Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.



Last active May 29, 2019
What would you like to do?
Second response to comments on IRC and GitHub.
This gist was temporarily unavailable, because “Your account has been flagged.
Because of that, your profile is hidden from the public. If you believe this is a mistake, contact support to have your account status reviewed.”.
I chose to write this text in a separate gist instead of the existing previous one as new file to make it easier for some to find it.
To respond to this message, please comment here below this GitHub Gist or on my Wikipedia talk page . My Wikipedia account is blocked for promoting ArchiveTeam, but I can still access my talk page.
Hello again.
Sorry for late response.
Again, I ask you to read this message from a neutral, unbiassed point of view.
Unfortunately, most questions from my previous message ( ) were ignored, which means that exactly what I was accused of doing (ignoring people), is being done to me.
Additionally, I asked for being shown examples of deliberately ignoring people, but Jason Scott (and anyone else) failed to show me any such examples.
If you consider anything in the following message as false (untrue), then please say it.
If I have ever presumably ignored anyone, I probably replied to it at some later point. I am not on IRC 24/7, just like any of us.
Also, Jason Scott @textfiles does ignore most things tweeted to him. I am not judging him over it, I am just saying that it is not fair accusing me of ignoring people when he does it too. And I, unlike him, just mentioned an example.
I was surprised when, all of a sudden, Jason Scott “talked” to me for the first time. Before of that, he has not said one word about any mistakes I might be doing. Had he done so, I could have adapted accordingly.
And I also wonder why an internet historian judges me by 5% of my edits instead of by the productive edits I have done.
Before being blocked, JAA seemingly was the only one who really complained much about my edits. Everyone else did not. Therefore I assumed that his decision to remove [[Template:W2+]] was a bit biassed.
The specified reasons for why he removed that template were:
* Confusing (I was going to fix it. I wanted the template to be there *meanwhile*, not *permanently*. I see nothing wrong with it. )
* Not containing the text “at Wikipedia” (external page, but MediaWiki). His point was that this would make users not know that this link leads them to an external website. That got fixed with the Wikipedia icon I added.
** Wikipedia is a trusted website that even runs MediaWiki, the same software ran by ArchiveTeam Wiki.
But for the new responses: (If there is anyone I have not responded to yet, please let me know.)
Correction of mistake in previous gist: I was actually blocked on May 16th (21 days after April 25th). I wrote May 15th somewhere.
I noticed it but I did not change it yet in order to test whether anyone would notify me about it, which did never happen. But it is not that relevant anyway.
Comment by JAA under previous gist:
> 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...”
…and provided a valid explaination in the edit comment.
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 made the template 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.
> Flashfire: “And I have never personally attacked any ArchiveTeam member.”
> “less J.A.A. (Just Always Angry) is found like 5 or 6 lines us”
Was that perceived as a personal attack? This name was just implying that I perceived him as more reluctant than other users.
I don't believe he perceived it as a personal attack but with took it with a grain of salt. But his response to my GitHub Gist was not angry at all, and I appreciate it.
> Sokar: “looks like someone's crusing for a wildcard ban”
That's factually clearing up misunderstandings.
Which specific part sounds like crushing to you?
> Fusl: “i have no reason to not believe ATrescue at "client automatically reconnected." since now is usually the time his 24h forced reconnect happens, ”
Exactly that is what happened.
> Fusl: “but dropping that link and pinging some people before leaving again is IMHO a ban evasion.”
I have not harmed anyone by dropping that link and pinging 3 people.
And that was my only possible way to communicate my perspective. I felt misunderstood.
What would you have suggested me to do instead?
> Fusl: “the gist containing a message that SketchCow wrote three minutes after kicking ATr also suggests that he either has another client connected around or someone forwarding him”
Yes, there is indeed someone forwarding to me. See below:
> Fusl: “messages from here, in the latter case: congratulations you fucktard, whoever you are, you are entitled to leave as well now.”
I don't think logchfoo will be happy that you called him a “fucktard”.
Instead, it would be better if you had actually responded to my points in the gist. That would be more constructive.
> SketchCow: “Ha, that gist”
Thanks ;-)
But would you consider responding to the points?
> SketchCow: “Archive it with archivebot”
I am sorry if this question is off-topic, but why did you not archive it yourself?
> SketchCow: “‘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.’
That's my golden favorite line”
Thanks alot. Appreciated. I am glad you liked it.
> SketchCow: “But that's like choosing the oscar some years.”
> Flashfire: “Sketch cow how did that beat I have never personally attacked any ArchiveTeam member. when 9 lines up and less J.A.A. (Just Always Angry) is said”
It would be good if this wasn't the only point in the entire gist that you responded to. Please also consider the other points in the gist.
> Flashfire: “I mean that won it for me.”
Not the other points in the entire gist?
> SketchCow: “I mean, he's banned. I'm not going to let him back.”
I don't expect you are going to unblock me.
