Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

Embed
What would you like to do?
Answering the questions.
Part 2: https://gist.github.com/ATRescue/f2bb5a040484e1d0943bdc67fc28a137
—————————————————
Hello there.
I would like to clear up a misunderstanding.
Before reading this message, please read these two pages, in order to help you understanding the following message:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AGF
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DBN
Please only respond after reading the message, by writing a comment below this GitHub Gist or my ArchiveTeam talk page.
For emphasis, please listen to Beethoven's 6th symphony while reading this message.
You are encouraged to write your response while reading the message instead of waiting all the way to the end.
This message is intended for the entire ArchiveTeam community, not just one person (e.g. JAA or Jason Scott).
Please read the entire message. That would be very much appreciated.
And please read it with a calm attitude and an open mind, not with anger or cognitive dissonance (Definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance ).
Jason Scott: If you are not patient enough to read the entire message, please read the lines 75-79 and start reading at line 131.
I kindly ask the community to be friendlier and more welcoming, and less J.A.A. (Just Always Angry). That would be more constructive. To understand what I mean, please don't stop reading here.
Apparently, I am falsely being considered as a person with negative intentions.
(New content might be added to the message if it comes to my mind.)
I was trying to have an entirely factual discussion, but I got screamed at and unfairly kicked before being able to answer.
The specified reason for why I was blocked from ArchiveTeam Wiki was “Forced discussion”, yet Jason Scott rejected the discussion he wanted to have.
First of all, this message is not a personal attack, just factual. And I have never personally attacked any ArchiveTeam member.
How am I expected to answer your questions if I am not given a chance to?
I would like to apologize to anyone I have bothered. But I would like to clarify a few things:
> JAA: “ATrescue2: Can you stop creating random templates already?”
Those “random templates” (such as twhandle) are actually helpful and save work when editing.
And if you don't like the template, you are not obligated to use it.
Please understand the purpose of twhandle before judging me over it.
> “And why did you recreate Template:W2+? I thought I was clear enough yesterday.”
I have already explained it in the edit comment. To make links non-broken in the meantime. See next line: ↓
> JAA: “ATrescue3: I'm not going to bother fixing your W/W2/W2+ mess. Those links will be broken now. Please clean that up.”
What I intended to do is making the links not broken *until* the “W/W2/W2+ mess” has been fixed. That was my intention.
> JAA: ”Please clean that up.”
How am I supposed to do so when blocked? I am not able to.
> PurpleSym: “*sigh* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ATrescue”
What's wrong with it? Please elaborate. Also, Jason Scott (SketchCow) created that image. I see no problem with it.
I thought others also had this attitude.
I also suggest ChromeBot to implement an “explain” feature like ArchiveBot.
> SketchCow: “Because apparently [(ATrescue)] they don't mind causing a shitbox of trouble and fuck working with a team”
JAA seemed to be the only one who was really bothered by my suggestions.
The vast majority of people stayed silent because they presumably considered it neutral.
And JAA was the only person to oppose (revert) multiple edits I made.
> SketchCow “ATrescue2: You don't fucking listen.”
No need to scream at me. I can already hear you.
> SketchCow: “I've gotten to spend healing time scrolling back watching you ignoring people.”
I haven't ignored anyone. I have always heard and responded to them.
Could you please give me an example of when I didn't respond to someone?
How come you get angrier at someone who was trying to help than someone who vandalized all pages he could find with “MOTHERFUCKER ! ! !” (Megalanya, Megalanya0, Megalanya1 and Megalanya2 in January 2017).
> SketchCow “When the team has someone who decides they have a superior way and they just blast through the place, people lose energy”
Shouldn't a superior way be appreciated? I expected being appreciated for it instead of being despised.
How exactly does it make people lose energy? And what are you specifically referring to when saying “energy”? How exactly does it disrupt ArchiveTeam's mission?
If you don't like an edit, feel free to revert it. No damage done. Everything as it was before. No need to blindly shout at me.
> SketchCow: “Teams dissipate”
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dissipate
How exactly did my edits cause dissipation? I have not vandalized any pages and I have not disrupted any user.
> SketchCow: “Ok, time to go change the new user password! Now I have to remember how to do that.”
The last password change was in January 2017, because of Megalanya, who wrote “MOTHERFUCKER ! ! !” under every page he came across.
Am I being compared to Megalanya? I'm sorry that >20000 bytes worth of edits to [[YouTube]] and other pages are not worth any more than Megalanya's vandalism: “MOTHERFUCKER ! ! !”.
> SketchCow: “I don't care if you're solving cold fusion”
What is that supposed to mean?
> SketchCow: “I don't care how "productive" he is.”
That's like saying “I don't care how good this operating system / program is. I will uninstall it just for a few flaws instead of fixing them.”
That's like firing an employee who does good work except for a few fixable flaws.
That's like trashing an entire car just because a part of it is not working as intended.
