The departure of Andreas Kolbe (HRIP7/Jayen466) from Wikipediocracy’s admin corps seems to have signaled a sea change in Wikipediocracy’s treatment (or perhaps mistreatment) of women. Not surprisingly, it was long-time misogynist and creep Tim Davenport who lead the charge against safe spaces. Davenport, aka Randy from Boise, aka Carrite, was last seen around women’s projects when he was ejected from the gender gap mailing list after making snide remarks about safe space policies there. But Davenport is no longer alone; at Wikipediocracy he has backup from such stanch moral allies as Eric Corbett, who opined about a photo, “At least they’ve got the gender balance right there though, two women and one man. Even better if they’d managed to get rid of the man I suppose.” Because, you know, expecting men not to make rape threats and death threats is just the same as getting rid of them altogether.
So what else is Davenport up to these days? Oh, a little paid editing, from Upwork, formerly oDesk, the same outfit that Sarah Striech was working with when she got such grief from the WMF over it. So how do men like Tim Davenport and Morning 277 of Wiki-PR openly do paid editing when women can’t get away with it? I’ll leave that as an exercise in deduction for the reader.
Note (October 2021): Don’t forget to check the other posts in the Carrite/Genderdesk saga, which includes such classics as poetry critique, valentines, the potty-mouth list, wagers paid off to animal shelters, the Ramadan reconciliation, and Carrite’s subsequent endorsement of my Evil Twin for Reddit moderator. The search bar is right under the comment section. https://genderdesk.wordpress.com/?s=carrite
Gender Desk 
Tim/Randy doesn’t represent all of Wikipediocracy membership. There is a spirited discussion going on, and many believe that WPO is a place where women can confront these issues in active discussion, and in a way they cannot on Wikipedia. I don’t like what he has to say, but (within the limits of the site’s terms of service, and of common decency), he has a right to say it. You have a right of reply — I hope you use it.
Well, your comment about a bill of rights was on target, but I’m with the observation that Wikipediocracy is even worse than Wikipedia. And with people like Cla68 in decision-making positions…*shrug*
BTW, if a “perfect victim” is one that doesn’t fight back, it looks like LIghtbreather is about as imperfect as they come. Her old avatar–the broken arm she displayed during the arbcom case–is gone, replaced by a sort of, um, trophy.
Oh, and if you didn’t get Lightbreather’s testosterone reference, try “testosterone poisoning“.
I think there are some decent men on Wikipediocracy and at least a couple of site administrators (like Greybeard and Zoloft) who try to enforce the forum’s Terms of Service. However, there is a band, mostly if not all men, who regularly post “material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane” and so on that is not moderated. It’s too bad because, like Wikipedia, the site’s mission is a good one and its service could be improved by a more diverse group of participants.
One of the most enabling of the bunch, and a founder of the site, too, I believe, is “Thekohser”, whose contempt for Jimmy Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation is so obsessive that he will write a “hit piece” like he did here a few hours ago and not see the damage he does to the credibility of his own Wikipedia-criticism group.
I’m going to have to disagree with your assessment of “administrators like Greybeard and Zoloft”.
Greybeard does not appear to be very active, and at one point even asked for comment from a member who turned out to be banned. How can an admin possibly not know who is banned?
And it is Zoloft, in fact, who seems to be responsible for day to day operations, in other words, for enforcing the house POV. In fact, it seems to have been Zoloft who resurrected the hit piece about Fluffernutter and Ironholds. And why? Neither one of them could possibly occupy a lower position in the WMF food chain. Where are the other threads about specific WMF employees? Ironholds’ claim to notoriety was that he once said something unwise on a private thread that was later leaked, something that happened over two years ago and that he has apologized for several times over. And at the time, Fluffernutter defended him as a friend (but not what he did). I would say that takes plenty of courage, and integrity, especially considering the typical WP mentality. When was the last time anyone from Manchester admitted anything they did was inappropriate? But Fluffernutter and Ironholds have both defended safe space policies, so now it’s open season on the insinuations and character assassination and unveiled references to criminal activity, not to mention mocking their user names and posting videos that snidely hint at unnamed sexual perversions. No, it’s a much more disgusting snake pit than Wikipedia, and Zoloft is perched smack dab in the center of that particular slither-verse.
Not sure how dense the author of this hit piece is, but I will point out that one difference between Mike Wood / Tim Davenport in paid editing, versus Sarah Stierch (you might want to check your spelling), is the blunt and obvious fact that Stierch was in the paid employ of the Wikimedia Foundation as she was paid editing. Neither Wood nor Davenport have ever been employed by the WMF. It’s like saying if I bet $1,000 on a Detroit Tigers game, and Brad Ausmus bet $2,000 on a Detroit Tigers game, and he got fired from his job for doing so, but I kept my job, that someone that is “Antisemitism” rearing its ugly head against Ausmus.
Anyway, why am I describing this to some nameless author who thinks Davenport is a “long-time misogynist and creep”? When I die, one thing I won’t miss will be all the nitwits on the Internet.
Mike Wood? Who is that? Also, a Major League Baseball (U.S.) analogy – tied into anti-Semitism? Way to reach out to as wide an audience as possible.
Who is Mike Wood? Good question.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3f726eba-bb6f-11e4-b95c-00144feab7de.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fmanagement%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct#axzz3qf7ClMEQ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Morning277
And did Kohs just *like* his own comment? Sheesh.
O hai, Greg (do you mind if I call you Greg?)
For starters, you can assume I am dense enough not to grasp any footfall analogies.
Okay, fine, one of the names here might be spelled wrong, but some people subscribe to these posts by email, so I judge it less annoying to have something misspelled than to spam peoples’ emails with updates every time there is some typo.
Now, I understand you do paid editing, it’s your thing, so to speak, so I will not pretend to know as much as you do about COI, and socking, and all of that. But I have looked at the instructions for the approved way to edit with a COI, and quite frankly, it looks impossible. I doubt if I could manage it myself. So what I would probably do is hang out a shingle, say I was available for strictly proper types of editing, then go ahead and do it in some way that actually works.
Of course there’s no real money to be made editing for pay, so I don’t see any point in it myself. But this Sarah person was talking elsewhere about how her student loan was due, so maybe $200 looked like something. If anything it looks like a rookie mistake, if a mistake it was, since we don’t even know if the WMF has an employee policy, if she signed an agreement, etc. She was open enough about her editing, she certainly wasn’t trying to hide it, as you might expect if someone was knowingly breaking some rule. And not all the wikipedias have COI rules. The German Wikipedia, for example, encourages people from companies to edit their own articles. So unless she reads Wikipediocracy, she might not have even been aware that enwiki frowns on this. And what did she edit for pay? That has never come out. I think you can assume a huge number of people have been all over her edit history, yet no one has been able to point out any biased edits.
Contrast this to a different WMF “employee”, Jimbo himself, who had some sort of financial discrepancy a while back, but no one was ever able to figure out if it was $1,300 or something else. (Hmm, haven’t seen that photo of him before, he looks really hawt). So apparently he was allowed to turn in some receipts, or something and the whole thing was cleared up. But some woman who is just out of school, and just starting her career? Are you kidding? Wikipedia is not going to be gentle with her, or give her a chance to pay anything back that was later deemed improper. No, they are willing to destroy her life, and her career over it. That’s how much women’s lives matter.