But I encourage you and others to answer the questions I had in the previous gist. Thanks in advance.
And have you read the entire gist?
And when hypothetically assuming that I am not blocked, what is the worst thing that you believe that would happen?
> “Go "help" another community”
Which community are you referring to?
> “Or invent some justice/decision that will cause him to come back because his internal system tells him it is right”
No. It is because I feel misunderstood and I want to educate you.
> SketchCow: “I just mean that you've been contributing, whatever, you obviously calmed down”
Why do you forgive some while not forgiving others?
I do not imply that you should not be forgiving Flashfire. Indeed you should. He also has good intentions.
But how come you are able to forgive one while unable to forgive another?
> SketchCow: “His using wikipedia cites”
I see no problem with citing a Wikipedia article.
These Wikipedia pages (WP:AGF, WP:DBN) actually include valid points.
Have you read them?
> SketchCow: “, of arguing his case like it's a legal manner,”
Does it really sound that professional? Thanks alot.
But it would be good if you actually responded to my points.
> SketchCow: “I don't care if he fixes the little box at the bottom of every page,”
Are you referring to the category box? Do you consider the category box unimportant? It's purpose is to keep the wiki organized and more overseeable.
> SketchCow: “”
That's for a working environment. I mainly improved the wiki without disrupting other users.
Thank you for calling me brilliant. Why do you block brilliant users?
> SketchCow: “Has ATRescue shot up a school or anything while I was gone”
If you call this gist a “school”, then yes. I indeed have.
> JAA: “They've deleted that comment since. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯”
Sorry, but this is a lie. I have not deleted any comments.
> JAA: “All I know is that "this discussion is done" and I'm "still a Peach".”
Are you talking from mine or your perspective?
> JAA: “Not sure if the AB job got the comment though. I think the timestamp on the email was a bit later. Could be that the email arrived a bit late of course.”
Which email are you referring to?
Additionally, among the pages I saved into ChromeBot and ArchiveBot while I was active, there were important discussions and community tweets regarding controversial topics, including politics. That's not disruptive. That's one of the purposes of web archival.
Initially, Jason Scott first blocked my account for a week.
Then, he decided for a permanent block for no reason.
The specified reason was “Forced discussion”.
An alternative would have been writing a message:
Although ArchiveTeam Wiki has no notification system like Wikipedia, ArchiveTeam Wiki does indeed notify users when a message has been left on their talk pages.
Here are still a few remaining, factual questions to Jason Scott:
* Do you see any value in the improvements I have made to articles such as YouTube,, chromebot?
* Do you see any value in articles about MegaSWF, AutoWB.js (Wayback script), UserScripts, etc. ?
* Do you think that my positive edits or my negative edits outweigh?
* How many edits out of the 460 I have made to ArchiveTeam Wiki do you consider positive?
* How many edits out of the 460 I have made to ArchiveTeam Wiki do you consider negative?
* Why do you judge a Wiki editor by a small fraction of his edits?
* Why do you ask for a discussion, yet you set a ban on me on the IRC when I agree on having the discussion?
* Why is ArchiveTeam a Wiki and not a normal website only you can edit? THe purpose of a Wiki is collaboration. But you do not appreciate my positive contributions at all.
* How exactly has any of my edits negatively affected your life enough for you to permanently ban me from the site?
* Why do you believe that I have negative intentions?
Jason Scott has been too rigid. He still has not explained which specific edits out of the 460 edits lead to him blocking my account, despite he loudly proclaimed on the #archiveteam IRC channel that half of the times after I touched something, people said “please don't”, which is clearly untrue. And unfortunately, my questions from the previous gist were left unanswered. Therefore, I kindly ask him to answer the questions and show me examples, which would be constructive.
I had a lot of respect for Jason Scott for building ArchiveTeam, for his Robots.txt manifesto, for his “We are going to rescue your shit” attitude and especially his efforts to protect information from oblivion. A literate and well-spoken person. But then, I got judged by him over a fraction of the 460 edits after being screamed at, disregarding every positive edit I have made.
Update (May 25th 2019):
[New responses as of 20190225:]
> JAA: “SketchCow: You mean #archivebot earlier? I wasn't completely sure if it was ATrescue or not.”
What happened on #ArchiveBot? Did someone pretend to be me?
> SketchCow: “He's writing lots of stuff in some gist, keeps tagging me.”
“Tagging” you (writing “SketchCow”) into the Gist? That's called quoting.
Maybe because I have the feeling that you misunderstood things and that I want to enrich your point of view with my answers.
> SketchCow: “I keep unsubscribing”
…does imply that you were subscribed earlier.
I thought you are able to argue like an adult person. I am here to inform you, not to have a battle. And I encourage you to voice your point of view too instead of staying silent.
With that attitude, communicating to you unfortunately is impossible.
> SketchCow: “I don't like this type of person.”
You don't like people who contribute and improve ArchiveTeam Wiki?
Why don't you make the entire wiki read-only then?