I had positive intentions, but I am not a perfect human being. Just like any of us. I'm sorry you do not acknowledge productive members of ArchiveTeam Wiki. If you see it like that, why did you create ArchiveTeam.org as a Wiki and not as a standalone website where only you can edit?
> “You think this just happened TODAY?”
Today (2019-05-16) is the first time you spoke a word to me about it. You didn't have to rage about it. I would also have understood your point if you hadn't shouted.
> JAA: “Not a genius idea [YouTubeDrive], doesn't deserve its own page.”
How do I know whether you consider something to deserve it's own page or not?
I created an article for it because it was posted in #youtubearchive. If you don't like it, just blank it and explain why. Takes less than half a minute.
> SketchCow: “When, you know, half the comments and edits are people going "Please don't" right after the guy”
Here are my 460 edits: https://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/ATrescue
Have people said “Please don't” after 230 (that's 460÷2) of my edits? Not that I know.
> SketchCow: “Oh, you're a fuckin' peach”
When I am trying to have a discussion with the founder of a website and a known internet historian like you, I expect a response with sincere language.
“Peach”? I don't understand that. Please elaborate.
I am just trying to have a sincere discussion, not a war.
> SketchCow: “I just super-blocked him.”
Why was the first block not enough? How did that make any difference?
> SketchCow: “You think this just happened TODAY?
> MONTHS
> MONTHS you've been doing this”
I am on ArchiveTeam Wiki since April 25th 2019 and got blocked on May 15th 2019 = 20 days. Not “MONTHS”. One month has 30 days, not 5 days.
Are you sure you have not confused me with someone else?
How many of my 460 edits are considered as disruptive?
I think that the vast majority of my edits can be classified as constructive. If you disagree, please don't keep your mouth shut but explain which 230 edits were counter-productive.
I have created these pages: https://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=ATrescue&namespace=&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&start=&end=
Please count how many of the pages I created are appropriate and how many of them are considered superfluos.
I have made the {{URL}} template more compact. And the serif font was just a suggestion that got rejected, and I have accepted it.
Original: [IA] [Wcite] [.is]
I added memWeb: [IA] [Wcite] [.is] [MemWeb]
I redesigned it: [IA•Wcite•.is•MemWeb]
I prefer discussions rather than edit wars and screaming + shouting.
I have added much content to the YouTube, Instagram, Archive.is, UserScripts and Chromebot articles on the Wiki. I also wrote around 75% of the YouTube article. I am very sorry you don't appreciate detailed information about the page you are trying to rescue. I thought you would appreciate it.
All of my good edits stay while the presumably non-productive edits can be reverted with ease and I learn from presumable mistakes.
I have created pages for MegaSWF, VXheaven, Dailymotion, Vlare.TV, List of lost online videos, List of lost Twitter accounts, YasakTube and more.
Jason Scott was the last person I would expect to be ungrateful for all the edits I made to these pages.
Dear Jason Scott, I am sorry that you don't appreciate the value I added to those pages. I wanted to rescue this information from oblivion. I'm sorry that you don't see any value in the >20000 characters I added to [[YouTube]], and other pages listed above. I thought you would be like-minded, but I have thought wrong. I'm sorry that my enhanced version of a UserScript that lets you save pages in the Wayback Machine easier is complete trash from your point of view ( https://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=User:ATrescue/AutoWB.js ).
I spent nearly 3 weeks rescuing information from becoming oblivious. Your answer is to scold and swear at me, followed by blocking me with the click of a mouse.
I am sorry that not 100% of my edits are perfect.
And Template:W2+ was the only template I have recreated (to prevent dead links and adding Wikipedia logo) and the only edit I have ever reverted during these 20 days.
My intentions are to help, not to harm.
I am sorry that it bothers JAA alot.
My intentions were also making ArchiveTeam more beautiful.
I think that out of the 460 contributions I wrote, my positive contributions outweigh the non-constructive ones.
I expected appreciation for my work, not rejection, especially after being shouted at and then silenced. I am sorry you did not like my efforts to improve ArchiveTeam.
If my edits were unwanted, they could have been reverted within seconds (e.g. removing the information I added to the YouTube article).
I am sorry that I am not worth 5 seconds it would have taken for another editor to revert a presumably unwanted edit, while reverting Megalanya's vandalism is worth hours.
I really like the work ArchiveTeam is doing and I would like to apologize for any presumable mistake and inconvenience; and I am kindly asking for a review.
Before responding, please watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_om7oc5EBE
Thank you very much for understanding.
———————————
(I wrote this statement message onto GitHub Gists because my access to the ArchiveTeam talk page was taken away minutes after the original block, and the IRC is not practical for long messages.)
(New content might be added to the message if it comes to my mind.)
@JustAnotherArchivist

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@JustAnotherArchivist JustAnotherArchivist commented May 18, 2019

I'm not going to write a 150-line reply, but here's a short(ish) one. (Just to be clear, this is not an "official AT reply" or whatever, just my own thoughts on this matter.)

