`   Dear Sue,  thank you very much for your clear change of position. I also appreciated your highlighting of the “overwhelming opposition to the feature” as well as the fact you had even earlier begun to learn from the grave mistakes of your superiors (i.e. of the WMF board) and, partially, yourself.  Concerning the issues at stakes, I am, however, not completely sure your superiors and, partially, you, have already a sufficient grasp - or at least just not yet expressed so. Let me try to elucidate a few crucial points you might wish to comment, or at least reflect upon, addressed, especially after your new repositioning, mainly at your superiors and only, as in this thread’s context seemingly still pertinent, to yourself ‘by proxy’. Naturally and furthermore, I stand to eventually be corrected.  1. First, the whole task and initiating of the Harris-so-called-“report“ was ridiculous at best. Instead of applying reliable research methods, personal opinions of two mostly unknown und inexperienced – especially in terms of how Wikipedia-Communities worldwide operate - contributors were chosen to deliver the basis for WMF decisions. While there was initial mention to study differences among local communities, this crucial demand was neglected.  2. Following the “report“, there was no or almost no attempt to discuss the massively opinionated and uninformed findings of this “report” with local communities outside meta and english Wikipedia. This step was even more mistaken.  3. A so-called “referendum“ was hold, already presupposing a pending installation of some kind of image filter, leaving, seemingly following board directives, out the question as to if a filtering mechanism would be wanted at all. Most unprofessional was the way the votes were collected by biased questions, (co)formulated by two board members. Hence, the results were and are of no use for further procedure regarding the decision for or against global image filtering at all.  4. Next, WMF Board members – the most outstanding example being Ting – declared that filtering mechanisms would be implemented worldwide with no adaption. How exactly that was decided is still quite obscure. Even more, the way of communicating this ridiculous idea – which is in opposition to the role of WMF at large (see 6) and to the binding decisions of local communities (7) – was faulty and offending in a way hardly even describable. Instead of holding to obviously uninformed, unsensible and disruptive resolutions as well as patronizing ways of communication, the WMF board should have begun to openly discuss the mistakes of its judgments and forms of communication much earlier. Examples of totally unacceptable ways of communication have been highlighted as early as May 2010. I thus find it hardly helpful nor appropriate when you generalize that “Everybody at the Wikimedia Foundation has been doing their best to engage honestly and openly and constructively”. In fact, if that’s people’s best, WMF should talk about their board’s staff before anything else.  5. To date, WMF has not even established there were any problem at all that would have had to be fixed. There were a few individuals who voiced their opinions - Jimbo Wales, for a start, reacting to uninformed outcries from certain US media and misusing some of his privileges, which he partially lost as a result, damaging quite a lot of good faith in the process -, but such voices can impossibly be taken as informed judgments to justify global adjustments. The same holds for certain preferences of local communities as in the arabic- and hebrew-speaking communities. If WMF wants to provide those communities with technical means for filtering anything, that’s WMF’s decision and seemingly fine by most, but it has not the least thing to do with any other communities.  6. WMF does not have the function to define such policies. Declarations of the opposite, as made in part by you, especially your reference to a fictive task of “advising” communities (in controversial content matters, as is the case with deciding whether to provide image filtering mechanisms at all), are illinformed and of massive provocative effect. WMF’s  task is “to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally”. WMF is “but one entity within the broad Wikimedia movement”. WMF especially has no right to enforce controversial content matters. In controversial content matters where local consensus is – as in this case – evidently in opposition to WMF views, WMF just has to “step[ ] out of the way of volunteers who play a myriad of other roles”. The persisting (as there has been no rectifying resolution nor official apology of WMF’s board yet) behavior of WMF, especially its ignorance of clear and consensual protest against measures WMF is (or, hopefully, in this case was) trying to impose which already contradict the function of WMF itself, has already caused massive frustration and dissolution among many of the most active editors, especially in the second-largest community of wikipedians worldwide. WMF’s goal should be to help to increase participation, not to obstruct it. I take it that you now acknowledge this general idea. At least, you write that “the Wikimedia Foundation is not going to impose something on the German Wikipedia, against the will of the German community. Doing that would be foolish. You and people like yourself create the projects. The Wikimedia Foundation respects and values your work. If you signal to us that you vehemently oppose something that we're doing, then we need to stop and rethink. That's what we're doing… The Wikimedia Foundation will work in partnership with the Wikimedia community, engaging in discussion, until we figure out a solution that makes sense to everyone. That is what the Board has asked me to do – to work in partnership with you.” Thank your for this change of attitude. Be assured that we will hold you to your word.  7. Global communities have the function to define policies regarding, among other things, content matters. In fact, they did. There was a consensus („Meinungsbild“, shortly: MB) in the german (i.e. short for german-speaking) wikipedia, agreeing to 86% that we do not want any image filtering. (You are, I hope, informed of similar positions within, e.g., the french community?) This MB is binding for all users of the german wikipedia, including Administrators, Arbitration Committee Members, and so on. It will be the basis for resolving any conflicts that might arise. It take it that any further board discussion will keep this in mind.  8. In reaction to the as yet only partially resolved issues with WMF (board) misinterpreting the role of WMF (see 6), the function of wikipedia at large (see 6-7), ignoring local consensus (see 5,7) and being unable to find acceptable ways of communication (see 2-6), several of the most active editors of the german wikipedia community are discussing to fork and are discussing and already realizing several ways of bringing the issue to considerable public attention. The results of such uproar, especially should it increase, which propably it will, shouldn't things be fixed by the start of the annual fundraiser, could be most severe – both for the future of german wikipedia as it was, as for the public opinion about WMF and wikipedia in general, as for the financing of WMF projects and also for the individuals responsible, esp. among board members. The words by you have been quite helpful, but a clear statement of change of plans and of apology of your superiors is still exigently expected. I severely doubt there might be any considerably calming down of the current uproar before that.  9. You acknowledge that “we have been clumsy in a variety of ways, and we have made mistakes”. Thank you for that. You also, as was unanimously appreciated, pointed out several of your own mistakes in communication. In a blog post not long ago, you formulated “Those community members who are acting like provocateurs and agitators need to stop.“ I ask you to also make clear to your superiors that they have to stop acting like provocateurs, destroying quite a lot of good faith and massively obstructing motivated participation “within the broad Wikimedia movement”. It has became clear now that your attitude has become much more in line with what this movement expects of you, but your superiors have not even publicly acknowledged their grave mistakes. The WMF board should declare that not only will it never, ever “impose something” on any functioning local community, “against the will” of this community (while calling such imposition “advise” was totally of the track); that the whole decision making process was m