Jason Scott: Criticizing Wikipedia, but has a dark side too.

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats Oh my!
User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Critic
Posts: 305
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Jason Scott: Criticizing Wikipedia, but has a dark side too.

Post by CMAwatch » Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:18 am

Despite WMF and Internet Archive seem to be close friends, apparently Jason Scott (ArchiveTeam founder and Internet Archive employee) is a criticizer of Wikipedia.

However, Jason Scott is not clean either.

Jason Scott has verbally abused several members of his 2009-founded organisation ArchiveTeam (Kyan, ATrescue), despite they, especially ATrescue, was very, very productive on ArchiveTeam Wiki. More about that below.

In fact, >75% of the YouTube article on ArchiveTeam Wiki is written by him alone.

ATrescue made 460 edits within 3 weeks, while Jason Scott (user:Jscott) made just ~20 edits since February 2017.


ATrescue created articles about MegaSWF, UserScripts and many more.

Jason Scott wrote into the IRC “I don't care how productive he is”, which is like Bbb23. Unthankful and ignorant.

ATrescue was initially blocked for one week only (for creating template:TwHandle), then Jason Scott decided to block him indefinitely with talk page and email disabled without explanation, despite ATrescue talked very civil to him.

Jason Scott has also falsely accused ATrescue of doing “this” (what exactly?) for months, despite he was just registered on the Wiki for 21 days, and banned ATrescue from IRC without him being to say anything.

Jason Scott has accused ATrescue of even more things, read these two statements that Jason Scott entirely neglected:

* https://gist.github.com/ATRescue/f2bb5a040484e1d0943bdc67fc28a137
* https://gist.github.com/ATRescue/bd40310ddf6c34ba68356fbd0f37352f
In February 2016, Jason Scott verbally abused a user called Kyan, for a simple question with slight criticism.

Wikipedia critic Jason Scott has his own dark side too, apparently.

User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Critic
Posts: 305
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Unable to handle legitimate criticism.

Post by CMAwatch » Tue Nov 05, 2019 5:33 pm

Does that look like a person who can handle legitimate criticism well?

(Side note: SketchCow is Jason Scott's user name.)
Attachments
Screenshot-2019-11-5 #archiveteam-bs 2016-02-15,Mon.png
How easily Jason Scott is irritated.
Screenshot-2019-11-5 #archiveteam-bs 2016-02-15,Mon.png (39.9 KiB) Viewed 2075 times

User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Critic
Posts: 305
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Why ATrescue was not defended.

Post by CMAwatch » Tue Nov 05, 2019 5:52 pm

The other members of ArchiveTeam did not defend ATrescue at all, due to authority bias.

Likely, they knew that ATrescue is correct, but the truth was powerless under Jason Scott's scrutiny.

In other words: Jason Scott would likely have banned any member who had spoken on behalf of ATrescue.


When, you know, half the comments and edits are people going "Please don't" right after the guy


An evidently false allegation Jason Scott got away with, thanks to his power position.

Also, “I don't care how productive he is” is downright disgustingly ignorant.

Some more crazy swearing by Jason Scott: http://archive.ph/7K9jA
Attachments
Screenshot-2019-11-5 #archiveteam-bs 2019-05-16,Thu(1).png
Screenshot-2019-11-5 #archiveteam-bs 2019-05-16,Thu(1).png (6.39 KiB) Viewed 2072 times
Screenshot-2019-11-5 #archiveteam-bs 2019-05-16,Thu.png
False accusation + lack of gratitude.
Screenshot-2019-11-5 #archiveteam-bs 2019-05-16,Thu.png (16.7 KiB) Viewed 2072 times

User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Critic
Posts: 305
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 24 times

“Get in again” ?

Post by CMAwatch » Sun Nov 10, 2019 12:32 am

At some point, Jason Scott said “he is now trying to get in again! Let's change the magic word!” or something similar.

As far as known, ATrescue never tried to evade his ban, but honestly, why would I want to get in again in a community whose owner (Jason Scott) is verbally abusive and bans prolific editors over minor incidents?

User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Critic
Posts: 305
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Potential sociopath?

