DMOZ's ex-editors list

How does one get their sites removed from the list

[allanp73]

I was once an editor for DMOZ and was removed when I added one of my sites to the category I edited. It was a small category and I felt that my site was relevant. However, I admit I gave it a too good description and abused my editor power.
Later I found out from an editor friend that my sites not just the offending site were added to an ex-editor list. This list makes it very hard for other editors to add my sites to relavent categories. The removal of my sites from DMOZ effected the more than 200 people who are supported by my sites.
Several months later, I started a new business as a webmaster for a real estate web company. Being a fan of DMOZ I submitted the real estate sites to DMOZ. I made sure that the sites were relevant and of high content quality. One editor saw that I was the register of some of the sites and immediately added these new sites to my ex-editor page. They even added sites to the list which I hadn't registered or even submitted to DMOZ. These sites only crime was they were linked to my site. I spoke to several lawyers about this. They told me that this constitutes a "restraint of trade", however to pursue the legal action would cost more money than I have to commit.
I really don't want to pursue legal action and tried several times to contact both the editor who added the sites to the list and the staff at DMOZ, but never received any response and I know the list hasn't been changed.
So what can I do? I make my living on the Internet and many others depend on me. DMOZ is in a situation where without its link it is almost impossible to achieve high ranking on Google.
If there is someone at DMOZ reading this, please help.
I would appreciate anyone's advice.

[bird]

DMOZ is corrupt from the ground up.

mod·er·ate
v. mod·er·at·ed, mod·er·at·ing, mod·er·ates (md-rt)
v. tr.

1. To lessen the violence, severity, or extremeness of.
   
2. To preside over: She was chosen to moderate the convention.
   

[rfgdxm1]

bird, he isn't the moderator of *this* forum. ;)

[rafalk]

Alan, you have ceaselessly spammed the directory with deeplinks, please understand your sites will not be listed.

[allanp73]

I would to be able to tell my whole story. But it would take too much time. I love hearing others comments about my situation.
To explain the original abuse more clearly what I did was added my own site. The original description I gave my site was what I gave to any site that I added to the category. However, later another editor changed my description. They modified it so it didn't really accurately describe the site. I was peeved and changed the description to make sense using what they wrote. Later another editor said that I was making the description too geared towards marketing. This was possibly the case I probably should just left the other editor crappy description. I over reacted and was removed.
I thought it was awfully strange the another editor had taken so much interest in the small category that I edited. Especially, since it didn't have an editor for the longest time before I came along. It was even more strange that so after I was removed another editor was editing the category.
I tried to be a good editor and edited fairly but the politics of DMOZ caught up to me.
As for DMOZ not looking at the ex-editor list, I know they do. When a new site is flagged this way it is like a big red flag. Editors are afraid to touch something that could lead to them getting removed as well.
There are many good editors and actually I have a high opinion of DMOZ, however, there many who ruin and corrupt the whole system.

[Beachboy]

I get really tired of all the accusations. Some of us bust our butts to make a quality contribution. I try to take care of my little corner of the world in a reasonable and efficient manner. The world isn't perfect. Deal with it. And I wish the moderator would keep closer tabs on the commentary hereabouts. :(

[toolman]

>>>For the 5-months I have been editing I have seen quite a few editors get tossed for this - does that show corruption?

The reason you see it all the time is because it's such a problem. What about the others that are under the radar. I know of at least 5 "situations" going in DMOZ right now. Everybody here can say that. It's an accepted fact. I believe it's from the bottom to the top like that.

The original poster said he was concerned about his reputation...thats what I got from him. I dont think it's a concern from a corrupt org like DMOZ. Thats what I think.

[allanp73]

rafalk - My name is Allan. I hope you are not talking about me. Because never submitted deep links to DMOZ.

[The Contractor]

The reason you see it all the time is because it's such a problem. What about the others that are under the radar. I know of at least 5 "situations" going in DMOZ right now. Everybody here can say that.

You seem to make these broad accusations. What if I stated that about these forums or its moderators. I am not a dmoz troll as referred to in one of your previous posts and I consider myself more professional than to call people names that go against my personal beliefs - no matter what it is. I was visiting and supporting(donations) these forums before ever becoming an editor. So please, no broad based accusations.

Why don't you sticky me about these 5 cases. And since you seem to know that everyone else on this forum has 5 cases - sticky me those also. I will make sure they get to the proper Meta.

[martinibuster]

Let's clarify the point of this thread. This thread is about shooting down a submission for reasons apart from it's merit.

This is a shameful act and this behavior should rightfully be condemned.

How dare these people edit without considering the consequences of their actions.

<snip>

Shame on them! Shame on them!

[edited by: NFFC at 5:41 am (utc) on Oct. 29, 2002]
[edit reason] Thoughtless comment removed [/edit]

[toolman]

I love these editor threads....so much passion, so much feeling.....heeheee.

I'm gonna have to go stand in the corner now. Bye. :)