DMOZ Scandal of the YEAR

To be f r a n k (1 & 4) I'm really unsure what username has to do with editing at all. It seems that when people must resort to such 'debate tactics' its generally due to a lack of anything more substantial.

I laid out my points as civilly as possible, he ignored most of those points and opted for petty and childish behaviour (such as name calling). It's also sad that he thinks (or even assumes) that I'll try making a new account. It should be obvious that I quit on a matter of principle. If DMOZ suddenly changes I may try again, but certainly not before then.

Though, heh...What do you think the reaction would be if I asked for reinstatement?

 

Only communications I had unless we count my discussion here with brizzie but he was no longer active editor at that time was single warning, too bad I clicked Yes without saving content of that crap so I could post it here, sent reply to that warning and was removed few days later.

First part was about revealing content of the note (NOT identity of the editor for trolls lurking here), okay my fault, been too long on wiki and forgot about paranoid secrecy of useless information, second part was taking parts of the sentences from my posts here and using it to prove self-interests - same tactic they are using to prove Annie is bad - they couldn't find any evidence in my edits so they frame you with whatever they can find.

What are you saying? Of course change is coming it will be renamed Closed Directory Project and they'll start charging people openly $500 per link.

Darn no wonder I got kicked out, I got commies on my websites and they are shown in better light then Nazis and I even got few lines about Holocaust.

And I'm about to add some info on some Tuskegee airman which got shot down over Yugoslavia and got rescued by commies... blacks and commies, I got a feeling my website might get removed very quickly.

 

Same as mine when I naively sent my case to the admin, if your lucky it will be promptly deleted or they'll laugh at it but don't except to get any reply - ever.

 

You weren't uncivil, quite the contrary, Q.

The ODP doesn't tolerate any dissent, no matter how civilized the tone. Your civility wasn't at fault. What was a fault is that you expressed disagreement with some of their pratices. That was a cardinal sin. Had you not quit, they would have shut the door in your face within hours. Regardless of your vowels.

When bldarter who is an admin (amazingly if AOL cares about DMOZ, or by design if it hopes for a quick self-destruction) replies to every one of your posts with "Quit trolling" you know that every single one of your edits goes through a fine tooth comb. One misstep, you're out. No warning, no explanation.

As for your reinstatement... your chances are as good as mine - but trust me it's for your own good.

 

A crowbar post in DMOZ Forum

crowbar answers
Why does the air seem suddenly a lot fresher? Let's open the window again.

And crowbar you a member of this Association ?
The New York State Community Action Association

Pffft. Please could someone take my sandwich away. I am not in the mood to bite it as people are so hypocrites.

Someone who uses a name of Steve Austin must be really a Village People Member.

 

I do apologize, it was 93 degrees yesterday, and I didn't shower till after I quit. I'm sorry ODP...

_________

Though I do wonder if this was another case of ignoring every point I made for a personal attack. Are these people really that unwilling to back up their illustrious establishment? Maybe unable? Is it really that difficult to be civil.

I do hope that by now this thread has been pointed too in their forums, and that the various "innocent" editors that have yet to form a proper opinion have seen such utter trash talking. In fact, I think I'll social book mark this thread in everything I'm a member of. I encourage the same thing for everyone else. Let's get the word out to all the editors that don't bother with the internal forums...let them see just who their colleagues are.

 

I told you previously. He and his sleazeball buddies have been sniffing the stench of the DMOZ cesspool for so long they can no longer tell which way the wind's blowing or where the stench originates.

 

Alright i will quote what she said , you might want to grab ur phone and dial 911 cause when i find out where u live u gonaa get that slap

Lol Minstrel ur improving my vocabulary day by day. Merci.

 

Are you sure DMOZ is not his business? Real-estate sites are one of the more corrupt areas of DMOZ.

 

Its good news for me that editors are resigning as

I can have some of the editors in my directory!

 

I stand corrected.

bldarter came out of the trenches to announce that Annie had received a "dashboard warning."

Since robjones can make up huge lies with pomp and gusto to slander ex-editors in order to prop up the credibility of metas that live in houses with wheels, I don't think doing the same is beneath bldarter. If there was dashboard communication I would bet the farm that it was as ambiguous as the purgatory, and I doubt it was meant to be understood as a warning of impending dismissal.

