We must start reading the rules of the online places we visit, as a start, and obeying them. If we don't agree with the rules, don't like "codes of conduct"? Fine, we do not participate there at all.

It's their house and we abide by their rules.

If we break a rule and it's pointed out, then we apologise and goto 10: read and follow the rules. We do not throw tantrums, we do not cry "censorship! suppression!".

We act in good faith: if we post a thread, open an issue, submit a PR, and it is closed, then we do not simply repeat our action. Whether we agree with the closure or not, repeating is an attempt at evasion and a smack in the face of those running the place. Either of these two behaviours then invite us to be banned, because we have acted in bad faith.

We do not immediately and vocally assume that an act we don't like is a personal attack against ourselves or our values. If our post is "hidden by the community", this does does not mean "the leadership of the project is orchestrating an agenda against us". It means our peers have found our conduct distasteful and is a very loud alarm that we must heed: that we have behaved outside of the expected conduct and our peers found it distasteful, unhelpful, insulting. If a web site algorithm has prevented us from posting a link, an image because our account is new or it has triggered anti-spam measures, we do not post elsewhere about how we're being persecuted.

We invite like-minded people to join the discussion when they have innovative ideas, when they can add material to a discussion that has not yet been supplied, an angle that has not been addressed, or a concept that has been misunderstood. We never ping our friends to jump on our bandwagon, shouting the same things over and over again. Perhaps if a concern is dismissed as an outside, then more voices can be constructive, but they must conduct themselves with civility and be particularly aware that they need to add to the discussion, not to add pressure.

If a counterpoint is given to something we passionately believe in, then to discuss is to use logic and data to refute it. In the ideal, we ask ourselves to fight for this counterpoint: perhaps it is entirely valid? What we must refrain from is reading a fair and polite counterpoint and immediately treating it as an attack, a dismissal. This prompts a counter-attack and we are no longer discussing - we are now detracting from the point. When we make our issue or improvement a negative it reflects back upon us. Who wishes to discuss with a party that cannot cope with rational disagreement? In addition, we must resist the urge to simply exaggerate our cause: to state an incorrect point more loudly does not make it correct, it just antagonises those who disagree. Those who we are trying to see our reasons, our solutions, or problems.

Once we have broken the rules, assumed and publicised bad faith, breached expected conduct, ignored the ire of our peers, evaded bans, repeated actions which were turned down, called on our friends to flame and troll, replied to constructive criticism with louder voices, manipulated the conversation with hyperbole and outright refused to listen to the possibility we may be wrong...then we hold a beacon above our heads, advertising that we are incapable of joining a rational debate and seek not to improve anything but only be told we are right and righteous.

I say this not to you, but to answer your question: if anyone reads what has transpired in this matter, and then asks your question, they need to very deeply analyse their behaviour because it is unacceptable in any civilised society.