the article that covered her sexual harrassment suit. I remind the members of the OTRS team that it was Ms Rotunda herself who initiated the sexual harrassment suit. If it were the other way around, if someone else were to have initiated a sexual harrassment suit against Rotunda, one that was dismissed because it was baseless, then I could understand her requesting blanking because she was a target of someone else's suit.

  But she wasn't the target of the lawsuit, she was the initiator. After spending a couple of hours reading all kinds of documents about the lawsuit I am sure Ms Rotunda and her husband felt she would win the lawsuit. I am sure she did genuinely feel harrassed. I am sure she felt humiliated, publicly humiliated, by the way her case was dismissed.

  There are circumstances where some contributors argue for selectively removing properly referenced, neutrally written material from articles, to protect individuals from undue humiliation. When the humiliation was due to an action they took, not an accident, an action they took in the field where they were an expert, then I really think sanitizing their article is a mistake.

  I think my description of her lawsuit was neutral. Other good faith contributors who disagree should try to explain themselves, not revert material without explanation. Geo Swan (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Additional references include:

date	reference
2009-10-05	Ex-Clinic Director Kyndra Rotunda Sues George Mason for Sexual Harassment
2009-10-05	Ex-Professor Sues George Mason Law School for Harassment
2009-10-19	George Mason School of Law Sued for Sexual Harassment
2010-04-27	Trial Looms in Hard-Fought Law Prof Sexual Harassment Case at GMU
2010-04-28	GMU law professor faces harassment suit
2010-04-28	GMU professor seeks dismissal of woman’s suit
2010-05-18	Sex Harassment and the Truth
2010-05-24	George Mason, Law Dean Win Bench Dismissal of Rotunda Sex-Harass Suit
2010-05-24	Covington Secures Victory for George Mason University in Sexual Harassment Case
2010-05-25	(Dismissed) Lawsuit of the Day: Rotunda v. Zengerle
2010-05-25	Judge Dismisses Most of Sex Harassment Case Against George Mason Law
2010-05-25	Rotunda lawsuit dismissed, almost
2010-05-26	GMU prevails in sexual harassment case
2010-05-26	GMU sex harassment suit dismissed
2010-06-08	Rotunda Sex-Harass Suit Against George Mason Legal Clinic Exec Is Settled
2010-06-08	Update: Rotunda v. Zengerle Has Settled
2010-06-09	Settlement Reached in Suit against George Mason Law Prof
2010-06-10	George Mason Reportedly Settles Rotunda Harassment Lawsuit With No Payment of Damages

I noticed the following:

01:06, 26 September 2011: Reverted. [7]

01:30-14:49, 26 September 2011: Asked question about whether to revert on talk page [8]

15:09, 26 September 2011: Asked question about whether to revert at Village pump [9]

Because of the controversial nature of the material and the article being a BLP, I am undoing your revert while the issue is discussed and consensus is sought. I am not implying that the material does or does not belong in the article, just that you should wait a few days after asking whether to revert before reverting. If nobody objects, go ahead and revert or let me know and I will undo my re-revert (waiting a year is too long, IMO). --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)