And why haven't my contributions to pages such as [[YouTube]] and [[]] been reverted yet?
> SketchCow: “They're time and energy sponges”
> JAA: “I ignored the gists after posting my comment there last week.”
I am afraid to say that I feel betrayed. I made more constructive edits to ArchiveTeam Wiki in these 3 weeks than any other user during this period of time. I put much work into improving ArchiveTeam's Wiki, and then I end up getting called a “time and energy sponge”.
I get rejected by a community despite I am very like-minded and over 95 % of my 460 edits on the Wiki were constructive.
When I ask for a clarification, my questions get ignored. Instead of actually answering my questions, my writing style gets rated:
> SketchCow: “Well, they're treating every line you wrote like a line in the constitution”
…instead of actually answering my questions with an open mind.
But thank you for praising my writing style. It would be very appreciated if you would also improve your writing style to a more professional level in order to match.
> Fusl_: “heh. atrescue reminds me on my younger self a few years back when i got banned from the cjdns community by the main developer. i learned my lession, that certain question are just going to be left unanswered forever, the hard way, and i suggest atrescue to try to understand that”
Thank you for sharing this story. But why did you get banned? And what did you ask them?
…But I got falsely accused of ignoring people (without showing me any examples) and now I actually get ignored.
I want to help preserving information and rescuing it from oblivion.
If my questions from this gist and the previous gist are being left unanswered, it is probably because these answers would prove me right. But what's so bad about me being proven right? Exactly nobody takes damage from it.
I really don't know why Jason Scott randomly chose me as his scapegoat. And I wonder who else he chose as such. He blocked me, yet he is unable to show me specific examples of what caused me to get blocked, which would mean that the block only has emotional reasoning and not much rational reasoning.
I wonder who else Jason Scott treats like that, especially in real life. First, he screams at me “You don't f*cking listen”, “MONTHS! MONTHS you've been doing this.”, then he does not show me any examples to prove it (he probably confused me with somebody else).
I strongly suggest Jason Scott to work on his personality. He is a hero in the online world, but his personality does not match (as of May 2019).
> JAA: “this discussion is done”
I don't want to be suggestive, but that is what usually people who are about to lose a discussion say. But this discussion is not a fight, not a battle, just a negotiation that Jason Scott originally asked for (specified reason for wiki block: “Forced discussion”), but abandoned that discussion within minutes of me appearing.
I strive for saving information from oblivion and I don't like when information vanishes from the Internet without a trace.
ArchiveTeam was expected to be the place with like-minded people, and that was actually the case. We (JAA and me) just had a few, rather minor, easily solvable conflicts. But then, without a warning, Jason Scott appeared out of nowhere and blindly chose me as the scapegoat. In fact, Jason Scott has not used his Wiki account since late 2018, and I am the first user on ArchiveTeam Wiki to have been blocked since nearly 18 months. Not a single user has actually been blocked in the entirity of the previous year, 2018.
Update (May 27th 2019):
> SketchCow: “Yeah, apparently we need to [change the forsooth secret word] because this guy will probably now try and get in again ” (,Thu&sel=202#l198 )
Actually, I did not plan on rejoining because I knew I was going to be banned again immediately. Instead, I was going to have the discussion you asked for. But when I came, you rejected the same discussion you asked for.
The original reason I contributed to ArchiveTeam is because I have the same intentions as you: To help rescuing information from oblivion, also known as “WE ARE GOING TO RESCUE YOUR SHIT!”. I embraced this attitude so much that I even chose my username after it.
In conclusion, you are preventing me from doing what you want to happen and what you want the community (and yourself) to do: preventing loss of information.
> astrid: “three times in ten years isn't that bad” (,Thu&sel=204#l200 )
Out of all the users that got blocked so far (see ), I belong to the 3 who caused a password change? And unlike the other 2 (one of them is Megalanya, the other one unknown to me), I actually improved the wiki.
> SketchCow: “Because as you know, my gentle and supplicant personality is legendary.” (,Sun&sel=168#l164 )
Actually, quickly judging and then quickly using the ban hammer on newcomers is not what I would call gentle. If you did so with everyone, ArchiveTeam's Wiki would be far less informative. Imagine Wikipedia doing the same.
Imagine Wikipedia being write-protected to new users just because a mere fraction of their edits is considered non-constructive, disregarding the vast majority of their edits that actually is structive. More damage than good.
Is there any alternative archival community I could help, where my constructive contributions actually get appreciated instead of neglected and disdained?
Is there any archival community whose leader does actually acknowledge contributions instead of shouting and paranoidly banning contributive members?
And if my contributions to the ArchiveTeam Wiki were really that terrible (terrible enough for Jason Scott to shout at, reject and then neglect me), shouldn't they have been removed by now? Why are none of my contributions to e.g. [[YouTube]], [[UserScripts]], [[MegaSWF]], [[UserScripts]], [[]], [[Dailymotion]] etc. already removed as of 20190526 since I was blocked?
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment