Site not being added to DMOZ

There is a lot of speculation here but that is all it is - a meta is not permitted to actually give the reason for summer's removal. But some of the conclusions reached are highly improbable.

Disagreeing with policy or guidelines is not a reason why an editor might be removed on its own. Even when it is heated. I spent quite a lot of my time as an editor disagreeing with metas and admins and nothing happened to me apart from being promoted to editall and then editall/catmv. Some time last year there was a heated internal discussion aimed at Admins - at least 3 of the prime movers disagreeing with Admin policy have since been promoted, two of them to Meta. So discount that one, it doesn't hold water.

Asking about your own site and how and where it is listed is not a reason why an editor might be removed. There was a heated debate again I think it was last year. It was the thread that established that a listings of online stores in Shopping and in Regional were not mutually exclusive. The editor started off by launching an attack on a meta editor and was jumped upon. Eventually a very senior source intervened and confirmed that it was OK for the editor to talk about their own site and that the editor was in fact right about their listings. The editor survived. A lot of Regional and Shopping editors including some very experienced ones, including me, were educated. So it is more or less impossible that another editor would be removed for more or less the same "crimes".

Saying DMOZ sucks. Highly unlikely. Blunt language amongst editors is not unusual. Don't recall anyone ever being removed for it. They might get a warning if they breach or appear to breach communications guidelines and if they persist or don't correct themselves then it may result in removal. I've had one of those though I believe it was a misunderstanding in my intent, I didn't mean to identify the person I was talking about only make a point about ambiguities. Lesson to me - be a lot more careful in my choice of terms, don't create the misunderstanding, fair enough. So no enigma, that one is not credible really.

Having a spat in RZ - too many editors have done that and survived for it to be credible as a reason for removal. Some editors providing the answers have been incredibly rude to the public and to fellow editors and got away with retaining their status, despite it being a breach of the communications guidelines. I cannot think of a single case of any editor ever being removed for something said on RZ, or any other external forum - if you can point to someone then be my guest. Not credible.

That is always a possibility with any removal but those editors committing such an offence are rarely heard from, they tend to keep their heads down and avoid attention. Going off the deep end publicly is going to attract every editor in town to your editing logs and affiliations so is rather stupid. I didn't get the impression summer had anything to hide.

I might as well add my own speculation and I've been right a few times according to hints on my speculations. On the other hand I may be way off the mark in which case a passing meta or admin is welcome to red-rep me.

Summer disagreed strongly on the listing policies applied to her site but this was confirmed, eventually, as being applied correctly. In terms of the title of the site, the site selected for listing, and the ruling that only one could be listed. At this point the correct procedure is to (a) accept the rulings are correct as stated even if you believe they suck and have said so, and (b) if you still disagree then take it to the internal forums and seek a change in the guidelines/policy, and (c) use the internal mediation tools to resolve any personal issues remaining. Given the attitude I saw I would speculate that a judgement was made that she was clearly unwilling to take any of these steps and unwilling to apply the guidelines and policies as explained to her by metas and admins. An editor who refuses to accept the need to apply guidelines and policies they disagree with is in an untenable position. They could not be trusted to edit according to those guidelines and policies. Since trust is vital to being allowed to edit there was only one solution available and that was removal. It is always sad when an editor is removed in these circumstances because changes are always possible - accept the policy as it is, argue your case, and sometimes it does result in a change if enough editors agree. There are a number of guidelines and policies I think suck but I still had to apply them regardless if I wanted to edit where they applied. If the issue was important enough then you start a thread on it.

One or two tried in my early days. Didn't get very far...

That is sad dogbows. And wrong - not you are wrong but the slapping was wrong! I recall an editor in a category beneath mine who I was mentoring and a passing meta decided to give him a mauling accompanied by threats of removal he couldn't back up if he had tried. The meta was in the wrong and this was confirmed at the very highest levels. Meta bullying of editors was a feature of DMOZ before my time and there were a few remnants around in my first couple of years. It was not tolerated by Staff whenever it came to light. In its early years there were quite a lot of reports of bullying and removals on the slightest excuse for dissent and since I was not there I can't say whether it was commonplace but put two and two together from what I have been told from senior sources there at the time and there was fire where the smoke eminated from. Those bad old days are just that - much has been done over the last 3-4 years to eliminate this kind of behaviour though the odd occurence no doubt still crops up. Report it as abuse is the answer, because that is what it is.

