User talk:Omaharodeo

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Omaharodeo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Bearian (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Omaharodeo (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard[edit]

I have asked for mediation at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman. NinaSpezz (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Wikipedia policies, explanation of your disruptive behavior[edit]

Hi Omaharodeo, and welcome to WP. I assume that because you are relatively new to WP that you may not yet be well versed in WP's policies and guidelines so I'll take a few minutes to inform you of some of those that you are inadvertently transgressing. I'm hopeful that once you have been made aware of the relevant polices and behavioral expectations for WP editors, that you will be able to adjust your behavior accordingly and become a more productive member or our community.

- Part I - Introduction to policies and guidelines
WP:TALK says in a nutshell: Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor. This means your talk page posts should be limited to the content of the article under discussion. This would be things like sources, text and policies and guidelines that pertain to format (WP:MOS), verifiability (WP:V) etc. It means not personalizing the talk page discussion. If you feel that an editor is not behaving properly or is violating one of WP's policies then you should leave a note on their user talk page not on the article talk page.
WP:COI says: During discussions on articles' talk pages and at articles for deletion, disparaging comments may be made about the subject of the article/author and about the author's motives. Such comments should be avoided, since they may be seen as forbidden personal attacks, and may discourage the article's creator from making future valuable contributions.[1]
WP:HARASS says: Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons
WP:NPA says that personal attacks include:

Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views
Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor.
Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.
A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

break[edit]

- Part II -- After I warned you on the talk page[2] you asked? "Can you help me understand what constituted harassment here?" [3] So let me explain. WP:HARASS says: Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons Your edit history shown below demonstrates this pattern of disruptive behavior:
Since joining WP on April 28th you have made about 25 edits; all them in regard to a single article: Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, (KBTF) and a single editor who has not edited the article since March 2013: User:NinaSpezz.
Your very first edit (April 28, 2014) to WP was a personal attack against NinaSpezz on the KBTF talk page [4]. You accused her of promotional editing: Furthermore, User:NinaSpezz's specific edits to this article, while adding a few useful facts, are mostly promotional and contribute to an advertising tone. You did this in spite of the fact that NinaSpezz had: 1) declared her employment on her talk page beginining January 2011[5] and 2) had not edited said article since March 2013 [6]
Despite the attack, NinaSpezz apologized [7] and took no offense.
The next day you began a thread at WP:COIN. During the COIN discussion editors (User:JohnCD and User:Zujine) and an Admin, (User:Atama), spoke in support of NinaSpezz's editing and there was no adverse conclusion. [8]
During the COIN case, you templated NinaSprezz's talk page for "canvassing" [9]
You then continued to attack her in every subsequent talk page post:
- "Regardless of NinaSpezz's motives"......"I am suspicious that this paragraph was driven by @NinaSpezz's client's desire to highlight poaching from a rival firm" [10]
  - "the following is a brief summary of NinaSpezz's inaccurate statements for posterity
  - "NinaSpezz was not "upfront" about her affiliation with the subject of this article, the law firm Kasowitz, Benson, Torres and Friedman. She did not disclose it on the talk page, and a typical reader would have no way of knowing that "Rubenstein Communications" is a public relations firm employed by KBTF.
  - "Edits made by NinaSpezz were not "straightforward." Her edits were effectively search engine-optimized ad copy, with long lists of practice area keywords, office locations and dubious "awards" given by organizations which sell paid profiles to law firms and so are discouraged from providing balanced critiques of them. In several cases, her edits were also factually inaccurate."
  - "NinaSpezz has a conflict-of-interest. [11]
- "NinaSpezz thanks for the input. Setting aside your COI (i.e. that you receive money from the subject of this article to enhance their image) for the moment, here are reactions"[12]
- "NinaSpezz is receiving money from the subject of this article to enhance their public image on Wikipedia. The user did not disclose COI initially, then sought to manipulate the COI noticeboard via canvassing." [13]

I hope now that the policies have been explained and the disruptive behavior has been clearly demonstrated, that you will adjust accordingly. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Doublespeak and Bureaucratic Cold War[edit]

Dear Reader: I have read and re-read the previous post by @Keithbob, hoping I would eventually see it as somehow constructive. I cannot. In my estimation, it's a clear attempt at reasserting spurious accusations under the guise of 'education', and I trust most any objective observer would conclude the same. To whit, it seems part of a pattern:

In September 2013, @Keithbob was admonished by the RfA presiding admin for spurious accusations of "harassment":

"There is a lot of casting of aspersions here. One excellent example is the listing [by @keithbob] as an example of "harassment" that... an article [was nominated] for GA delisting, without mentioning that the article was in fact found not to meet GA standards and delisted. That doesn't indicate harassment, it indicates apparently good judgment."
— @Seraphimblade, RfA Enforcement

As part of the same discussion, another admin noted:

"Looking through the diffs presented by Keithbob above, I think that particular evidence is likely to draw judgements somewhat contrary to what was intended."

COI concerns seemed to contribute to the withdrawal of his application for adminship in January 2014, although he had a lot of supporters too
Here is his impassioned opposition to no paid editing

Anyhow, rather than quixotically engaging again, let us see if we can learn something. I shall attempt to decompose the tactics I observe -- not necessarily or exclusively in this instance, mind you -- and speculate as to why they work (I assume they are being used because they work). The parties will be "Newbie" and "Veteran." Here is what I see:

Conflation of flagging COI's with harassment, disparagement, and personal attacks. Why it works (theories):
- Harassment is a deeply loaded word, often connoting sexual impropriety in Western cultures, and the accusation alone is probably enough to scare many users off
- Veteran's framing himself as "defender of another's honor" implies a high-minded interest in civility while suppressing neutral editors
- Fear that a Veteran engaging in this sophistry can nonetheless mobilize allies to railroad Newbie if they persist

Litany of meticulously formatted yet artful references to Wikipedia policies. Why it works (theories):
- Third-parties quickly skimming the comments will see lots of bullets and official links in Veteran's posts, increasing the likelihood they will incorrectly confer credibility
- Reading WP:SCARY may be time-consuming or intimidating so Newbie might simply trust Veteran's characterizations
- Newbie, who is not being paid for her or his contribution, will probably not have the time to respond in-kind

Refusing to engage on fundamental issues. Why it works (theories):
- Increases the likelihood that a third-party reviewing the discussion will only see Veteran's points
- Allows for a cleaner "record" to cite in possible future disputes

Faux helpful or passive-aggressive tone. Why it works (theories):
- Superficially consistent with civility principles
- Potentially provokes hothead Newbies who have been stubborn enough to persist into making "uncivil" comments which can form the basis for enforcement actions

For what it's worth. Omaharodeo (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]