I could have declined to even look at Rubylane stores, yes. But I think it's a testament to how fair and impartial I was across the board, that I didn't want to leave these sites languishing in queues for years, in order to enforce my own beliefs regarding the deeplinking. That's exactly the sort of thing that might have given me a dodgy editing record, so I would never have done it. I was fanatic about treating every submission fairly. I never let sites rot in the queue, with all the categories I had, submissions were processed daily, and when I was removed, all my submission queues were at zero. So no - I wouldn't have fooled around picking and choosing who gets edited, and who doesn't. Had I done this, I would fully understand why they chose to remove me, and I wouldn't be here arguing. While I was by far the most vocal opponent in the forum of my distate for deeplinking Rubylane, I did in fact obediently deeplink Rubylane, holding my nose, because that's what they wanted. But I was the most vocal one. That's why they wanted to be rid of me. Maybe as an example to the others, that dissent is not tolerated. As I know that my actions were beyond reproach, there is only one conclusion I can draw. Those that removed me are corrupt. Because I sure wasn't. And the timing of the meta-editor's visits to my websites corresponded with metas butting in the Rubylane thread with one-liners meant to show they only needed to throw their weight around to induce submission, rather than make cogent arguments. They never visited my sites before. I was removed HOURS following these visits. What are my websites? Very innocent craft and web graphic sites, all with really cool unique content, and fresh ideas - nothing sinister.
So they fire someone like helleborine... and they keep who again? <edit> I don't mean that to imply that theren't are no good people who are DMOZ editors. I fully respect some of them, notably a few who post here. The comment was more about vocal obnoxious minority (?) who champion the Resourceless Zone approach to public relations. My apologies to the rest of you. </edit>
Agreed, I've used your websites. You are a very talented artist and designer. Thank you for making your stained glass patterns available, they are wonderful!
But as you can see helleborine, 'the others' are not remotely worried. The reason for that is that people disagree with each other constantly in the forums. They don't get removed. Some of us posting here have been far more vocal over the years than you were on Rubylane. Good golly yes! I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm simply groping around for an explanation that makes more sense. Someone could have wondered why you were het up over Rubylane, looked at your record and thought that they saw something off-key. I don't say they were right.
Welcome to the real world. The only people who can still believe that DMOZ corruption and abuse is not systematic and protected by the power structure in DMOZ, are the people who live in some kind of magical fantasy world.
Not at all. The practices have been known about and accepted by AOL. I wouldn't think any Admin had a say in the matter. With the greatest of respect helleborine there are others who have been far more vocal over far more contentious issues and have lived to fight another day. Your contribution of 11000 edits would have been far too valuable to lose you over something so trivial in the great scheme of things. Dissent is not welcome but it is tolerated because an ejection on those grounds would never get unanimity of metas (required for a removal). If it had been for uncivil behaviour in a forum you would have got a warning first, that much would have been insisted on. In addition, a removal of your nature got a lot of editors very experienced in sniffing around editing logs very interested and if there had been a rubylane connection, sniffing around logs relating to all those too. That is the last thing any meta with a hidden agenda would want to happen - it would be the fastest possible way to get outed. There is something else there, which is where the Wiki discipline processes are so much better, as it would give an opportunity for you to address whatever evidence they have got or think they have got. It would also clear up genuine mistakes and prevent the kinds of assumptions you've made about their integrity too. Win, win.
Are you seriously saying that a corporation with the size of AOL is involved in illegal and underground porn sites and is trying to earn money by affiliation account for these porn sites? While I can see the full possibility of some staff being involved in these kind of activity (employees can be corrupt), I can see zero possibility that AOL knowingly support the involvement of minors in porn or other underground porns.
I was referring to the listing practices relating to porn galleries as practiced by the meta editor you keep accusing of abuse. I am not sure how you managed to twist it into the version quoted but that isn't what I said, is it. If you want to make such allegations then be my guest but don't involve me in it.
You are the one who made the allegation against AOL and claimed that they are the one behind these practices and not "senior" editors and possibly some staff. I do not believe that AOL as corporation is aware of the situation in DMOZ and this is a case of some individuals running wild because DMOZ has got lost in AOL structure and they are not paying any attention.
What drugs are you on? I made no allegations or claims that AOL in any way condones the listing of child porn etc. The guidelines do not allow for the listing of sites with models under 18 so any editor doing that is acting outside AOL approved policies. But that wasn't the allegation you were making against a meta editor and which I was responding to. You were referring to that meta having multiple sites listed in accordance with rather unique deeplinking practices - of course AOL knows about that, the background has been there and those allegations have been running since long before Admin editors took over and when AOL ran the show itself.