I am still waiting for the editors to look up my record, see that the only site I cooled wasn't mine and therefore I did not re-cool my website 3 times as charged by robjones, and see that I never removed my competitors. If they do check, they will be satisfied that robjones is an egregious liar, and hopefully will give little credibility to any assertion coming from him, past, present or future.

 

This thread is not about your directory or any other "links factory" directory. You have a whole subforum for that sort of thing - please use it.

 

You are really an optimist.

 

People like bldarter and robjones are pathetic - transparent liars defaming and bullying anyone with principles and values in a sad attempt to defend and protect the "integrity" (sic) of their little after-school old boys club. Attacking Annie was simply the last - and most dusgusting - straw. But in truth it's nothing new for them.

 

That all reminds me to "Le Miserable"

 

1. That's "Les Miserables".

2. What does that have to do with the topic in this thread?

 

New ODP Troll by the name of Nil just registered today and reading post.

 

Ever since I was informed of Annie’s removal and pointed to this thread, I have had a long debate with myself about whether to post. As you can see myself lost the debate. For there was another “dmoz scandal of the year” a few years back that totally compromised the whole of editor removal based on self-interest, self-promotion, or favoritism. Because of the events that took place in that other scandal, there is no longer any justification whatsoever in the removal of any editor---past, present, or future based on these grounds---guilty or not.

At the time of this previous scandal I was an editor totally disgusted by the whole situation and had my mouse over the removal button at least once every day. I only hesitated because other editors who had more inside knowledge of the situation kept persuading me to wait because those editors were putting their editorship on the line to argue the injustice that had been committed against the editing community as a whole. In the end they lost the debate but were convinced that they done all they could do, and the mass walkout never occurred. To my knowledge only one editor who happened to be an administrator had enough principle to resign and never look back. At that time I was not informed of the real reason they lost the debate, but even “I” was guilty of not following my gut instincts to resign then and there. It took another issue to bring me to the point of resignation. However, once I found out the reason behind this evil crime, which was long after I had resigned, I have regretted deeply that I did not resign at that time. The reason gave more ethical cause to resign than the abuse itself. The reason is what compromised editor removal of any sort based on the same grounds.

Because of the status of the guilty editor, he was allowed to do an end-run around the whole editing community to perform the ultimate in editor abuse of all time. Being the “founder” and “original owner” of what is now known as the Open Directory Project, he was in a position to request and be granted special permission from the “current owners” to flood the directory with deep links to his own site for the sole purpose of increasing the value in order to reap huge profits. So because he had “special” permission, in the end his removal was overturned in a matter of days and he was granted full reinstatement to his previous status. The only good that came from this situation was the fact that editors were now allowed to remove these deep links if found to have insufficient relevancy to any given category. The sad truth is that the website itself contained zero, nada, absolutely no “unique content” whatsoever. It is not even a listable site. So now you see where no justification can be found in any editor’s removal for the same crime unless the most evil abuser of all time is removed and all his websites banned from the directory. Corruption begats corruption and when corruption of this magnitude is found at the very top, there is no hope.

I only have one more point to make and that is that Annie very well could have received a dash warning without knowing it was there. I don’t know her method of editing, but I do know that as an editor I seldom logged-in to my dash. An editor can log-in to edit from any category that they have permission to edit. Since I edited mostly in the lower categories, it was much more convenient to have the categories that I frequented bookmarked and go directly to those categories therefore bypassing my dash.

In conclusion I apologize for such a lengthy post. But since my sweetheart is on vacation partying it up with Floosies, I borrowed his long-winded cap. LOL

 

Topix scandal is even covered at wiki so no need to be shy about it.

It nice to now that I have been accused of self-interests by the same people who allowed thousands of worthless links to be added.

 

I gather you are referring to rskrenta. Thank you for taking the time to write out the story; it is new to me, at least. It makes me wonder what sort of deal the ODP has with Rubylane.com, such that no matter how many editors over the years independently realize that it's receiving special treatment over other websites that work on the same model, the only counter-argument ever brought forth by the powers that be is a short, curt "Rubylane stores are listable, that's it, that's all."

The ODP compromised its integrity over tens of thousands of rather worthless links, but when they are that many... they do add up.

I see your point, which is, if that was not cause for removal of an editor, then what is? There is a simple explation. Double standards. The ODP will let a few bigwigs walk all over them, and I am sure that AOL has chosen what it felt would be a pliable and amoral body of admins. In contrast, straying minions and minor mistakes are handled with a ruthlessness that is just plain cruel and inhumane.