DMOZ editor abuse he/her power, what to do next!

[antiabuse]

I submitted my site for adding our site to DMOZ earlier, I was recent received a email from a DMOZ editor who claimed he/she also is a meta editor offer to have our site listed in the submited category for a fee of 300 RMB.

I am just wondering if the editor legitmated to do under DMOZ social contract?

If it is not legitamate, how will the DMOZ deal with such situation?

 

Thanks for help!

[informator]

You can report the suspected abuse through the ODP public reporting system.

 

It´s not allowed for any editor to offer to list a site in exchange for money.

[pvgool]

> I am just wondering if the editor legitmated to do under DMOZ social contract?

No, this is certainly not allowed.

 

> If it is not legitamate, how will the DMOZ deal with such situation?

The editor will be removed.

 

Please create an abuse report. And include the email you received with all the headers from the email. We will investigate an take actions.

[antiabuse]

> I am just wondering if the editor legitmated to do under DMOZ social contract?

No, this is certainly not allowed.

 

> If it is not legitamate, how will the DMOZ deal with such situation?

The editor will be removed.

 

Please create an abuse report. And include the email you received with all the headers from the email. We will investigate an take actions.

 

Unfortunately, the person who also claimed to be a meta editor! I am not sure if the community can be fairly treated under this case. Actually, I have filed the case, but it has been closed one day after without giving any result of investigation. As a result, I cast a doubt on the community for fair and through investigation.

 

I can provide the case number if you need it.

[hutcheson]

>the person who also claimed to be a meta editor!

 

I think it's safe to assume that was a lie. There aren't that many meta editors, and while there have been a few that were found untrustworthy, none that were that stupidly blatant about it. You don't HAVE to be a meta-editor to list a site.

 

The most likely scenario is that this was someone who wasn't even an editor at all (most editors would at least know what a meta-editor was!) who is running a pure scam.

 

As for trusting the community: an investigation would be visible to ALL meta-editors -- so one meta-editor could not hide the abuse report from the other meta-editors. You couldn't get away with it. So nobody with a brain would try. (Of course, the "having a brain" restriction doesn't apply to the normal e-mail scammers!)

[antiabuse]

>the person who also claimed to be a meta editor!

 

I think it's safe to assume that was a lie. There aren't that many meta editors, and while there have been a few that were found untrustworthy, none that were that stupidly blatant about it. You don't HAVE to be a meta-editor to list a site.

 

The most likely scenario is that this was someone who wasn't even an editor at all (most editors would at least know what a meta-editor was!) who is running a pure scam.

 

As for trusting the community: an investigation would be visible to ALL meta-editors -- so one meta-editor could not hide the abuse report from the other meta-editors. You couldn't get away with it. So nobody with a brain would try. (Of course, the "having a brain" restriction doesn't apply to the normal e-mail scammers!)

 

If the email was scam, then who can get my email address and knowing that I have submitted a request for adding my site to the directory? The logical thinking is that the source is the dmoz editor community or anyone who have the access to those requests.

 

The report was closed by the dmoz editor one day after without publish any result!

[jimnoble]

The report was closed by the dmoz editor one day after without publish any result!

 

You raised two otherwise identical abuse reports from different email addresses a minute apart.

 

The second was resolved as a duplicate by a meta editor (because we don't need to investigate the same issue twice). The other is still open.

 

I'm PMing their IDs to you.

[hutcheson]

I think maybe you are also confused about the difference between "editor" and "meta-editor". And apparently the person who wrote that letter shares that confusion.

 

An "editor" reviews websites and adds them; he can see the site suggestions (and know what e-mail address was given). Editors cannot see abuse reports. I did not say an "editor" did not send your mail. I said a "meta-editor" didn't.

 

"Meta-editors" investigate abuse, and monitor editing privileges. (They also have editing permissions, so they can also review sites, etc.) A "meta-editor" would investigate your abuse report, not an "editor". So it won't be the same person investigating as sent the mail.

 

So--if it was an editor at all who sent that letter (which is doubtful), it was NOT a meta-editor (I am sure.) But--if that part of the letter was a lie (and a stupid lie at that), why believe anything in the rest of the letter?