Apparently, I am falsely being considered as a person with negative intentions.

Nope. I do believe you have good intentions. The problem is that you think you know how everything should be done, ignoring how it was done for a decade before you showed up and ignoring being told not to do it:

JAA: ”Please clean that up.”

How am I supposed to do so when blocked? I am not able to.

You were able to do so when I wrote that. Instead, you chose to recreate the template...

Shouldn't a superior way be appreciated?

Yes, a superior way would be appreciated. But yours wasn't/isn't a superior way.

That isn't to say that everything you did was bad. Not at all – and I never claimed that, by the way. You have made a number of good edits. I appreciate your additions of details to the YouTube page, for example, although I never told you so until now.

But quite a few edits and page additions were controversial at best, which brings me to the next point: communication.

I prefer discussions rather than edit wars

So do I, but you never even attempted to discuss any of those core template changes, for example.

How do I know whether you consider something to deserve it's own page or not?

By asking on IRC?


Overall, the key problem is what I mentioned at the beginning. If you want to contribute to a community (not just AT – any community), the first step is to figure out how the community works and adapt to that. Anything else is perceived as a newcomer trampling on everything the community has done and telling the community how things are supposed to work, which inevitably leads to friction.

@ATRescue

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner Author

@ATRescue ATRescue commented May 22, 2019

I'm not going to write a 150-line reply, but here's a short(ish) one. (Just to be clear, this is not an "official AT reply" or whatever, just my own thoughts on this matter.)

Apparently, I am falsely being considered as a person with negative intentions.

Nope. I do believe you have good intentions. The problem is that you think you know how everything should be done, ignoring how it was done for a decade before you showed up and ignoring being told not to do it:

JAA: ”Please clean that up.”

How am I supposed to do so when blocked? I am not able to.

You were able to do so when I wrote that. Instead, you chose to recreate the template...

Shouldn't a superior way be appreciated?

Yes, a superior way would be appreciated. But yours wasn't/isn't a superior way.

That isn't to say that everything you did was bad. Not at all – and I never claimed that, by the way. You have made a number of good edits. I appreciate your additions of details to the YouTube page, for example, although I never told you so until now.

But quite a few edits and page additions were controversial at best, which brings me to the next point: communication.

I prefer discussions rather than edit wars

So do I, but you never even attempted to discuss any of those core template changes, for example.

How do I know whether you consider something to deserve it's own page or not?

By asking on IRC?

Overall, the key problem is what I mentioned at the beginning. If you want to contribute to a community (not just AT – any community), the first step is to figure out how the community works and adapt to that. Anything else is perceived as a newcomer trampling on everything the community has done and telling the community how things are supposed to work, which inevitably leads to friction.

Thanks alot for the response.
I have included the replies in a new gist: https://gist.github.com/ATRescue/f2bb5a040484e1d0943bdc67fc28a137

Here is the part that refers to your comment:

JAA: “I do believe you have good intentions.” “That isn't to say that everything you did was bad. Not at all – and I never claimed that, by the way. You have made a number of good edits. I appreciate your additions of details to the YouTube page, for example, although I never told you so until now.”

Thanks alot.

JAA: “You were able to do so when I wrote that. Instead, you chose to recreate the template...”

Was the recreation of the template what caused Jason Scott to block me, disregarding the approximately >400 productive edits I have done?
The edit comment that Jason Scott probably has not read stated, that it was just temporary, until the issue has been fixed.

JAA: “But yours wasn't/isn't a superior way.”

How would you have named the template? How would you or Jason Scott have done it differently?

JAA: “But quite a few edits and page additions were controversial at best,”

I am not sure whether you are referring to what I think you are referring to (except W/W2/W2+, which is obvious by now), therefore I am asking you to mention some examples of those considered controversial edits.

JAA: “but you never even attempted to discuss any of those core template changes, for example.” “By asking on IRC?”

You are right. I should have made the changes to high-usage templates in a sandbox only and then asked in IRC.
Example: The serif font in the URL template. It did not harm ArchiveTeam at all and was reverted after the active IRC members voted against it. Issue solved.

JAA: “the first step is to figure out how the community works and adapt to that. ”

I was trying to do that, but Jason Scott did not give me any time.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.