In Freeciv, all human players move concurrently, during the same turn. It was always this way; trying to make this work was the reason for creating it.
AI players were added later. Human and AI players do take turns: AI players never do anything during a turn, they only act at the start and end of a turn. They are a lot easier to implement that way. But the difference has been confusing novice players ever since AI players existed.
You could have looked this up in the manual. My guess is that instead you played a few games on your own, against AI players, then got your big cold shower in the first game where a fellow human player approached you in battle. I'm not sure what you were expecting; you must have been aware that human players were moving concurrently, so why did you expect things to somehow be different in battle? But I think I was just as confused as you about the game mechanics after my first Freeciv games against other humans. It was a pretty rough experience. (And it still is. I never got good at it.)
So your experience isn't exactly unique. And you're not exactly unique in wanting human players to take turns, either. What is unique is your conclusion that Freeciv changed between the games you played against AI and the games you played against humans and dropped being turn-based. It did no such thing. As a matter of fact, it did exactly the opposite: in 2.2, and option was finally added that requires human players to take turns. You could have found that in the manual, too: phasemode.
The problem is that Wikipedia editors require "published" references, which typically means "published on paper" - which is a crazy criterion for software.
Never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by ignorance.
Paradoxically, the ignorance in this case is a result of the opposite: too much knowledge!
Programmers tend to think in code. Many have never had the need to think about the problem they're creating code to solve in any other way than in terms of code. To inexperienced programmers, code may be the *only* way they have encountered to think about software. Consequently, they may have a lot of trouble envisaging other ways to talk about what the software does, how it does it, or why it does it; let alone imagining how such other ways could be useful.
That is tunnel vision, but not necessarily anal retentiveness - it may simply be a result of lack of exposure to situations in which the level of detail that code provides is more of a hindrance than an advantage, such as teaching other people how to use the software.
Interesting, but you are discussing a different issue. The article is about worse kinds of threats than "go fuck yourself" and it is not about workplace behavior.
Are you having fun yet?