Although mentioned in the deviantART article, this drama queen is so lulzy he deserved his own page.
Jarkoff Jackoff is a filthy gaijin living in Japan with his Japanese wife and their hybrid child. He was the founder and/or co-founder of deviantART who is best known for depicting himself as an alien who enjoys sticking a butt probe in people. To further emphasize his obsession with asses, Jark also coined the term "Collective Rectum" on deviantART. Thankfully, no one uses it anymore.
He and fellow CEO Spyed had two varying accounts of dA history after Spyed fired Jark's ass: Jark claims deviantART sprang forth as the result of his sole blood sweat and tears and that Spyed is a big liar, was only an associate at the time, and never worked on the site in the beginning (this despite the fact that, somehow, Spyed was appointed CEO and majority owner of deviantART inc., what is supposedly Jark's own project.) Spyed claims he was the one who procured the funds to keep the site alive when it first started. But this petty bitch fight isn't what we care about. What we care about is Jark's legendary behavior after his firing and the hilarious turmoil it stirred among the devianTARTlets.
THIS JUST IN- We do care about the petty bitch fight because Spyed just dropped a motherfucking bombshell, see The Final Confrontation.
In July of 2005 Jark was canned for unknown reasons. But looking at his behavior following his firing it may be because he's batshit crazy and a crybaby. After being fired he started referring to deviantART as "The Company", started stressing "community" and the fact he alone cares about the users.
He also dug up the corpse of a guy named Matteo who was apparently another co-founder of the site but hadn't been an admin or even active on the site since about 2002. Like a good lapdog Matteo sprung back to life and lent his support to Jark, and the TARTlets pretended to know who the fuck he is.
Jark Gets Even
In his initial journal entry about his firing, Jark had this to say:
Then, in a show of maturity and professionalism, he uploaded a photo of his kid looking like he was crying and blamed the child's tears on Spyed firing him. Here's the exact description from the photo:
"Why have you been hurt by the guy from Los Angeles, who taught me a few Greek words while he was welcomed in our home in Japan, and stayed here for a week which ended up with him befriending me, only to stab you in the back?
...was it business?
...was it personal?
...was it for money?
...was if for power?
...was it greed?
...was there an honest reason?
...why have you been hurt?
...all I want to know is why, daddy?
your pain is too much for me to handle and I can not keep it inside any longer ...
*DISCLAIMER*: this deviation is in no way to be considered a personal attack on any of the parties involved in "this situation." it is merely here to depict the unintended consequences of ones actions; those that are never considered when decisions are made and implemented. this image is not staged and is not intended to be used as some way to rally the masses; art is emotion and this is nothing but pure, raw, emotions pouring out of someone affected by this severity of the situation."
How he could write that disclaimer with a straight face is anyone's guess. So Jark was definitely, blatantly, trying to inflate his e-penis by working the whole site up into a tizzy over his firing, but so he didn't look like the douchebag he was obviously behaving like he tried to play himself off as the innocent saint (who will happily have his son's chest caved in) trying to keep order at the same time. One might speculate Jark was even delusional enough to think the users could stage some kind of uprising against the site and somehow wrest it from the hands of his dastardly oppressors.
And so the Jarktards went forth: many users changed their avatars to some shade of yellow (some who even admitted to not previously knowing who Jark was), many went and flamed Spyed's user page, many hid or deleted their galleries as if anyone would give a flying fuck, the site was bombarded with Jark fan art which Jark most likely feverishly masturbated to, and arguments between the Jarktards and only slightly more sane people erupted all over the news, journals, forums and pretty much everywhere on deviantART. Jark even got his mom to join the fray and spit lots of legalese at people. All hell broke loose.
AVENGE ME MY JARKTARDS...but be civil
Looking through Jark's journals you can see plenty of instances where he's a hypocritical little bitch, nitpicks at the site for the sake of it, tries to manipulate users into causing a commotion, and is totally wanking his e-penis throughout:
- Despite there being nothing preventing "The Company" from explaining why they fired him (Spyed cited legal concerns) Jark, who presumably has nothing preventing him as well, has never adequately explained why he was fired either. We're sticking with the "crybaby" theory.
- Despite continually insinuating he could make a new art website, and having already claimed he coded most of the original dA all by himself, no such project as ever been seen or announced.
- FAP FAP FAP.
- Jark mentions how a legal battle would be harmful to DeviantART, yet at this point he was still threatening to sue, and collecting money from gullible lulsers. He also warns people against "character assassination" despite the fact the photo of his kid blubbering about Spyed being a meanie-butt is still in his gallery.
Eventually some suckup (or maybe it was Jark's own masturbatory idea) got the idea to take deviantART's birthday and turn it into "Yellow Day": a day for Jark fan art and Jark e-penis sucking. In 2005 this sadly caught on, with people vowing that on August 7th they would upload no art, or only upload yellow art. Many a TARTlet was blinded by the influx of piss-colored artwork.
However in 2006 "Yellow Day" simply didn't happen, which goes to show TARTlets can lose interest in even their most passionate crusades pretty damn quick.
So despite previously emphasizing how bad a legal battle would be for deviantART (perhaps using it as a threat to get his precious "$" symbol back) Jark has been openly collecting money from TARTlets so he can sue and potentially financially ruin the site they love. lol what?