Post by CMAwatch » Fri Dec 20, 2019 11:12 am

Quote:
“No, if I do it, I'll just start murdering you fucks
All of you”
URL: http://archive.is/wip/osVMw

Screenshot-2019-12-20 #archiveteam-bs 2016-03-08,Tue.png
Screenshot-2019-12-20 #archiveteam-bs 2016-03-08,Tue.png (11.38 KiB) Viewed 1775 times
:shock: :shock: :shock:

User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Critic
Posts: 305
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Former ArchiveTeam member shares his grievances.

Post by CMAwatch » Sun Dec 22, 2019 1:11 pm

I never knew that Jason Scott is THAT unthankful and extremely hostile.

A former member of ArchiveTeam has spoken.

ATrescue's very long comment: https://poal.co/s/ModAbuse/120094/ec77a ... a6ba#cmnts

I am so glad to hear from him.

TL;DR: ATrescue has added more content and value to ArchiveTeam Wiki within 3 weeks than Jason Scott within the last ~3 years.

Jason Scott banned ATrescue because JustAnotherArchivist (abbreviated: JAA), a very hostile member of ArchiveTeam, who didn't like the templates ATrescue has created, suggested to Jason Scott that ATrescue is a vandal for creating actually better templates than the existing ones (e.g. with added Wikipedia logo instead of “on Wikipedia” text, of which the latter would look horrible in inline text).

When ATrescue created the legitimate template for facilitating linking to Twitter accounts (Template:TwHandle), JAA screamed “stop creating new templates already”, instead of appreciating the work.

JAA has broken all links that go through ATrescue's templates by blanking the template instead of giving ATrescue any time to use alternative templates. When ATrescue reverted the blanking only for the meantime, until the links are fixed through alternative methods, JAA reverted again with just the word “No” in the edit comment, without any logical reason.

Jason Scott labelled this minor incident a “shitbox of trouble and f*ck”, and the prolific value he added to articles such as YouTube “blasting through the place”. Absolutely unthankful.

ATrescue's good contributions (e.g. thousands of words with detailed information added to articles such as YouTube, MegaSWF, ChromeBot, etc.) outweigh those by >95%.

———————

The other ModAbused member “Kyan” (one of potentially many more we haven't heard from yet) has tweeted:
Buddy, Jason Scott has verbally attacked you and then kicked you out for legitimate criticism, and you apologize to him?

No need! Jason Scott should apologize to you! Not the other way round!

Jason Scott indeed deserves respect for his archival work, but shame for for his super-hostile attitude and sociopathic tendencies.

Side note: Jason Scott also enjoys SCREAMING WITH ALL-UPPERCASE TWEETS.

User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Critic
Posts: 305
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Jason Scott Sadofsky's true personality:

Post by CMAwatch » Sat Jan 04, 2020 5:38 pm

What JASON SCOTT (written in uppercase for emphasis), dictator of ArchiveTeam, actually thinks of his community:
(Source image)
rsz_jason_says_you_are_number_one.jpg
“I dOnT cArE hOW pRoDuCtiVe hE iS”
rsz_jason_says_you_are_number_one.jpg (64.2 KiB) Viewed 1660 times
SketchCow wrote:I dOnT cArE hOW pRoDuCtiVe hE iS!!!
Another evidently hostile member of ArchiveTeam is called JAA (“JustAnotherArchivist”).

What if they were merged together as JAAson Scott?

Nevertheless, if they persist in being hostile, they will scare away potentially very productive new users and prevent their community from thriving… oh, wait! Jason Scott does not care how productive they are!
—————————————

Jokes aside.
Any community administrator who does not care how productive their users are (e.g. Jason Scott) should probably be avoided. They are harming their own cause through their hostility.

User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Critic
Posts: 305
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Abusive administrator leaderboard.

Post by CMAwatch » Sun Jan 05, 2020 7:36 pm

Jason Scott has exposed himself on the admin abuse leaderboard, currently in Rank 2, directly behind infamously abusive Bbb23.

Leaderboard: https://poal.co/s/ModAbuse/132568

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Jason Scott: Criticizing Wikipedia, but has a dark side too.

Post by Abd » Mon Jan 06, 2020 4:14 pm

CMAwatch neglects to mention something. It appears that Jason Scott is the founder of the Archive Team wiki, probably owns the domain. and thus can do essentially what he chooses with it, so "authority bias" takes on a different color in that context. Owners have a complete right to ban anyone, and that is completely necessary.

Offend an owner, on a wiki like that, you can expect your account will be toast. So what happened with ATrescue? Contributions. Very high contribution rate. Block log:
15:40, 16 May 2019 Jscott (talk | contribs) blocked ATrescue (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation disabled) (Force discussion)
15:49, 16 May 2019 Jscott changed block settings for ATrescue with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Force discussion)
This appears to have been an ordinary admin action to force the user to discuss activity. But to shut all activity down, including talk page discussion 9 minutes later would be quite unusual. Why did he do this? The obvious answer, I speculate, is that ATrescue did something to seriously piss him off, possibly on IRC or twitter or the like. The day before this came down, there was an apparently friendly comment on User talk:ATRescue:
... Don't overwork yourself on the wiki. ...
That user also pointed ATrescue to IRC guidelines, giving another hint. Above, CMAwatch has:
ATrescue was initially blocked for one week only (for creating template:TwHandle), then Jason Scott decided to block him indefinitely with talk page and email disabled without explanation, despite ATrescue talked very civil to him.
CMA watch does not show us any "civil" talking to Scott. Judging by the result, whatever happened, Scott was not pleased. And ATrescue was apparently obsessed by the situation, indicating high emotional involvement, the very thing he was warned about the day before.
From ATrescue contribs:
13:40, 16 May 2019 (diff | hist) . . (+142)‎ . . N Template:Twhandle [and his last edit]:
15:35, 16 May 2019 (diff | hist) . . (+18)‎ . . m Template:Twhandle ‎ (#89ffff – more suitable highlighting colour than #ccccff + rounded corners to match Twitter's UI (despite I personally prefer less rounded UI's and Twitter's pre-20170615 user interface.).) (current)
I suspect that this template was not the reason why ATrescue was blocked. There is no discussion there, and the template still exists. We get more clue from CMAwatch, in this post, which also refers to an archive of an IRC search for "fuck" and Scott's user name. What's significant is that context is not shown, but it can be inferred (and probably the archive could be searched). This is, nevertheless, telling (SketchCow is Scott):
2019-05-16,Thu
199 [15:41] <SketchCow> Because apparently they don't mind causing a shitbox of trouble and fuck working with a team
202 [15:44] <SketchCow> ATrescue2: You don't fucking listen.
208 [15:45] <SketchCow> Oh, you're a fuckin' peach
224 [16:03] <SketchCow> This guy was so fuckin' nice
Jason Scott is a classic internet loudmouth asshole. There are many such. However, my point: if a loudmouth asshole owns a site and is "dictator" there, don't use the site unless you accept the authority. Basic. That ATrescue was furiously editing (lots of contributions!) and Scott was only occasionally editing is totally normal, when a founder has created a site that is active. They get involved with other things. Jason being "wrong" in his comment about "half the edits" would be irrelevant. He's saying stop and it's obvious that AT rescue argued with him, and Scott shut him down as would be completely normal for an owned site.

Listing him with Wikipedia abusive admins is ridiculous. For some of them to behave as if they own the site is offensive, since it is represented that the community owns it (though, in fact, legally and practically, the WMF owns it and defers to the community if it chooses to do so. If that ownership is legal, because the WMF started as a defined-member organization, then that was changed without consulting the membership, it's probably completely unchallengeable at this date, because a member, a lawyer who had helped create it, protested but did not sue.)

(Some may think my lawsuit contradicts this position on owners. No. The WMF has the general right to ban for any reason and no reason, but not necessarily the right to publish it, that's the legal issue. They could easily ban without public visibility, the user would simply stop contributing as far as anyone could tell. They could also enjoin a user from specific behaviors and take more intrusive action if the user violates the injunction.)

It appears that CMAwatch is using Sucks to pursue a personal agenda not related to Wikipedia criticism. Am I correct in that?

User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Critic
Posts: 305
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Jason Scott: Criticizing Wikipedia, but has a dark side too.

Post by CMAwatch » Tue Jan 07, 2020 7:09 pm

Abd wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 4:14 pm
It appears that CMAwatch is using Sucks to pursue a personal agenda not related to Wikipedia criticism. Am I correct in that?

It was originally not posted in the “Wikipedians” forum, but it was moved here by someone at some point.

Also, my user name means “Community Moderation Abuse Watch”, which means that I research and expose abusive administrators such as Bbb23 and more.

Thank you for your detailed analysis, Abd.

Post Reply