Of course I'm indef blocked. I pointed out that racism exists in Wikipedia. That is, by defniiton, an "attack" and a "battle.". I pointed out that it can easily be connected to certain editors, including admins who patrol certain articles. That is, by definition, a personal attack. I pointed that admins are abusive and enjoy a double-standard. Again a personal attack! All the listed grounds for blocking here are judgement calls, so there is no contesting them, and hardly an incentive when the subject of my complaint is admins. The lone factual claim is wrong: I was not unblocked as Mindbunny for making any agreements. I made no compromises of any sort.

The fact is Isalmophobia began with a 8 paragraph section undermining the concept of Isalmophobia. Antisemtism has a few scattered sentences criticising the concept. We all know damn well that there is no chance that Antisemitism would ever look like Islamaphobia, and that the systemic resistance to making them EQUAL is substantial. That's "systemic bias," which is a euphemism for prejudice. It doesn't happen invisibly. Certain editors can be tied to it, and we all know some of them. We all know it is self-reinforcing: the bias alienates Muslims, Indonesians, Arabs, and other groups who are demographically non-English-speaking and have significant headwinds in gaining consensus on ideological subjects related to their ethnicity. Those who stick around get pissed, and get blocked, further reinforcing the bias. It makes an encycolpedia into a stupid power game to see whose prejudice will prevail.

This community is plagued by systemic bias, i.e. racism, and it is plagued by a lack of accountability for admins. Communities that want respect from minorities need to give it.