Why do you seem so concerned with ODP?

Well, the Meta by own admittance is in S&M and the way you are scared, I thought may be you have already been spanked.

I feel kind of sorry for you now that all your illusions of being a "senior" editor has shattered and everyone can see how powerless you are.

 

When you fire people who defend you what do you expect?

 

Well my mendacious friend, I never claimed anything beyond being able to do something about the corrupt metas that you say you have evidence about. If indeed the ODP is a secret society that exists to protect the corruption of management why are you hiding the evidence?

Your earlier attempt to sidetrack this into a discussion about whether or not a category editor with no higher privileges has been disciplined did nothing to boost your credibility.

Its a shame that you never answered the question about enjoying a good thrashing, because that might explain a lot.

 

shhhhh.*whispering*. we have a bogus claimant.

 

If the little boy can not do anything even about a category editor then why does he need to know about meta?

The evidence about corruption and the management inaction about it is clear and everyone can see. Stop making even more of fool of yourself than you already have done, just go home and tell people that you are a hot shot DMOZ editor, I get no pleasure in shattering your illusions about your power more than I have already done.

 

As I've said before, it's abundantly clear that neb is here (has been sent here?) to do his best to distract and smokescreen through a variety of tried and true Resourceless Zone methods, including innuendo about anyone who dares to raise an issue.

I've given up "debating" with him and his cronies because it's pointless. Neb is not here for enlightenment, or to be better informed - he's here to promote the pathetic illusion that there is nothing wrong with DMOZ that silencing disgruntled webmasters wouldn't solve.

 

I think maybe people don't take into account that any serving editor is bound by guidelines that prohibit them from releasing, directly or by strong hint, certain information from ODP internal forums, notes, etc. This restriction is not of the editor's own making but if they breach it they stand a very good chance of losing their own account. If you actually read what Neb has been saying it is clear that this is not an editor who blindly defends the status quo, quite the opposite. But there is still a limit to what anyone who is identifiable to their editor name is able to say - Admins are of the view that the guidelines on confidentiality still apply to me and I haven't been an editor for 8 months. A bit of understanding of the position that serving editors who post here are in might help both side discuss matters constructively.

 

If you're hoping to paint neb as a poster child for the hope of the future for DMOZ, brizzie, I'm afraid you're waging a doomed campaign... or reading his posts through rose-colored glasses.

 

They can smokescreen all they want.

The Directory is a mummy driving an F1 racecar down a 30 degree incline, on an icy surface flooded with Astroglide.

They can't get to the bottom of that hill fast enough.

What's at the bottom of the hill, asks the gentle reader?

The stagnating pond of obsolescence, abandonment, corruption and shame.

 

Does this mean that he can not tell us that he is not going to give them pay increase for next year or he is taking away their yearly vacation?

There is only one actual punishment for abusive editors in DMOZ and that is removal. This action can be noticed by non-editors through looking at the category and the removal of editor name from that category page.

Brizzie, please try not to take us as fools and try to imply that there is some secret punishments inside DMOZ that neb can not tell us.

 

You know exactly what I meant but twist away. If you make an allegation against a regular editor then clearly there will be discussion by metas. Since the editor is still there the conclusion is that there was not unanimous agreement by metas that removal was justified. And yes there are lesser punishments such as removing some editing rights and dash warnings but dash warnings are not made public. No meta can reveal the discussion surrounding the discussion nor the voting tally - all you know is that at least one meta said case not proven. If an accusation of abuse is made against a meta editor then it will be decided by Admins. A meta would not know what discussion took place and no-one can reveal the tally, all you know is that at least one Admin said case not proven. Unless a case is judged proven by *all* metas or admins as appropriate then the accused is deemed innocent and no editor can express an opinion otherwise or they will be deemed to have breached guidelines and may be warned or removed. As you will know I received a dash warning and a threat to remove my editall rights for suggesting that the actions of a meta could appear to be abusive, without naming names or stating it as a fact. And you know who I was referring to. I would suggest that is sufficient deterrent to others thinking about being as, let alone more, specific.

 

So if 6 metas say ban and one says case not proven, the person remains? That sounds like a system crying out to be abused to me...

 

LOL, so the Meta disagrees that editor is corrupt for listing Meta's sites.

ALL CORRUPT EDITORS BE WARNED:

If you continue to abuse the directory, list illegal sites, doorway pages and affiliate sites and then give hundreds of deep links to these sites, you will get dash warning.

I am sure they are all shaking in their boots and so frightened. The scary dash warning, their lives will be ruined, what are they going to do now?

 

Well, not that I have personally encountered any, but I would assume there are self-serving and corrupt editors at ODP. That being said, its funny how gworld fails to admit that there are many corrupt and disgruntled webmasters in his for mentioned list (many I have encountered).

 

This is yet another example of the how on forums like this the ODP is being held to impossible standards. If they remove an editor without warning there are howls of unfair it all is, but on OTH if an editor is given a warning then there are screams of how inadequate it all is.

That is an over simplification. If 6 editors say remove and one says hang on I think we are being a bit harsh, or have not got enough evidence, or whatever then that may cause a reevaluation of the situation. A meta cannot veto the removal of a abusive editors.

 

Meta Only Forum. Secret forum with infinite proof of Abuse.

 

Did popotalk got any warning? from his post, I imagine he didn't.

Did Ivan Bjlo got any warning? He was actually defending DMOZ and making an ass of himself but his own admission that he listed some of his own sites, resulted in removal. Obviously he didn't think that he was doing anything wrong, otherwise he wouldn't announce it in a public forum, don't you think?

Did helleborine got any warning? helleborine still insisting that there was no abuse and from the innuendos that I have heard from other editors, the worst case offense is a gray area and not actual abuse.

Now, can you tell us why an editor with documented history of abuse that is committed years after years gets a warning?

Take the advise in my previous post and run to your friends and keep on pretending that you are a powerful DMOZ editor, don't make a fool of yourself more than you have already done.

 

Nope, but there was a META who was trying to shake me for information regarding my posts in DP. In the end [gender removed] wrote me a letter to stop posting at DP and just continue to be a slave.

 

I think I mentioned in one my post that I did, warning me that notes are private and there could be Conflict of Interests based on excerpts from my posts in which I was defending DMOZ - nothing about my editing.

Listing of those two deeplinks to "my beautiful 1800+ pages website" could hardly be called admission since I have all my websites listed publicly virtually everywhere (and I have only one identity spread across entire internet - yes I got big ego - so it is very easy to track me down) and every time I applied for new categories I used my site as new relevant (deep)link if it was missing or noting that I already had listing in that category making me familiar with topic and existing websites especially ones which are missing and I wanted to add - yep Conflict of Interests I'm listing my own "competitors" without them even knowing about it and even cooling there websites (can't help it when I spend more time on there website then on my own) - I'm really a dirty rotten bastard.

To make things even sillier if I didn't post here I wonder how many more links I would be allowed to add to "my beautiful 1800+ pages website" and all with Meta approval before "elite abuse team" discovered my evil plans? Would I manage to reach at lest 10,000 unique additions before someone noticed that there are some 10 links to my sites amongst them?

Because that editor never posted in DP or any other forum?

 

He or she....Shares the earnings ? Monthly contributions ? Never challenges the authority ? A puppet ? Always in Forums outside RZ defends DMOZ ?