Thank you for deciding to make an account after past requests at
Talk:Maize where you have been solely editing as a
WP:SPA. Part of the reason an account was brought up previously, especially
here, is that there was no other way to contact you as a dynamic IP about your behavior issues except the article talk page, which only compounded the disruption related to using an article talk page to pursue editors in violation
WP:TPNO. Prior to your recent requested move, we discussed issues with needling other participants like
Flexperte in a pretty blatant
WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality with veiled attempts of accusing others of bad-faith, I would like, in the most sincere way I can manage, to request that you argue in good faith here.
[1]
What really brings me here now (and that you can finally be contacted correctly) is that since you started your move request, you still have not heeded warnings about your behavior, and editors are increasingly seeing what we call WP:WIKILAWYERING or WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior that upsets the editorial process. What I tend to see is you take a small detail in someone's text to be "confused" about and turn it into a red herring, outright casting aspersions towards "enemies" in your language, etc. I personally can tolerate personal attacks against myself to a point, but continuing to attack other editors or disrupting the process increases the likelihood your editing will be restricted. That includes things you've done like:
Those are just a few highlight examples of this trend I've seen so far mostly focused on others, such as leading language to misrepresent positions of others [8] (those in opposition are saying so because of WP:COMMONNAME, not because they want to supersede it). All these behaviors are interlinked a bit and show in varying degrees throughout your comments. It's the sheer volume of those that has really escalated to being WP:POINTY though. Please take this caution about your behavior seriously this time. I've dealt with controversial topics and editors with battleground issues for years here now, and the poorest choice is to lash out at those trying to work with you on your behavior issues (i.e., WP:POT). Instead, I highly suggest reflecting on your behavior and just how often other editors (not just me) have been having to correct you or give you advice related to your actions at the page as this is in hopes you self-correct. KoA ( talk) 00:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
pile of bullshitcomments from that editor. That's especially considering I had really been only commenting on my own !vote, and only addressed two of the support !votes. Almost all other replies were because you were constantly addressing me in those areas of your own doing. Had they followed through on their claim, that would have resulted in what we call a WP:BOOMERANG. In my case as one of the main actual content contributors there, I am often commenting in-depth on the content, sources, and relevant policy, so I have a lot more ground to cover than most knowing the massive content and history at that article. Read this in that regard. The key thing there is
Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed.I'm usually avoiding repeating things at the RM, and when there is a relevant comment I decide to make a mention at, it's not to quiz/nitpick the editor as you've been, but to comment on policy, related content, etc. that strikes to the heart of what's going on for the closer. At most for that page in past RMs, it's usually a reminder about repeat arguments that are not very well substantiated or not reading the article content because we have a warning template about that at the top of the page. Others have mentioned on the talk page that we're still figuring out how best to deal with those messy/numerous instances because many of the corn arguments and repeat maize to corn RMs have effectively become a WP:BLUDGEON themselves. Me addressing that issue in the last RM is not something that would excuse the degree of what you've been doing even if you weren't taking things out of context.
When someone takes persistence to a level that overwhelms or intimidates others, or limits others' ability to interject their opinions without worrying about being verbally attacked, then this activity has risen to a level of abuse. This can be considered an act of bad faith as the purpose is to win at any cost.That is how you come across with the behavior I outlined above whether it's veiled attacks, WP:BADGER, or how the other editor did with the pile of bullshit comment directed at me (not by you at least). Some of that is also when you already have an answer for your questions but you still keep asking or go into red herrings. It's the combination of you both pestering nearly every respondent and what is described as sealioning in your line of questionings. Tying to claim other editors are doing the same thing as you only makes your case worse. As I said earlier, the respondents do not need to WP:SATISFY your every question, especially when you get a reputation for them being problematic like the source misrepresentation we ran into, your comment on AjaxSmack's corn field picture, or Invasive Spices'. Instead, it's up to the closer to assess WP:CONSENSUS of what viewpoints best reflect policy and what sources tell us about the subject. That
win at any costattitude really comes through when you engage in WP:GAMING above like complaining that my main comment was before other support votes or the "pact" you are suggesting with me (I already told you I mostly said what I intended to say) when you just shouldn't have been badgering people regardless of if I'm there or not. Let's look at what you did to Invasive Spices as another example. [9] Merely 4 minutes after they posted, you already had a reply to them and completely misrepresented them as they already told you. You were pushing the gaming/battleground attitude even there though with
I think the best way to make sure this isn't the case in the future is to move the article to Corn, so that there's no longer any reason to discuss the article title.Threatening you're not going to stop until you get your way is disruptive on many levels that speaks to you being here as a battleground editor, and I was hoping IP's comments would have encouraged you to self-reflect a bit.
