More fun with DMOZ.

I don't know if he is corrupt as an editor but he certainly violated the editor guidelines as he did not provide an overview of all the websites he is affiliated with when he signed up. This alone is reason for removal.

 

Annie,

I understand that you are looking to get some brownie points with DMOZ power by catching Gworld, but is not going to happen, so forget about it.

I can understand that you can think that becoming editall or meta is really important but it is not.
Do you really believe that I am a fool or you are the first one that tried to find who I am? Just ask some editors who have been around longer than you and you will know that people much higher than you in DMOZ have tried and failed.
Do I need to quote your posts in RZ and internal forum about me to show what you are really after by asking me about who I am and in what section do I edit?
How is it going to help DMOZ if you find my identity and try to cancel my account, but may be that is not very important compare to other benefits.

 

LIAR!

Vulcano was not treated badly. Quite the opposite. You, gworld, and Vulcano were following me around, harassing me as I tried to work on the pedophilia categories. Where Vulcano left off in internal forum discussion, you picked up on me here at DP, via private message. Would you like me to post your messages so your "friends" here at DP can see what you're up to with pedophilia? Perhaps shygirl would like to tell us why she's on the side of pedophilia? Or doesn't she know your agenda yet?

No one said anything to Vulcano until I had enough of it and told him to stop harassing me. This is the reason work has been so slow since we got the new guidelines. The Vulcano and gworld tag team. Nice job guys.


Vulcano is editor matri for any editor who wants to look for themselves.

 

You are an idiot gworld. There were no hopes of brownie points for catching gworld. I was actually beginning to have some respect for you. I started to like you. BUT, I was wrong. You're just a corrupt, lazy editor who won't do his job. Check my permissions genius, then explain why I would need points to get to a level I'm already at.

Maybe you're just stupid, maybe you threw away my respect and a possible friendship for no good reason.

 

As you said in regard to vulcano, editos can check the internal forums themselves. In regard to my PM to you, I have nothing to hide and I am posting my PM to you but out of respect to your privacy, I will not post your response but feel free to do it if you wish to.

March 2nd 2006

"Hi

I hope by now you know that I was not fighting for my own benefit because I could not be an editor or list my own sites in DMOZ.
There are many serious problems and most new editors have forgotten about the old spirit and wanting to do something good and instead their only concerns is to get their own sites listed without raising any suspicions.
DMOZ abuse system is just a joke, it is a toothless tiger that anybody can get around it and that seems just fine to big majority of editors.
Anyway, good luck with your editing, after 6 years, I have decided to give up and instead of wasting my time on fixing something which is broken, concentrate on other worthy causes that I can be proud of."

March 8th, 2006,

"Hi

There is no need for words like boy man love or women girls love or anything else similar in DMOZ descriptions. All these words mean pedophilia and I think it is best that DMOZ uses the proper word instead of adapting the pedophiles dictionary. After all we do not describe murder as helping to stop another person heart, so why should we describe pedophilia as love?
This is important because many pedophiles explain their actions by insisting this is a form of love and doesn't hurt children."

March 8th, 2006

"Hi

I noticed that he posted after I have send the PM to you and him but I only meant that this change should be as a matter of policy so the editors won't adopt the pedophiles vocabulary and always use the word pedophiles and pedophilia in the description instead of their excuses.
I understand that it is a difficult task to go through this garbage and I wish I could help you but it generates too much heat at present time. It was a lot of resistance to these changes but in the end there was no other choice.
It was good that this section finally cleaned up, should we try to clean up the deep links and casino section now?

Just kidding, I am too tired now and I will probably resign in the next few days. I will send you a PM when I resigned so you can give them the good news. "

Have I forgotten anything? If I did then please post it since I have nothing to hide. Now would you like to quote some of your postings in DMOZ and RZ in regard to me?

 

You left out Vulcano's part of the Vulcano/gworld tag team.

I believe I was the first to post internally that in my opinion you would make a fine editor. I hereby retract that statement, I couldn't have been more wrong.

 

I don't know what you mean but if it is related to me then you have my permission and full blessing to post it here.

 

All I can say is WOW.

If I am an editor at that directory, I would think twice. Boy they really are after those who oppose the system. No freedom to express ones self even outside their jurisdiction, non whatsoever - not at all.

 

Annie, I am not Imocr or sidjf. The only thing here, is to defend my personal integrity.
You may believe, that I admire the work you are doing for cleaning up the pedophilea cat. I never criticiced you or your editorial skills and I appologized for anything that might have given you the impression, that this wasn't the case. For myself, I thought that you were able to accept that. It is beyond my understanding, why you have to come up with a vulcano-gworld tag team, this does not and did never exist. If there is anything I should be aware of, let me know.
We are not in church or at some witch-hunting. I don't feel the need, to confess something that I have not done or that I would not support.

 

You didn't apologize to me. If you did in the internal thread, I didn't see it. I posted to ask you to stop harassing me and I haven't been back. And you haven't sent an apology.

It was in response to being accused of tag-teaming you. You know that isn't true yet you let that remark stand.

Looks to me like you support it. If you don't maybe you could show some "personal integrity" and set the record straight.

 

The dynamics are amazing to say the least. You claimed getting harassed by me (which from the very beginning is grotesque) and posted this in the internal thread. Logically, I responded there and did not send you a personal apology.
So I also expected you even being more present at the internal thread than me.