Good grief! I ask a small question, go to have a few beers (for a couple of days ) and I come back to this? So it's all about porn again? Can't you guys stay on topic? Or is that the crux of it all - PORN!! I suppose that could be the ultimate reason for most of the trolls here. Seems a shame that most threads turn into a discussion about porn sites and guidelines, determined by those who spend the most time here. If you don't have anything to contribute to the original question, then please don't.
The original question was why people are concerned about DMOZ, the answer is that most decent people do not like corruption and abuse which is rampant in DMOZ and would like to correct the situation. I understand that this simple motive is not very logical for those that appreciate the abuse and corruption and benefit from it. It is as much part of human nature to fight the corruption as it is to engage in abusive behavior.
Maybe so gworld, but your focus seems to always be on porn sites which seems to give evidence that is where all your interest resides. Not in the overall quality of the ODP. It doesn’t really come across that you are interested in pointing out corruption as much as it is promoting your interests. I could be wrong but that's what it looks like every time you turn a thread into porn propaganda machine, reducing your credibility.
When I started to fight the corruption in DMOZ, the usual claim from DMOZ side was that I can not become editor or get my sites listed and that is the reason, I am fighting the abusive editors. In the end, I revealed that I am an editor myself, if it was about my interests, wouldn't be easier just to keep quite and list my own sites or accept the bribe of listing my sites that I was offered many times? How is insisting that DMOZ should only list legal sites that at least try not to involve the minors in porn is a propaganda for porn? How is insisting that DMOZ should clean up it's act and not list the worst kind of illegal porn such as bestiality or rape that even normal porn sites don't get involved with a propaganda for porn? Have you ever though about that the same group that benefits from these kind of porn, now is moving to pharmacy and gambling sites? You can not tolerate corruption and hope that it will stay the same, either you have to destroy it, or it will grow so big that it destroys you. Why people are leaving? Why new editors are not joining? Why the number of listings are declining? All these problems are direct result of the needs of a small group that must conserve the power structure that permits abuse.
Well you should know then that would depend on where you can edit and what categories you could effect. I don't know where you edit or if you're even able to list your site where you want it to be or able to negate some the dilution in the category your site is in or should be in. In any case, until you stop turning multiple threads into "yeah but what about this porn corruption over here?" you have very little credibility to persuade opinion and instigate action in a constructive manner. Keep it to a particular thread, bring it up as much you want, but keep it to that thread. That's all.
You asked, why people care and I gave you the reason that people don't like the corruption. If you don't like the answer or prefer that people keep quite about what is happening in DMOZ and just forget about the corruption then I can't help it. I think judging by the amount PM and email that I get from present and previous DMOZ editors, including editors with higher editing rights, I have much much more credibility than present DMOZ management.
helleborine - I can assuer you, if you were removed for what you said in that rubylane thread, then ish, brizzie (before he resigned), and I would have been removed looooooong ago (not to mention countless other editors). This is only speculation (and is not an accusation in any way), but after seeing many removals go down this way, I can guess what probably happened. When an editor "stirs up trouble" they draw attention to themselves and often times other editors will start looking through their edit logs to see what this person is about. My guess would be that you drew attention to yourself and someone found something in your edit logs that shouldn't have been there. I don't think anyone is claiming that your supposed abuse had anything at all to do with rubylane stores. Most likely that was just the trigger that set people to looking at your edit logs and found something else. As I said earlier though, you're the only editor that I have had doubts about the removal of. You seemed like a very nice and honest person to me and I always enjoyed editing with you.
If helleborine was removed for any reason that doesn't hold up to impartial scrutiny, then that is obviously a bad thing. I didn't feel I needed to point that out. But perhaps it's worth stating the obvious here. Just to be quite clear that editors in general don't like the idea of other editors being removed improperly. We are against it. Are you surprised? My personal feeling is that it seldom happens. But we should expect the occasional human error. It may be more fun to look for conspiracies and nefarious goings-on, but error tends to account for a whole lot more problems in any system than either of the former.
In another word, editors should shut up and mind their own business or Admins and Metas WILL find an excuse to get rid of them. As part of DMOZ management policy, inconvenient editors who make too much problem for Metas and admins will be removed by Metas, upon deciding to commit an occasional human error and remove the editor.