 

Thanks man, I could have sworn though that old batman classic robin said was "mackeral"

 

That would seem a good possibility then. There are ways of declaring affiliations in these instances without using the database. Not declaring because it seems too difficult would not be an excuse and if you had editing one of those undeclared affiliations... you might have your answer.

I can see about the coincidence, but anytime you say anything controversial it is inevitable someone will go through editing logs and affiliations - you have attracted attention. So expressing dissent might well have been the trigger that uncovered undeclared affiliations. Hence what appears to be a coincidence.

 

Brizzie once again demonstrates how he was able to make it into the DMOZ Hall of Fame as Most Long-Winded Editor Ever.

Good job, briz!

 

whatever G,

Huh? When did I even answer that silly question? I was giving a example about a teacher posing in a magazine to support my statement. Then you just start asking me about adult editors and the categories they edit in

Anyway I'm out, I have to do some things...

 

That was the real reason I had to leave - to give others a chance at Most Long Winded and Most Evil - my colleagues were getting annoyed at never being able to get near those prestigious prizes, widely acknowledged as the top awards any editor can aspire to.

 

So, let's be clear, are you still avoiding to answer the 2 simple questions? Because I though when you posted "no no" it was the answer to my 2 questions, you should really work on your communication skills.

Brizzie

I think you live in an alternative reality, the situation toady is even worse than what it was couple of years ago. Why do you think there is such big desire to have every rule in DMOZ as ambiguous as possible? Because it can be interpreted in any way that they like and differently in every case.

 

One word in response gworld - bollocks. Don't try and draw me into your beat the troll game, I ain't playing, you are far too good for me.

 

Was that word describing my post or yours?

I mean just look at this thread. Read dogbow and Annie's post about their personal experience and then tell me how is your description of situation is related to reality and how people feel inside?

I think anybody can understand that if you are strong enough, you will not have any problem to protect yourself in such environment but how about editors that are not strong or ready to fight? Shouldn't they be protected from the bullies and removal by having open and correct procedures?

What is in having open and clear procedures that scares the powers in DMOZ so much?

 

Just for the record I was not threatened with removal. Neither was I intimidated when told to shut up and go back where I belonged. However, I would not have reported it as abuse because I felt it could have very easily resulted in my removal. I won't go so far as to say it is still as bad as it used to be, but I can assure you the bullying does still go on and quite frequently where less experienced editors are concerned.

 

I said I wasn't going to play your beat the troll game! But I can't resist your inconsistencies at least once. But that is it for today. Logging off and turning off the PC.

Wouldn't those characters be the ones your imaginary evil and corrupt metas and admins would want to remove most? Wouldn't they be the ones likely to be most dangerous to have hang around? The ones to whom a hint to shut up is a red rag to a bull? Yet by your own words these people will have no problem.

Undoubtedly DMOZ internal forums can be intimidating at times, especially if you believe you are going to be removed for being out of step. But that is a load of crap spread around by people like you - people are not removed for being out of step. I am proof of that, so are loads of other people, most of them promoted. By telling people you need to kiss ass or you'll get nowhere, by making statements like the situation is worse than ever with bullying all you are doing is making those who don't feel totally confident more frightened. And it is total crap. You will not ever be removed for dissent or expressing conflicting views or disagreeing with a meta or standing up for yourself. You are asking for a group kicking or formal warning if you do any of the above discourteously and if you ignore the warning then yes you might be removed for that but not for the dissent.

Oh and you could get into serious intimidatory tactics if you mentioned reform in the Adult forum in the past. But it is hot air - you can't be removed for mentioning it. But it is nothing compared to editors replying to your posts here.

It is people like you gworld that cause an atmosphere of fear amongst some editors by repeatedly telling them of the dire but ficticious consequences of crossing an evil meta or admin.

It is nevertheless true that sometimes some asshole on a power trip will attempt to bully someone. The answer is as it is in real life - ignore them or report them. Assholes exist everywhere, DMOZ is no exception, but like everywhere else they think they have far more power than they actually do.

Bullying is not tolerated. But to not tolerate it then it has to be reported. The guidelines are very clear on communications abuse - report the offender to an Admin and something will be done. If people don't say anything, if they just stay silent and make no complaint, then as in real life nothing can be done if no-one knows. As to protection from removal, have you completely ignored all the processes on removal. It requires a consensus of meta editors with a quorum of at least 5. There are plenty of good and honest meta editors who would never allow a removal based on petty minded personal prejudices. Any group of metas who removed an editor without due process or good cause based on persuasive evidence would themselves be removed and why would they take the risk of losing their power? The bullies of which you speak would be too cowardly to do such a thing.

Take a look at http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/meta/general.html#communication - the communications guidelines that apply to metas are more stringent than those for other editors. That is open and clear and can be used in an abuse report. I have seen metas admonished for breaching them.

Do not communicate in a hostile, aggressive, passive aggressive, sarcastic, or combative manner in order to intimidate, berate, insult, or otherwise irritate another editor who opposes a meta's point of view. Metas have significant influence on others. Metas should not abuse their influence by using tactics that are meant to belittle or demean another editor.

How much clearer do you want it?

Take a look at http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/meta/abuse.html#removing - again open and clear.

In that section you will also find -

Uncivil and intentionally disruptive editors who cannot work within the ODP community may be removed. Flaming other editors, submitters, or staff is not tolerated at any level. Violating the confidentiality of the forums, editor notes, editor e-mail or other internal notes is also unacceptable. These kinds of violations apply to editors of all levels, including Metas.

Seems another pretty clear policy on meta bullying. Note that this also applies to flaming submitters. So anyone offended by an RZ response can lodge a meta abuse report via an Admin. If people used that avenue to lodge a complaint maybe you would see less of it.

 

I would have reported it had you told me about it - there was never any danger of you being removed for reporting it but against a meta it should be done confidentially via Feedback to an Admin or another meta you trust. Because incidents are not reported these assholes get away with it, which doesn't do DMOZ any good at all. Where this type of thing has been reported, in my experience it has been dealt with and not ignored.

Maybe someone inside needs to start a thread in the New Editors forum to raise the issue and explain how new editors can report incidents confidentially. There are times I regret not being able to log on...

 

Quick! While you're feeling that regret, click here now!

 

Brizzie, there were metas and administrators taking part in that thread. No one, I repeat no one said anything to the administrator who said it. Why would I feel free to report it and to whom, since there were plenty of metas and other administrators there to see it. I continued to post and took care of it right then and there myself. But others might have been too intimidated to handle it like I did.

All instances that I saw where bullying was going on, there were also other metas and administrators taking part. If you know that metas and administrators are participating and one of them is even the guilty party, you aren't gonna report it. There would be no point!

 

This sounds just like what goes on day in and day out in the Resourceless Zone. Would potential editors expect it to be any different in the Inner Snactum?

Edit: That should of course say "Inner Sanctum" not "Inner Snactum", although it's been a long day and I'm hungry so "Inner Snactum" has a a certain attractive ring to it...

 

Point taken! Perhaps they are unaware of the impact they are having. People do sometimes post before they think. Would be good to see an Admin point of view on this issue. I have a pretty thick skin and a tendency to bite back when bitten so maybe I am not as sensitive to these things as others (not suggesting you are sensitive, just that I'm not, particularly). I have seen it clamped down on so it surprises me. Maybe there is a lot further to go in that case - IMO things used to be far worse so you can imagine...

 

Generally speaking it is very different. There are always exceptions, as dogbows' experience demonstrates. Clearly there is a need to reinforce those guidelines I quoted earlier and remind everyone they apply at all levels and particularly at meta and admin grades.

 

Or perhaps they were fully aware and rather enjoying it? That's what authoritarian bullying is all about. They do it because they can.

 

Very nice. First it doesn't happen and they are not guilty but even if it happens and they are guilty, they are not aware of what they have done, and therefore they are not guilty.

You are claiming that everything is done properly and according to the rules but you are not a Meta and you have never been a Meta, so how do you know? How do you know how much communication and agreement is necessary to remove an editor? What are you basing you faith in this system on, except an active imagination and belief on how it suppose to work?
How many cases of editors removal have you dealt with personally? Will it be correct to say none?

 

All things are possible. Which is why it might be a good idea to remind everyone of those guidelines on a regular basis, they are not there just for show.