Thank you for deciding to make an account after past requests at
Talk:Maize where you have been solely editing as a
WP:SPA. Part of the reason an account was brought up previously, especially
here, is that there was no other way to contact you as a dynamic IP about your behavior issues except the article talk page, which only compounded the disruption related to using an article talk page to pursue editors in violation
WP:TPNO. Prior to your recent requested move, we discussed issues with needling other participants like
Flexperte in a pretty blatant
WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality with veiled attempts of accusing others of bad-faith, I would like, in the most sincere way I can manage, to request that you argue in good faith here.
[1]
What really brings me here now (and that you can finally be contacted correctly) is that since you started your move request, you still have not heeded warnings about your behavior, and editors are increasingly seeing what we call WP:WIKILAWYERING or WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior that upsets the editorial process. What I tend to see is you take a small detail in someone's text to be "confused" about and turn it into a red herring, outright casting aspersions towards "enemies" in your language, etc. I personally can tolerate personal attacks against myself to a point, but continuing to attack other editors or disrupting the process increases the likelihood your editing will be restricted. That includes things you've done like:
Those are just a few highlight examples of this trend I've seen so far mostly focused on others, such as leading language to misrepresent positions of others [8] (those in opposition are saying so because of WP:COMMONNAME, not because they want to supersede it). All these behaviors are interlinked a bit and show in varying degrees throughout your comments. It's the sheer volume of those that has really escalated to being WP:POINTY though. Please take this caution about your behavior seriously this time. I've dealt with controversial topics and editors with battleground issues for years here now, and the poorest choice is to lash out at those trying to work with you on your behavior issues (i.e., WP:POT). Instead, I highly suggest reflecting on your behavior and just how often other editors (not just me) have been having to correct you or give you advice related to your actions at the page as this is in hopes you self-correct. KoA ( talk) 00:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
pile of bullshitcomments from that editor. That's especially considering I had really been only commenting on my own !vote, and only addressed two of the support !votes. Almost all other replies were because you were constantly addressing me in those areas of your own doing. Had they followed through on their claim, that would have resulted in what we call a WP:BOOMERANG. In my case as one of the main actual content contributors there, I am often commenting in-depth on the content, sources, and relevant policy, so I have a lot more ground to cover than most knowing the massive content and history at that article. Read this in that regard. The key thing there is
Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed.I'm usually avoiding repeating things at the RM, and when there is a relevant comment I decide to make a mention at, it's not to quiz/nitpick the editor as you've been, but to comment on policy, related content, etc. that strikes to the heart of what's going on for the closer. At most for that page in past RMs, it's usually a reminder about repeat arguments that are not very well substantiated or not reading the article content because we have a warning template about that at the top of the page. Others have mentioned on the talk page that we're still figuring out how best to deal with those messy/numerous instances because many of the corn arguments and repeat maize to corn RMs have effectively become a WP:BLUDGEON themselves. Me addressing that issue in the last RM is not something that would excuse the degree of what you've been doing even if you weren't taking things out of context.
When someone takes persistence to a level that overwhelms or intimidates others, or limits others' ability to interject their opinions without worrying about being verbally attacked, then this activity has risen to a level of abuse. This can be considered an act of bad faith as the purpose is to win at any cost.That is how you come across with the behavior I outlined above whether it's veiled attacks, WP:BADGER, or how the other editor did with the pile of bullshit comment directed at me (not by you at least). Some of that is also when you already have an answer for your questions but you still keep asking or go into red herrings. It's the combination of you both pestering nearly every respondent and what is described as sealioning in your line of questionings. Tying to claim other editors are doing the same thing as you only makes your case worse. As I said earlier, the respondents do not need to WP:SATISFY your every question, especially when you get a reputation for them being problematic like the source misrepresentation we ran into, your comment on AjaxSmack's corn field picture, or Invasive Spices'. Instead, it's up to the closer to assess WP:CONSENSUS of what viewpoints best reflect policy and what sources tell us about the subject. That
win at any costattitude really comes through when you engage in WP:GAMING above like complaining that my main comment was before other support votes or the "pact" you are suggesting with me (I already told you I mostly said what I intended to say) when you just shouldn't have been badgering people regardless of if I'm there or not. Let's look at what you did to Invasive Spices as another example. [9] Merely 4 minutes after they posted, you already had a reply to them and completely misrepresented them as they already told you. You were pushing the gaming/battleground attitude even there though with
I think the best way to make sure this isn't the case in the future is to move the article to Corn, so that there's no longer any reason to discuss the article title.Threatening you're not going to stop until you get your way is disruptive on many levels that speaks to you being here as a battleground editor, and I was hoping IP's comments would have encouraged you to self-reflect a bit.