Even cross-reading this thread, no clue who/where/when, came up with that, at least I missed it.
Yes, this would be nonsense.

PS: You know that English is not my native language, it seems so that there are too many tag-teams tag-teaming, also having problems what exactly you are referring to.

See above.

 

Annie

you accused me of harassing you through PM and I have posted my PM to you in this thread, so everyone can judge by themselves.

Now, would you like to post here your posting in RZ from couple of days ago about me while in the same time you were posting here and asking me in what section I edit and what is my editor name?

In my opinion it is best to let others be the judge of personal integrity and honesty instead of just claiming it, would you like to do that?

 

No. This isn't DMOZ versus the Gworld Zone - this is DMOZ ignoring the accepted use of the term and redefining words to justify questionable practices. Who is spinning the truth?

Splitting hairs here - that in fact is exactly what you said - straight from the DMOZ Zone.

Exactly. I am once again happy to apologoze for unfairly dismissing you as DMOZ flunky, shygirl. Obviously, you are quite capable of independent critical thought. I wish you could teach that to some of the other editors like lmocr.

Except in other DMOZ categories they aren't assisted by editors toward their goals (except of course where the scammers are also the editors).

Gworld has done more in a short time to expose the corrupt and disgusting practices in DMOZ Adult than anyone else I can think of. If, as you claim, he is a corrupt Adult editor himself, why would he be doing that? Do you not see the contradictions in that?

To me, I must say this looks like typical Resource Zone tactics - when someone gets too close to the exposing a problem, attack, vilify, and try to discredit the person. I thought you were above that, Annie.

Why is this relevant?

Hint: Do not underestimate gworld. He is a lot more intelligent than you and other editors realize. He has laid down some false trails for you to follow and you are doing just that. And as you pursue them, you are discrediting yourselves, not him.

I cannot believe I am reading this from you. "Gworld has accomplished nothing"? There has been a start, albeit a weak and long overdue one, toward cleaning up some of the corrupt practices at DMOZ Adult, a start that owes thanks to more than one person but gworld is certainly among those. Does that impress me? Yes. It does. Am I happy that "he chased off jimnoble"? If he did, yes... jimnoble's contributions have never been anything but DMOZ party line automated bafflegab. I'm happy to see fewer of those.

Great - another DMOZ yes man enters the fray

If he has violated guidelines, then remove him. Why would you come here and threaten to remove him and not do it? How does that make any sense whatsoever?

I must say that reading this I am quite disappointed in you, Annie. I thought you were better than this.

 

And just for the fact that I'm a DMOZ editor I got a red rep from you.

 

I'm not sure if I'm just explaining myself badly, or if we just disagree...

Yes, the ODP has definitions for terms. These definitions are layed out in the ODP guidelines. These definitions may very well differ from what you, gworld, or anyone else would use as the definition. But that does not matter one bit. Just because the definitions vary does not make one wrong and the other right, it just means that you have to use them in the appropriate context.

Gworld is trying to apply his definitions to the ODP guidelines. This simply does not work as it is the wrong context. According to the ODP guidelines and term definitions, these sites are neither doorways nor affiliates.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY AREN'T DOORWAYS OR AFFILIATES ACCORDING TO SOMEONE ELSES DEFINITION.

But we don't use other definitions when editing, we use the ODP definitions.

If you want to argue that these sites shouldn't be listed, then that's great - have at it - I might even agree with you. If, however, you want to argue that these sites are not listable according to current ODP guidelines - then you are just wrong, they are listable.

If you want to argue that the ODP should change it's definitions or it's guidelines, then once again, have at it - and again, I might even agree with you. But, if you want to argue that these are not the ODP guidelines and definitions, then you are again just plain wrong - it's all right there in black and white for anyone to read.

I guess we need to define what is being discussed: The way dmoz should be or the way dmoz is. I've been discussing the way dmoz is.

 

Minstrel;

I think it is obvious for anyone that I am not fan of DMOZ certain practices but you have been unfair to DMOZ here. DMOZ definition of affiliate pages and doorway pages is exactly the same as anyone else here and what I have described. What sidjf describes is the "adult editors" version of it that tries desperately to find a loop hole in order to justify otherwise indefensible listings.

The correct description of this situation will be:

DMOZ and the rest of the world definition versus sidjf zone and adult editors version.

This fight is not with DMOZ which has the correct guidelines, this fight is against adult editors that ignore those guidelines.

 

Once again gworld, you have proven that you really do live in your own little reality and have absolutely no desire to see any other point of view other than your own. The quality and insightfulness of your posts have spiraled to a dramatic low over the past few days my friend.

 

so does your desperation for finding excuse and justification for listings that have no place in DMOZ according to DMOZ guideline.

 

Notice it is only frustrated DMOZ editors who feel that way, sid? I think a good part of the rest of the members here see gworld as fighting for what is right, instead of fighting to justify DMOZ rules which are clearly wrong by normal standards.

I see lmocr is reading this thread again - I can hardly wait to read the next little tidbit of predigested and prepackaged DMOZ information from her

 

You're still missing the point of my posts. I'm not justifying any rules, I'm merely telling you what the rules are.

Whether the rules are right or wrong is a completely different discussion.

I'm having trouble understanding why this is so hard to comprehend...