Feel free to correct spelling/minor grammar mistakes, thank you.
Das sehe ich als nicht akzeptabel an und möchte nicht weiter meine Zeit diesem Verein zur Verfügung stellen. An einem kompletten Fork (Commons und Wikipedia) wäre ich entsprechend (weil ich unsere Projekte liebe) sehr interessiert. Wenn auch du einen Fork unterstützen würdest und gern mitmachen würdest, dann setze diesen Code irgendwo auf deine Benutzerseite:
<span style="display:none">[[File:Fork! For WMF reasons.png|1x1px]]</span> (natürlich kannst du erklärenden Text hinzufügen; Liste der aktuellen Unterstützer). Wenn du Babelfan bist (aktuell nur für de.wp gebastelt): de:Benutzer:Saibo/Fork-Babel.
A try to write up some background and explanation from my POV:
There were allegations against a user B. which lead to 400 Kilobyte of discussion (only on that page; more on others) but not to a block of user B. See for more discussions the "see also" links on top of that previously linked page. News (at 15:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)) regarding that discussion: section Info based on personal documents vs. the SPTimes artifact and the following section there.
Before the discussions ended WMF decided to globally block ("lock") the account of user B. with the reason "OFFICE action: please contact email@example.com with questions." at 2012-03-16T00:12:09. Jimbo Wales said already at 2012-03-14T21:12:07 (archive link) "If he's still not banned in 3 days time, I'll eat my words".
The user B. has not done major bad things on Commons (the minor stuff like "link spamming" – if one has no AGF – is sorted) and he is a good contributor.
Official reasons why the block was made were not given and are not given even if you write (I wrote about 6 emails already and got replies like that: no reason is provided. The last email was that there will be no further discussion with me) to the mail address mentioned in the block comment ("please contact firstname.lastname@example.org with questions"). WMF offers via that email address that if I have new information I should tell them. That is a bogus offer since they refuse to tell anything about what they already know.
My POV includes required interpretations of WMF's actions since WMF refuses to provide reasons for locking that user account – WMF apparently tries to claim a right to lock any user account without a reason at their will. Unless I know better I need to assume that WMF simply overruled the community (otherwise Jimbo had to "eat his words") – no, I do not trust WMF that they got other, important information than we). WMF got no legitimation from the community for those actions and of course the action is totally in-transparent – no reason given (officially). WMF self chose the way to do an office action while the community still was discussing the issue – WMF's fault if they cannot explain it. Blocking users is not WMF's task. WMF's task is running servers.
An accompanying story as drop-in: "Is it supposed to be a pair of breasts?" Werdna (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)" (full discussion) That is so "facepalm" and typical for WMF people. I had guessed the signature is a smiley face, read what it really is... and is like this for about a year. Why does one see breasts here? Maybe even child's breasts... hmm? My god...
WMF should not behave like short-sighted prostitutes (money from US donors which seem to go crazy for hearing "child porn") without any respect for human rights, like the freedom of the individual, just to please stupid US media and prevent them from titling that WMF supports child pornography.
I already have and will continue to beg for pardon at some friends which were introduced by me to Wikipedia – which was the wrong decision from today's POV. They should not have donated their time to this organization with doubtful (hidden) aims and acting. One of those friends told me: it is always the most stupid people who are staying at last...
If Wikimedia acts that way it does all the mourning about editor loss is just a play with editors being naive about the real aims of Wikimedia – whatever they are.
WMF has not the trust (at least from me) to act like that, partly because WMF messed up too much in the past (for example(!) I like to remind of Jimbo deleting many files here at Commons for wrong reasons). The decision making circles at WMF are neither elected nor controlled/checked by the community. Let me compare it with CUs: those also give reasons (but they at least give a short reason!) which are not checkable by everyone but we have (and need to) always several CUs checking each other and CUs are highly trusted, elected community members.
Apropos "community": account locking without reason or legitimation by WMF is accepted but users who are here not to contribute but to do other stuff are defended and not even warned ("general waste of our time"). Nice community(?). No, thanks. That part of the "community" also supports WMF locking user accounts without reason and WMF imposing policies on us, yeay. A problem are also users simulating a specific opinion inside the community although they are not really part of the community. Probably no one will express disagreement. That way this appears to be the common sense and slowly it gets the common sense. People are tired of thinking and of disagreeing.
Another case: After some external (WR & Co.) input sadly several basic Checkuser principles/policy bits were not respected after another CU had already mentioned that the requested check will not be done, my privacy was violated and the discussion about it repeatedly gets speedily closed, re-openers get threated with blocks (not exercised in the end). Is there something to hide? The Checkuser, whose action was under discussion, did neither comment at the relevant section nor did I receive an excuse nor were all the problems understood and acknowledged. All commenting (also at other places) admins or CUs did deny that there are problems. Nice. The CU in question also denies the privacy violation problem. So, all in all: my privacy was violated and most seem to not care – quite ridiculing the fact and my privacy. I had voted for the involved CU myself some months ago in his election – I would not do again (that does not mean that I do not think that he keeps private data confidential) without a clear statement regarding all the problems which occurred here.
There is no reason to continue to support WMF's ecosystem and with that inherently supporting WMF's wrong morality and decisions. I will not continue to waste my time to a project which is ruled by such principles and all users are just saying "yes, big WMF". WMF has to change or we need to set up a fork. If you want to show support for a fork of our loved projects and would happily join, place this code somewhere on your user page:
<span style="display:none">[[File:Fork! For WMF reasons.png|1x1px]]</span> (of course you may add explaining text; list of supporters).
If you like to discuss, please use the talk page of this page.
Comments at WMF may be addressed to those people: