Oh god, yes. Yes yes yes.
Like... on one hand I kinda get what the general advice is about; it is easy to get wrapped up in your own details to the point where it gets in the way of the story you're trying to tell, or at the very least it may feel that way to the audience you're trying to rake in. But as you said, different people have different creative processes, and I too end up very much taking a bottom-up approach where I'll develop a reasonably fleshed out idea of the setting I want before I've actually written a single plot point; for me this creates an ever expanding repository of creative ideas I can put to use as needed, even if much ends up never being told at all, or only vaguely implied.
Sometimes the worldbuilding is the entire point! Sometimes, a lot of it is needed behind the scenes just to get things to come together in a believable manner; and sometimes, the amount of worldbuilding done and put on display is perfectly in line with the author's intent, but the real problem lies in the type of media chosen. You rarely see this come up with things like video games, visual novels, hell, even wikis as opposed to movies or literature, for a large part because one allows the audience to manage their own attention curves while for the other, the author has to do that all by themselves.
But then I guess it's also important to remember that no matter what you do, you're not going to please everyone, and sometimes people will simply complain because they're not part of the target audience.
They aren't connected per se, but they touch on the idea.
I've never heard this discourse, and that may just be who I hang with. I always took this discussion from a slightly different angle, centered on the phrase "The silmerilion wasn't meant to be a published novel." The world building was never wrong to do, but part of writing was knowing what to include, and not every world needs a DnD sourcebook of rules. Also I feel like I've seen it mostly in response to works that critique fantasy stories for things like "inconsistent" magic systems (when magic is serving as some kind of metaphor). It's interesting to hear there's been similar discussion but parsed from a different direction.
There's also a channel on YouTube called Quinns Quest that was started recently. The first two main videos touch on the "right" and "wrong" kind of lore for tabletop rpgs. I suspect the wording of right and wrong bristles some people, but it does a good job illustrating the difference between world building that advances the experience for players and the world building that doesn't.
Lastly I think about the nature of provocative wording a lot. Obviously calling an activity a disease is going to bristle at something. I feel like there's probably a point to be made about two kinds of provocation. Exaggeration is a useful tool to illustrate a point. When I jad to do some editing of new writers for a job, I told them to eliminate every word that used "ly." There's words in this paragraph that use them. There's adverbs in each paragraph so far. Telling people to reduce adverbs just made them not examine the writing. They'd presume they'd cut back. Exaggerating the idea led to thoughtful examination. Calling something a disease makes it feel closer to a personal attack, though. Someone smarter could probably define the distinction in a concrete manner rather than vibes based. Like using disease feels out of bounds on its face, but there's going to be a murky line and I'll bet we'll intentioned people cross it without realizing.
But yeah, don't call something people like doing a disease.