Just look at the category... just once!

Except when they make them a Meta.

 

Metas, like any other editors, are subject to removal.

 

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

George Orwell

Is this the reason that some Meta and editors are never removed, no matter how much they are exposed?

 

I get strong feelings of deja vu reading your posts. Do you recycle them or use a template or something?

The ODP is very good at detecting abusive editors and when they are detected they are removed. It is almost impossible for an "exposed" abusive editor to remain. The ODP may have its inefficiencies but this is not one of them.

 

So what has happend to phon....... or Jez....?

I get a deja vu feelings too when I am looking at abuse of directory by editors, day after day after day.....

 

So gworld what do you do about it?

 

The only thing that is possible, trying to force the change by exposing the problems and through the public pressure.

 

Cut the crap gworld. Your sole aim is to discredit the ODP by whatever means possible. If there was any evidence of these wrong doing by these high level editors present it via appropriate channels rather than whining about it here.

IF cheating admin, meta or editall exist (and there is actual evidence rather than innuendo) they would be removed. If there were a system where high level abusers were being tolerated then that would be entirely unacceptable and the great number of editors (including myself) would do anything to fix it. Do do you really think that many would waste time protecting a bunch of crooks. These conspiracy theories that you a so fond of would require the complicity of several hundred people. They do not stack up.

 

From Apr. 2005: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=152616&postcount=104

From Nov. 2005: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=433544&postcount=121

From Feb. 2006: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=621336&postcount=1004

With so many editors in this forum, are you going to claim that DMOZ is not aware of this?

Would you like to explain what have you done to fix the situation and if anything has happened regarding these abuses?

 

You're either quite naive or just blinded by the light, neb.

Why do you think "whistle-blower" legislation is needed?

 

Gworld, Firstly I am not going to discuss an allegation against a current editor with you.

Secondly you make portentous claims of systemic abuse by high level abusers and in proof you offer up an editor who has access to 0.025% of the directory. Pathetic.

 

You DO NOT need to discuss it, you need TO DO something.

I think the evidence is quite clear and the lack of action by DMOZ just proves that your previous postings about abuse not being tolerated, is just bunch of BS.

You can also read my other postings Fun with DMOZ I and II.

The second part of your posting is quite funny too. First, you post that abuse is not tolerated and when I offer evidence, your excuse is, that editor doesn't have that much of access to directory. I bet your next defense will be that corruption is norm and accepted practice in adult and doesn't count as abuse.

 

What difference does it make what sections of the directory the editor can access? Are you saying because the meta only edits in Adult that it's not a problem?

 

I don't know if DMOZ is aware of these claims, have you filed a detailed abuse report or contacted an admin with the details? If not, then my guess would be that they aren't aware of it.

Of course many of the editors who participate in this forum are aware of your claims but they are vague and so far you refuse to provide any real evidence to back it up. I'm certainly open to taking your evidence to the admins and seeing it through but you won't pass it on to me. Even private discussions with you are vague, you say the evidence is there and you urge me to search for it but when the conversation turns to any details necessary to look further or take any action, you share nothing. So, I'm left thinking that either there is no evidence or that you are protecting the corruption (or part of the corruption) that you say exists for reasons that would only be known to you.

I'm sorry, but those are the only two possibilities I can see. I'd be very interested in seeing details of real evidence if it exists, but I'm not interested in reviving previous threads that go on endlessly with the tired old vagueness. I'll work with you if you get serious and have real evidence to share, otherwise it's hard to take you seriously on this subject.

 

I think what gworld has said about the meta in Adult has been quite clear and quite specific. And his comments about her were made several months ago now and the meta is still there, isn't she?

That makes the standard recommendation of "report it and DMOZ will fix it" somewhat weak.

 

I admit I sometimes forget things, but I don't recall him ever making any specific comments about the meta (J), only the other editor. Also, I don't recall gworld ever saying he filed a detailed abuse report.

If I'm wrong I'd love for him to show me what he has.

 

Why keep repeating that? We talked about this issue previously. I wouldn't waste my time filing abuse reports to DMOZ either because I doubt that anything would come of it.

Search through his posts on the subject of pornography and Adult deeplinking - it shouldn't be too difficult to locate the details.

 

June 27th, 2006

MARCH 20th, 2006

What happened to the editor and listings that you thought were shocking? Do I really need to say anything more about abuse reporting subject?

 

He's an editor, he knows he should file a report and see what comes of it before saying there's no point. He also has the option of giving me (or someone he trusts) the details and if he does I guarantee they won't be ignored. He chooses not to share details.

I have searched extensively and I've chatted with him one on one, the details are not there, just generalizations. If he has specific details about specific editors they are his secret.

 

See gworld's post above yours.