This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kyndra Rotunda article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Kyndra Rotunda be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
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)
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)
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]
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)
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)
I restored information from the one independent comment I have come across of Ms Rotunda's book. As I noted above, all the other comments supplied by the individual or individual behind the single purpose accounts trying to turn the article into a hagiography were misleadingly from the publisher's web page devoted to the book -- that is they are not independent from the subject.
Another contributor reverted, with the edit summary "Reverted without prejudice - see talk page"
I think this good faith reversion is based on a misconception. Yes, I did raise questions on the talk page and village pump about the removal of the section on her sexual harrassment suit. The restoration of the link and quote from Michelle Shephard is an issue I regard as settled. Way back in 2008 I wrote "I am not sure whether comments picked by the book's publicists merit inclusion of the article at all." The vandals who keep removing information from the one independent comment of the book have had almost three years to explain their repeated excision, and have not done so.
I dispute that I was under any obligation to wait for a resolution of whatever issue lay at the heart of Ms Rotunda's OTRS ticket prior to reverting the vandalism behind the excision of Michelle Shephard's comment. Geo Swan ( talk) 22:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
"Reverted without prejudice - see talk page" refers to the last few paragraphs of the section of this talk page directly above this one. There is further discussion here: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29#Is_a_year_too_long_to_wait_for_an_explanation.3F
EDIT: And Here: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User_talk:Guy_Macon
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I replaced "Rotunda's book has received favorable reactions from recognized legal experts." with "Rotunda's publishers found favorable reactions from recognized legal experts." I think this more accurately reflects how much independence we should credit to Olson's and Dershowitz's endorsements. Michelle Shephard is not a "legal expert". But she is unquestionably an expert on Guantanamo. Geo Swan ( talk) 20:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
This article has had several single purpose wiki-ids make edits that do not comply with policies like WP:NPOV.
On September 30 2010 User:Florencewhite made several biased edits, including sanitizing the section on the sexual harrassment suit Ms Rotunda initiated. Those edits triggered the concerns of a previously uninvolved quality control volunteer, who reverted the first bunch of edits as "unconstructive". User:Florencewhite then blanked the section on the sexual harrassment lawsuit. In three further edits they blanked the section on the sexual harrassment lawsuit three time -- in eleven minutes.
Tne hours later an OTRS team member warned contributors not to work on the sexual harrassment section.
Note, "Florencewhite" violated WP:3R.
Note, "Florencewhite" didn't object to the article having a section on the sexual harrassment lawsuit -- he or she merely objected to it having a different wording than their preferred version.
It seems whoever was using the "Florencewhite" wiki-id also sent an email to OTRS. I am concerned as I don't think good faith contributors should skip trying to engage in civil collegial discussion and skip right to complaining to OTRS.
I really hope that whoever processed that OTRS ticket took steps to confirm that "Florencewhite" was an individual with real life standing in the sexual harrassment lawsuit.
I think whoever processed that OTRS ticket made numerous serious mistakes. In particular, I think the decision to support User:Florencewhite should only have been made after examining the history of unexplained and counter-policy sanitization of this article. I am very sorry to say I think the OTRS team members should have been conscious that their decision gave the appearance that they sided with User:Florencewhite.
Good faith contributors who think the lawsuit should be covered have still not been given any indication from the OTRS team how to do so without violating whatever policy they think their ruling is based on. Geo Swan ( talk) 17:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
timestamp | wiki-id | notes | |
---|---|---|---|
[10] || | |||
2010-09-30 04:12 | Anikingos | [11] |
|
2010-09-30 04:15 | User:Florencewhite | [12] |
|
2010-09-30 04:16 | Anikingos | [13] |
|
2010-09-30 04:19 | User:Florencewhite | [14] |
|
2010-09-30 04:20 | User:Florencewhite | [15] |
|
2010-09-30 04:22 | Anikingos | [16] |
|
2010-09-30 04:25 | User:Florencewhite | [17] |
|
2010-09-30 14:43 | User:NuclearWarfare | [18] |
|
Rotunda left her position as director of the George Mason University legal assistance clinic for veterans after three years. During her tenure as director of the GMU Clinic for Legal Assistance to Servicemembers, she reported multiple conflicts with its executive director Joseph Zengerle.
