It’s common that strong negative judgments have reach or generality. They often involve believing someone is irrational, is using bad methods, is bad at logic, has poor reading comprehension, or something else that would apply to other topics. I was trying to find out what your major criticism was, that led to disrespect, not asking about your psychology. The hostility of your new post is consistent with there being a broad problem that could ruin discussions on any topic.
In your first link, anonymous44 argues with you about what a Wikipedia article says using quotes from it. Based on their textual analysis, they conclude you’re wrong and biased. That isn’t analyzing the inner workings of your mind or psychologizing. That kind of post can be replied to by debating the article text without discussing your psychology.
In your second link, I read your “Please enlighten me!” as snark. I cited a public source and thought it was snark in general (my judgment wasn’t related to you personally). The meaning and usage of English statements is open to interpretation and debate. Those issues aren’t about the details of your psychology. My post could be replied to by talking impersonally about word meanings or analyzing example usages from books and the internet. Instead, you asserted that it wasn’t snark, then I said that assertions weren’t arguments. Instead of e.g. engaging in impersonal debate about what those words mean in general, you (not me) steered the conversation to issues like your memory, intentions and psychology. I refused to be drawn into discussing those things.
At both links, the focus (by other people besides you) was on analyzing words and their meanings, as well as more broadly using logic, arguments and reasoning to have an explicit debate. The focus wasn’t on psychology or personal characteristics.
Sometimes people say a post or poster is (for example) biased, hostile, snarky, confused or dishonest. People often do this when something is shared online with the author omitted (so they don’t know any personal information about the author; they just see the text of one post). Judgments like “biased” are related to psychology but usually don’t involve detailed psychological analysis of personal or individual characteristics. These judgments typically come from analysis of words, facts, arguments, behavior and logic, not from pseudoscientific fortune-telling about the secret depths of anyone’s subconscious.
The context in this topic was that I didn’t respond to @lmf and he asked why. He wanted discussion, but I didn’t want to have another discussion with a person who doesn’t respect me and withholds criticism of my ideas. I’m responding here because of personal attacks combined with inaccurate statements about my posts and goals. @lmf, if you want me to reply to you, next time you should provide immediate value to me (not potential value later in the conversation), such as sharing useful criticism of my philosophy ideas (instead of seeking other discussion first and maybe saying criticism later). I’ve been trying for years to have impersonal debates about topics like epistemology or Silent Spring. I’d prefer that over discussing psychology or meta discussion.