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.

[WindSun]

"I don't know why you felt the need to separate out your company information like that. The fact that it confuses even your customers should be an indication that maybe you should think about amalgamating all of your company information in one place..."

Those are all good questions:

1. The original site had both, but was very poor (read, as in horrible) for ecommerce. At the time, ecommerce was still pretty crude.
2. We got a Yahoo store for ecommerce. It needed a different URL to start setup, so we decided to seperate the commercial and non commercial sites.
3. At that time (1999), Yahoo stores had very poor integration with "normal" websites (as of Dec 2002, they finally have a solution).
4. Yahoo stores had some rather low limits on the size of files and pages, making it impossible to put much of the information on the Yahoo site, since we have over 300 meg just in PDF files.
5. We have had the original domain name since ODP was the Gnu project, and it has hundreds of incoming links, giving it a much better PR on Google than nearly any other competing site.

In fact, we are working on ways to integrate the two sites while keeping both domain names.

However, none of that is the real issue. The major issue is why have we been penalized for two years over our competitors simply because I am an EX-editor?

"They cover the same topic.."

Yes, just as do many other listings in DMOZ that have far more than we do. What justifies Epinion having nearly 2000 - they all cover the same topic..?

And BTW, using fraternal mirror dmoz without quotes only turns up one more relevant site ;p

[rafalk]

The major issue is why have we been penalized for two years over our competitors simply because I am an EX-editor?

You haven't been penalized. One of your sites is considered a fraternal mirror of the site already listed. It has absolutely nothing do with the fact that you're an ex editor.

Your site is listed here [directory.google.com].

[WindSun]

"You haven't been penalized..."

In fact, we were refused inclusion in the regional directory.

But, enough of this. Everything that could be said has been said, so let's let this thread die a natural death until it is revived again in a couple of months.