[1] After resigning from GMU in 2007, her husband Ron following in 2008, in July 2009 Rotunda filed a sexual harassment lawsuit naming the clinic's executive director Joseph Zengerle, the university, and its law school dean.
[2]
[3] In May 2010, prior to the scheduled trial, the federal judge dismissed all federal counts, and prohibited amending the complaint, while permitting two "pendent state-law tort claims" against Zengerle to remain.
[4]
[5]
[6] On June 8, the case was reported settled with no monetary award, though the plaintiff received unspecified "equitable relief".
[6]
-- Lexein ( talk) 09:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
When instantiated the {{ dubious}} tag tells interested contributions to click on a link to a "dubious" section on the article's talk page. The individual who leaves the {{ dubious}} is supposed to initiate the discussion over whatever concern they think is dubious. Since no dubious section had been initiated, I removed those tags. Geo Swan ( talk) 21:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Publisher supplied blurbs are not WP:RS. I am going to offer one last chance to anyone who wants to defend treating publisher-supplied promotional content as if it were an independent review. The material I will remove, if no meaningful defense of it is offered, is below:
|
So, I am still arguing that the entire section I quoted above be deleted.
Geo Swan (
talk)
19:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I had my own senior's moment. Geo Swan ( talk) 19:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
This article has been edited by various IP addresses, and single purpose accounts. I am concerned that a single individual is behind these edits, and that they are not in compliance with our conflict of interest guidelines. After the last sanitization attempt I placed the tag for suspected sockpuppetry on User talk:70.17.107.100, User talk:206.211.146.167, User talk:206.211.146.167, User talk:75.84.9.67, User talk:Frances Paul, User talk:Florencewhite, User talk:Allison Page.
I initiated an SPI -- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allison Page/Archive.
In that SPI I voiced my concern that the individual who I suspect is behind all the single purpose accounts, who is in a conflict of interest, is the same individual who initiated the OTRS ticket that lead to the edit chill. Geo Swan ( talk) 23:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
LinkedIn is not RS, and shouldn't really be used. If the jacket blurbs are in, they should be referred to as jacket blurbs, not as reviews. -- Lexein ( talk) 09:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kyndra Rotunda article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Kyndra Rotunda be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
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)
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)
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]
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)
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)
I restored information from the one independent comment I have come across of Ms Rotunda's book. As I noted above, all the other comments supplied by the individual or individual behind the single purpose accounts trying to turn the article into a hagiography were misleadingly from the publisher's web page devoted to the book -- that is they are not independent from the subject.
Another contributor reverted, with the edit summary "Reverted without prejudice - see talk page"
I think this good faith reversion is based on a misconception. Yes, I did raise questions on the talk page and village pump about the removal of the section on her sexual harrassment suit. The restoration of the link and quote from Michelle Shephard is an issue I regard as settled. Way back in 2008 I wrote "I am not sure whether comments picked by the book's publicists merit inclusion of the article at all." The vandals who keep removing information from the one independent comment of the book have had almost three years to explain their repeated excision, and have not done so.
I dispute that I was under any obligation to wait for a resolution of whatever issue lay at the heart of Ms Rotunda's OTRS ticket prior to reverting the vandalism behind the excision of Michelle Shephard's comment. Geo Swan ( talk) 22:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
"Reverted without prejudice - see talk page" refers to the last few paragraphs of the section of this talk page directly above this one. There is further discussion here: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29#Is_a_year_too_long_to_wait_for_an_explanation.3F
EDIT: And Here: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User_talk:Guy_Macon
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I replaced "Rotunda's book has received favorable reactions from recognized legal experts." with "Rotunda's publishers found favorable reactions from recognized legal experts." I think this more accurately reflects how much independence we should credit to Olson's and Dershowitz's endorsements. Michelle Shephard is not a "legal expert". But she is unquestionably an expert on Guantanamo. Geo Swan ( talk) 20:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
This article has had several single purpose wiki-ids make edits that do not comply with policies like WP:NPOV.
On September 30 2010 User:Florencewhite made several biased edits, including sanitizing the section on the sexual harrassment suit Ms Rotunda initiated. Those edits triggered the concerns of a previously uninvolved quality control volunteer, who reverted the first bunch of edits as "unconstructive". User:Florencewhite then blanked the section on the sexual harrassment lawsuit. In three further edits they blanked the section on the sexual harrassment lawsuit three time -- in eleven minutes.
