Well, you broke a written rule. I can not understand why you deliberately did so.
In contrary, some policies are only fineprinted and hard to find, or completely unwritten.
TL;DR for the following text: If you wish to be unblocked, do not criticize anything about Wikipedia. Many (which does not imply all) administrators are sadly not good at handling criticism. Also see .
An example of such is that, sadly, valid criticism of Wikipedia itself is effectively illegal on Wikipedia. And some administrators, stink at handling criticism (but I guess not all).
One example is Bbb23, a hyper-deletionist who often liked to play god on Wikipedia while he had access to the CheckUser tool. Recently, he went on a rampage (revenge trip) on the Internet against who had the guts to criticize him by vandalizing their work. In other words, Bbb23 fired shrill barks rather than having civil discourse. It appears that he derives pleasure from screwing productive editors.
Bbb23 behaviourally resembled a narcissistic cyber bully with god complexes, but in real life, he must be a low-testosterone wimp. He never had the courage to discuss criticism of him eye to eye, but rather used his tools to stalk down anyone who criticized him. I guess Bbb23 still needs a few years for maturation.
I prevented using the term censor, because this term makes one appear ill-intended on Wikipedia due to an popular essay written by the long-term administrator Antandrus, at .
When someone complains loudly about censorship, you may be certain they are up to no good.
But the points 8 and 41 in his essay are fully agreeable upon.
If you have a problem with someone, work it out in the open.
Anonymity to cowardice is like viagra to impotence.
Both accurately describe triple-B twenty-three, a dangerous vandal who has done more (by definition) damage than dozens of vandals combined.
Some rules such as WP:G5 and WP:BANREVERT, both at odds with Wikipedia's proclaimed goals because enabling deletion of quality content that matters to readers, are said to exist to discourage block evasion, but their actual purpose is the unconditional suppression of legitimate criticism. Anything else, including the sacrifice of quality content, is just a side effect.
Also, it could be weaponized by ill-intended individuals against content they want removed from Wikipedia.
If one criticizes anything about Wikipedia, such as ruthless WP:G13 deletions of orphaned quality content solely because of being unedited since longer than six months, they will eventually find a way to get rid of one. Each critique is one more nail in the coffin.
Oh yeah, Bbb23 already lost his CheckUser privileges on Wikipedia.
(post is archived)