DMOZ/ODP Adult is still promoting pro-pedophilia sites

Did Genie just accuse annie of being on drugs?

 

I couldn't, and wouldn't, look through those sites.

Every site that is in any way pro-paedophilia, should be reported to the authorities forthwith! So should the f*****s that approved them. There's free speech and there are sicko perverts that need shooting.

 

Personally I think it is disgraceful that a non-Adult editor such as Annie has felt obliged to go through these sites. That there are sites still there that have not been re-reviewed is not her fault, nor that of any other ordinary editor concerned that taking some affirmative action, like unreviewing sites that have not been checked (they do not have to go to Test to disappear from public view), will reap some kind of disciplinary action.

Had I still got editall rights then I would take the decision to immediately send all the sites back to Unreviewed until someone willing to review them again under the new guidelines comes along and does so. And damned the consequences - if any meta or admin wanted to make an issue of it they could go in an do the re-reviews themselves.

This is a lesson - if you start the rot by even allowing one borderline site through then clearing up the mess afterwards is extremely difficult as editors fall over themselves to walk away from it, no criticism of them implied - I wouldn't touch any of those sites that I was in the least bit concerned contained material that would make me sick. Just unreview them and if anyone feels up to carrying out any more reviews on sites on this topic ever again they are braver souls than I. If there is a specific senior editor saying do not unreview the sites that need a re-review (and that sounds like some supposed anti-pedophilia sites too) I would be very interesting in hearing their reasons and whether they have support for that view such that they could initiate disciplinary action against any editor who unreviewed them.

 

All sites that were formerly in the pro-pedo cat were moved to test. The sites you're talking about now were either reviewed and found to be compliant, or they were not in the pro-pedo cat to begin with but were right where they currently reside all along.

Scandalous? Really? Pretty strong words from someone who doesn't take the time to thoroughly read what he comments on.

Please tell me how an awful site submitted to "Opposing Views", but never listed in DMOZ is Scandalous? As an editor, I could have simply deleted the submission when I found the filth. As a human being I dug deeper, and with sidjf's help made sure they were reported and the sites they linked to were reported.

Unless you approve of child pornography, how in the world can you call this scandalous?

Both, it's a shame that you can't understand that when you harass me, I do in fact feel harassed.

I never asked you to work with me on any category, and I am missing the point that would have hindered you working there, e.g. me not even knowing about it.

No, it's not up to me. However, speaking as someone who is against child pornography, it seems like a no-brainer to assume that dealing with actual child pornography is a far more urgent priority than spending a week arguing over whether a the term "paper" an "academic paper" a "scholarly paper" an "article" or something else is used in a description.

As a volunteer, it is my right to set my own priorities and I did let you know that I didn't care what term you wanted to use for that description. For you to continue focusing your petty argument on me after that point was harassment, and a waste of time. It is not for you to reserve the right to decide that I should focus my on your problems with terminology rather than cleaning up child pornography.

They were, what vulcano is complaining about now are the sites that were listed in the parent category. I had every intention of going through those sites and the sites in opposing views but had to quit due to harassment.

Vulcano is welcome to request permissions to edit that category, he has even been encouraged to do so. He chooses not to do it and I can respect that. What I can't respect is that he's too stubborn to swallow his pride and admit that the anger he felt reading that article caused him be behave poorly, and to this day his pride prevents him from making it right.

I am the target of vulcano's anger and he wants to set my priorities. I will not work in that category under those circumstances.

 

Why the heck aren't YOU an Admin, brizzie? Or is "a voice of sanityand reason" contrary to the job description?

 

I don't fit the bill minstrel and I wouldn't do the job anyway - it is a no win position and no pay to compensate. I am a big supporter of the old way - professional, paid editor-in-chief who can make decisions on the spot and can stand above all the politiking.

A meta or admin needs to step in here and take the bull by the horns - remove sites that still need a check for new guideline compliance back to Unreviewed.

Thinking out of the box - has anyone thought of or suggested inviting the FBI to nominate an agent to be given a username and password and deal with this.

 

Brilliant! I haven't heard this suggested but I love it.

I wouldn't have a problem unreviewing sites in that category for a re-review based on the description and date it was last reviewed. As far as Admins and Meta's go, I don't fear getting into any trouble with any of them. None of them have ever been anything less than nice and helpful, even when we don't agree. I walked away from that category because I don't want to subject myself to the anger of a regular editor if I don't do it exactly as he thinks I should.

Too true, although it is understandable. However, I do take exception with those who don't help but make a lot of noise and throw stones at those of us who are willing to do the dirty work. The stones are not helpful.

No senior editor has said we cannot unreview sites that need a re-review. As far as I can tell, no one has volunteered to go through the category and do it. I would do it myself if vulcano would promise not criticize me if I don't do exactly as he wants... I'll only go back there if he leaves me alone.