Tne hours later an OTRS team member warned contributors not to work on the sexual harrassment section.
Note, "Florencewhite" violated WP:3R.
Note, "Florencewhite" didn't object to the article having a section on the sexual harrassment lawsuit -- he or she merely objected to it having a different wording than their preferred version.
It seems whoever was using the "Florencewhite" wiki-id also sent an email to OTRS. I am concerned as I don't think good faith contributors should skip trying to engage in civil collegial discussion and skip right to complaining to OTRS.
I really hope that whoever processed that OTRS ticket took steps to confirm that "Florencewhite" was an individual with real life standing in the sexual harrassment lawsuit.
I think whoever processed that OTRS ticket made numerous serious mistakes. In particular, I think the decision to support User:Florencewhite should only have been made after examining the history of unexplained and counter-policy sanitization of this article. I am very sorry to say I think the OTRS team members should have been conscious that their decision gave the appearance that they sided with User:Florencewhite.
Good faith contributors who think the lawsuit should be covered have still not been given any indication from the OTRS team how to do so without violating whatever policy they think their ruling is based on. Geo Swan ( talk) 17:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
timestamp | wiki-id | notes | |
---|---|---|---|
[10] || | |||
2010-09-30 04:12 | Anikingos | [11] |
|
2010-09-30 04:15 | User:Florencewhite | [12] |
|
2010-09-30 04:16 | Anikingos | [13] |
|
2010-09-30 04:19 | User:Florencewhite | [14] |
|
2010-09-30 04:20 | User:Florencewhite | [15] |
|
2010-09-30 04:22 | Anikingos | [16] |
|
2010-09-30 04:25 | User:Florencewhite | [17] |
|
2010-09-30 14:43 | User:NuclearWarfare | [18] |
|
Rotunda left her position as director of the George Mason University legal assistance clinic for veterans after three years. During her tenure as director of the GMU Clinic for Legal Assistance to Servicemembers, she reported multiple conflicts with its executive director Joseph Zengerle.
[1] After resigning from GMU in 2007, her husband Ron following in 2008, in July 2009 Rotunda filed a sexual harassment lawsuit naming the clinic's executive director Joseph Zengerle, the university, and its law school dean.
[2]
[3] In May 2010, prior to the scheduled trial, the federal judge dismissed all federal counts, and prohibited amending the complaint, while permitting two "pendent state-law tort claims" against Zengerle to remain.
[4]
[5]
[6] On June 8, the case was reported settled with no monetary award, though the plaintiff received unspecified "equitable relief".
[6]
-- Lexein ( talk) 09:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
When instantiated the {{ dubious}} tag tells interested contributions to click on a link to a "dubious" section on the article's talk page. The individual who leaves the {{ dubious}} is supposed to initiate the discussion over whatever concern they think is dubious. Since no dubious section had been initiated, I removed those tags. Geo Swan ( talk) 21:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Publisher supplied blurbs are not WP:RS. I am going to offer one last chance to anyone who wants to defend treating publisher-supplied promotional content as if it were an independent review. The material I will remove, if no meaningful defense of it is offered, is below:
|
So, I am still arguing that the entire section I quoted above be deleted.
Geo Swan (
talk)
19:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I had my own senior's moment. Geo Swan ( talk) 19:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
This article has been edited by various IP addresses, and single purpose accounts. I am concerned that a single individual is behind these edits, and that they are not in compliance with our conflict of interest guidelines. After the last sanitization attempt I placed the tag for suspected sockpuppetry on User talk:70.17.107.100, User talk:206.211.146.167, User talk:206.211.146.167, User talk:75.84.9.67, User talk:Frances Paul, User talk:Florencewhite, User talk:Allison Page.
I initiated an SPI -- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allison Page/Archive.
In that SPI I voiced my concern that the individual who I suspect is behind all the single purpose accounts, who is in a conflict of interest, is the same individual who initiated the OTRS ticket that lead to the edit chill. Geo Swan ( talk) 23:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
LinkedIn is not RS, and shouldn't really be used. If the jacket blurbs are in, they should be referred to as jacket blurbs, not as reviews. -- Lexein ( talk) 09:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)