User talk:OuroCat

Warning about behavior at maize

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:

1. Making unsupported claims that you were attacked to disrupt content discussion[2]. In this case, you misrepresented a source by omitting text from quotes to change the meaning to the exact opposite to support your viewpoint and complained that your misuse was pointed out.
2. WP:BLUDGEONING all opposition !votes in the RM discussion (7/8 if you count a very recent !vote)[3] to the point of WP:BADGER/sealioning here[4] or especially the sidestepping/failure to get the point part of sealioning like here.[5]
3. Misrepresenting editors[6] and poisoning the well[7] (last paragraph).

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)

I did see that you have some personal experience with handling disruptive behavior. In your own talk page there's reference to a few ANIs that you've been involved in (if I'm using that term right?).

I understand your point of view on my behavior here. I do agree that you've brought it up previously. However, I have not seen any other editor mention it. Who are you referring to here when you say "we" and "editors"? I have purposefully kept in mind the tone I'm using to reply on the talk page after you brought it up, especially to you, but you still assume that every comment I'm making is somehow against guidelines. I feel as if you've decided already who I am and what I'm about and there's no way for me to reasonably change that. And, honestly, that's alright. We don't have to be friends to be civil to each other.

I have also mentioned your own behavior, and at least one other editor has called out your bludgeoning and gish gallop style arguments. However, I have not seen any indication that you are contrite on those points, and this warning may be seen as hypocritical without addressing such beforehand.

As a potential solution, I'm entirely willing to step away from the maize/corn discussion for now if you are. I think other editors are having plenty of good discussion without us and we've both said our piece. If you can make a promise to me of not talking about naming until the RM's closed then I'll do the same, and we'll both go our separate ways and maybe meet again under better circumstances. OuroCat (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

OC, I have to agree that you are bludgeoning that discussion. Of 104 comments, over 30 are yours. You've basically been challenging everyone who disagrees with you to defend their !vote. It's really not helpful to have discussions that ought to be fairly simple and straightforward become that long and involved, as it tends to discourage other editors from trying to read the entire thing. I frankly am having a hard time even following it. Valereee (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight. I also had this same thought and even asked Levivich about it here:

User talk:Levivich#Maize Bludgeoning

I've since backed off, and of the past 50 edits since the 11th I have 9, which is exactly as many as yourself. Also, I've only replied 29 times in total to the RM, which include at least 4 minor edits of my own posts of 5 words or less. https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=OuroCat&page=Talk%3AMaize&max=500&server=enwiki

The only thing I could say in my defense here is that I was following the lead of a more senior editor, KoA, who replied 23 times to this RM and 34 times to the last one, with a total word count of 40,819 on this most recent RM, with over 23,000 words being in a single gigantic post that's mostly copy and pasted from the main body of the article instead of just linked. That post was also made right at the top of the discussion, notably ahead of any of the first support comments.

By contrast I only have a word count of 12830, 1/4th of KoA's. Your comment, without any sort of similar warning to KoA, on something I'm already addressing feels a lot like favortism to me, if not trying to unduly influence the RM itself.

I do appreciate the feedback nevertheless, even the one before that you struck about canvassing, since I'm new and it helps me learn more about the guidelines and what is and isn't acceptable. The only reason I bring this up is to point out the differences in how I'm being treated vs a more senior editor. I can only assume had I made a 23,000 word post in the middle of the discussion someone would have been quick to point out why that was a bad idea. OuroCat (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Ourocat, if what you claim was accurate about me, you're basically outlining that you purposely engaged in WP:POINT behavior, or disruptive behavior to prove a point in addition to WP:POT I mentioned earlier. A lot of this goes back to how you've been actively misrepresenting editors other than just me though, and you were the only one there actively peppering at nearly all respondents when I posted above. Even in your response to Valereee, you're refusing to get the point on the nature of your comments and trying to make it look like you're just doing what they are. You're just strengthening the case that you have a battleground mentality that's disrupted the article.

The comments about me you are talking about were very clear battleground violations (not to mention they decided to say that on an article talk page) with respect to the pile of bullshit comments 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.

Contrast that with 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 cost attitude 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.

That's a lot, but I wanted to spend some time trying to illustrate how much of a can of worms situation it's been trying to deal with your behavior or outright trolling[10] when you or others forced behavior to be dealt with on the article talk page. Being a new editor is not an excuse or shield to charge into that kind of behavior. That's all I intend to say here, and like I mentioned before, I hope you choose not to deflect or blame other editors this time, but simply disengage from your battleground mentality. If not, that's something for other folks to handle. KoA (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

It took you just under 1000 words to say "It's OK when I do it because when I do it I'm right."

If you feel I haven't learned my lesson I wholeheartedly encourage you to take this to dispute resolution or ANI. I'd love to have an uninvolved editor's opinion and I think It'll be very educational. OuroCat (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ouro. I got here by way of searching "corn", being baffled by the site's incorrect choice to redirect such searches to "maize", looking at the talk page out of curiosity, and then some historical talk pages which have now been vandalised (by the officially sanctioned vandalism process) out of easy view.

You have been completely correct every step of the way, and this KoA creature is an obsessive who accuses you of that which he is guilty. For instance he complained that you replied to what he seemed to consider too many people in a voting process, but you can go and see that he has replied to multiple votes to "correct" them (with wrong facts). I learned of the existence of the WP:SNOW page via our friend KoA haunting the replies to votes in the various move requests, and the very first line of that policy page describes his behaviour over the months he has been guarding the Corn page like a troll under a bridge: pointy and bureaucratic.

I've been adjacent to this whole drama for about half an hour; I have no stake in it, and I'll likely forget I posted this in another half hour. So there's an uninvolved editor's opinion for you - KoA is a troll, he likes to use bureaucratic jargon to describe your behaviour which, when I click his links, better describes his.

There's no ambiguity here, corn is literally called corn by everyone and the need to disambiguate between varieties of corn exists only in the ivory towers where intellectual mediocrities far too impressed with their degree-mill PhDs (such as KoA) might find themselves discussing whether barley is tEcHNiCAlLy also sometimes called a corn. That it's only by themselves, in those same ivory towers, is beside the point (to people so out of touch).

For what it's worth, I suspect what we've got in KoA is someone who likes "land acknowledgements" and related modern day political shibboleths, who sees as a mitzvah forcing the website to snootily correct anyone who uses the normal name of the product being searched to the aboriginal one. The idea that historically it was relatively common to speak of "rye corn" is nothing but the least bad politically neutral justification KoA and those on his side of this non-consensus-based move from "Corn" to "Maize" could come up with.

I realise neither of us can do anything about full-time editors who like to dominate users with less clout in aid of protecting a pet page, such as KoA in now-hidden talk pages but I thought you'd enjoy the support of another sane person, since you asked for a neutral party. 51.191.51.21 (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)