 

I remember pretty well, how surprised I was about the disappearing of the "affirmative views", seemed like a nighttime raid.

Again, which makes it almost scandalous, that these sites were not moved to TEST

My comment there was clearly aimed at your second part where you wrote ..."Of course by then I was used up... I was crying, shaking and generally a mess so sidjf helped me deal with it and made the initial post for me.", and not about reviewing a site submitted to "Opposing Views".

Besides that I wanted the site called what it is, a pedophlia-site, nothing else and not something talking sweet boy-love crap, yes I am wondering very much, if that site was reviewed and all those terms seemed to be o.k, why the heck was it necessary to change "positive aspects" to "alternative aspects"?

Feel free to set your priorities wherever you want.
It was never clear, if and who reviewed a specific site, e.g. this boy-pedophilia-site, and thatfore, should a site in this highly sensitive cat remain listed I was and I am still expecting an accurate description.

Which is nonsense, I am not angry and you are not and you have never been my target, simple as that.

 

I have read all your postings about this topic both on DP and the DMOZ internal forum and I only can agree with compostannie that you were (and still are) very aggressive against her on both forums. If she isn't the target of your anger you have a very strange way of showing your emotions.

 

Don't get obsessed by Test. Test is for... testing things out before going public. The bog standard action is to unreview and does not require any special privileges although an editall or above can do it quicker.

Whatever you have said has clearly caused offence. If it was unintended then the easy and proper thing to do is apologise - it costs nothing. Everyone here is on the same side and it doesn't help any to upset those few people willing to actually do something, even if it was unintentional.

That's good. It is a pity none of them helped you out by doing unreviewing though - it would have taken no more than 30 seconds.

What you have done to date Annie is greatly appreciated.

 

Most of the editors that post here have read my opinion of these sites in the internal forums and know exactly where I stand regarding them. Annie, you are doing a wonderful job at trying to remove the waste that is there. I would like to help, but, you also know why I can't.

I know I am sticking my neck out and will probably get flamed for putting in my 2 cents. Before you do, gworld and vulcano, read my post in the internal forum. On a side note - yes, he is in jail and, if I have my way, will never see the outside of his cell.

For those that brought the existance of this category to light - all I can say is "Thank-You".

 

Sorry to let you know, but I wonder very much, what makes you agree with Annie and commenting here.
I have no intention, discussing my emotions with you.
Are you sure, that this is your first and only account here at DP?

Brizzie, for the record, I appologised for whatever might have given her the impression, that I was offending her and I thought that this was accepted. Greens where already exchanged forth and back. Nevertheless, posting anything in this thread with it's special topic, Annie somehow got the impression that it is aimed at her.

 

Minstrel seems to think aquarius is pagode. Though I can't think why. Aquarius is the username of a serving editor and it would be improper for one editor to use another's username externally.

The editor, and it was an editor, that first exposed this category was known here as pagode.

 

The persons who first exposed the problem(s) were gworld and dduval.

 

The existence of the pro-pedophile chat room category was identified, and raised by pagode internally and I passed on an anonymous tip here. Only pagode could say whether that was the result of prompting to dig around but it is a fair bet it was, so perhaps credit can be shared. Up to that point the discussion was about the listing of certain porn sites not pedophile advocacy. I don't think anything was going to happen before that point as things seemed to stall around legal points no-one was really qualified to answer, and I don't think anything has actually been done about the sites forming the initial complaint. There is no doubt that the thread I started internally in December which included issues relating to "teen" porn was prompted by looking into various claims by gworld and what is going on now in relation to re-examining a lot of Adult listing practices is a progression from there, though since I left in December all credit to those editors who kept it going and who seem to be slowly winning the battle. You have to remember that gworld is also an editor, has been for many years including being an editor in Adult, and is fighting essentially an internal battle out here in public by somewhat unconventional means. At the end of the day though this whole issue has been about editors and non-editors engaging together to resolve a problem and a degree of credit should go to everyone who has made a constructive contribution towards exposure and resolution.

 

1. pagode was a member here. Then aquarius showed up. Then another DMOZ editor got banned for duplicate accounts. Suddenly, there was no member pagode in the member list at all.

2. similar posting styles.

3. aquarius hasn't even tried to deny it.

4. maybe pagode the editor and aquarius the editor are the same person? we know it's possible to have multiple editor accounts - it's not rocket science.

 

For the record, the DMOZ editor who got banned was popotalk. He is no longer an editor, he was removed for abuse shortly after being banned here.

Pagode and aquarius are still editors. If I recall correctly, pagode quit this forum around the same time jimnoble did.

 

But not necessarily two different people.

jimnoble is still registered as a member here.

So is aquarius.

pagode is not.

Name change?

 

Who cares?

 

Go away sid.