So Jark has collected money from TARTlets. At least 2k looking at his "Save the Yellow Alien" site. However when questioned about how the lawsuit is coming or what further progress he's made on it, Jark is evasive and vague. Some have speculated the money has really gone toward his new puppy and various mysterious electronic gadgets of the dark Orient.
Jark as a devianTART Admin
The grand irony in Jark's firing is that thousands of weeaboo and furfag TARTlets swarmed to support him, either having forgotten or completely ignorant to the fact that he had massively trolled them in the past.
Back in 2003 (which is at least 100 years ago in internets time) a really shitty piece of animu fanart found its way to the deviantART front page in the "Daily Top Favorites". For those not so TARTingly inclined: that's when a bunch of people decide someone's crappy art is their "favorite" and if it gets over 9,000 it appears on the front page.
Jark, correctly coming to the conclusion that the weeaboos could not use his website properly, decided to ban both anime and anthro art from appearing on the front page "Top Favorites". It only lasted for about two months, and where some artfags praised the decision, but the fact remains that if Spyed or Lolly pulled any shit like this today Jark would rally up the site once more and declare its proof the "new" deviantART administration doesn't care about its users.
—Jark, pwning the weeaboos.
The Final Confrontation
On 7 October 2007 Jark posted this journal in which he bitches about deviantART removing an upload of his that was against their policy, obviously feeding it through the paranoia machine and shitting it out as some sort of personal vendetta against him. Since he's unable to follow rules he probably fucking wrote himself, nobody was really buying it.
On 11 October 2007 Spyed, finally fed up and a bit butthurt, responded to a comment by Jark made in response to an argument with yet another TARTlet, bringing about a lollercaust by pwning Jark with the facts the internets have been begging to hear for 2 years now. Here, archived forever, annotated for great justice, is the confrontation:
From: Scott Jarkoff  Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 4:44 AM To: Andrew McCann Cc: Angelo Sotira Subject: Re: Response to "Serious Business Matters" Importance: High
Thank you for taking the time to read and ultimately respond to my email entitled, "Serious Business Matters." I take these issues quite seriously so I appreciate your reply.
What I do find frustrating is your use of this whole "Board of Directors" bit. Let's be serious here for a moment, shall we?
The board consists of two people: you, and Angelo. And yet here you are, addressing me in a manner that would be consistent with that of a large corporate entity. I understand the wish for formality, but let's be realistic. You and I both know that any decision the "board" makes is simply a decision of Angelo's that you've been dragged along on.
Statements like, "since your emails have raised concerns about the activities of Angelo in his role as CEO, the board of directors has decided that I, and not Angelo, should respond," you may think you're coming across as caring and open, but you're not. Your response seems automated and canned.
Can we cut the semantics and be a little more open and intimate with this discussion? After all, it is partially these unnecessary formalities that Angelo has brought to the culture of deviantART, Inc. that has made it such a horrible place for people to work. You might think otherwise, but the cold truth is you're not in the dark like all but a select few on staff are.
"* You appear to raise concerns about the composition of the board of Directors. As you know, in the early stages of the deviantART's existence, as a boot-strapped start-up we did not follow the necessary corporate formalities and appropriately document corporate activities. When we later got around to documenting corporate matters, we established a board of directors consisting of Angelo and I, which I thought you agreed to. If you do not like the composition of the board, you are within your rights as a stockholder to request that deviantART hold an annual meeting where the stockholders can elect new directors."
Unfortunately, here you are incorrect. We did, in fact, follow the proper corporate formalities in the early days of deviantART. However, Angelo decided after a *private* attorney consultation, that it would better suit deviantART, Inc. if the company were restructured. Did he consult you before doing this? He ultimately passed this information on to me via phone call, but I later learned he had left some of the most important facts out of the conversation.
The documents I provided explain this story in lucid detail. I previously suggested that you read through them but I can only assume based on your statements that you either failed to understand the previously provided documentation, or you simply ignored them.
During a phone call between you and I in November of 2004, surrounding the beginning of the "Performance Improvement Plan," I *explicitly* told you that I was dissatisfied with the composition of the Board of Directors. During that conversation I explained how I, as a shareholder in deviantART, was never informed of the vote to add an additional board member. You merely brushed aside my concerns by stating that my votes would never have mattered due to the mathematics surrounding the corporate structure. Mathematics aside, the fact remains that all shareholders should have been notified of the desire for additional board members. Why was I was left in the dark?
For the record, I have no problem with *your* placement on the board. What I do take issue with is the way in which Angelo handled your addition to the Board. Rather than do things ethically, by holding an annual stockholders meeting for the sole purpose of placing a vote on new Board members, he underhandedly went behind everyone's back and got you added to the Board. At no time was I ever informed of such moves.
Do you consider that type of unethical and conniving behavior something you want to be party to?
Ultimately, my issue here is not with the election of new Directors. It is with the way in which it was handled.
From the inception of the company through September 2004 I served as President of deviantART, Inc. Literally, one day I was just no longer holding that position. Meanwhile, Angelo has somehow managed to make himself both the CEO and the President. He claims both titles on all legal company documentation; even though I was explicitly told differently. Angelo constantly referred to me as the President of the company in phone calls between the two of us; as well as with previous deviantART, Inc. personnel. My e-mail signature prior to September 2004 was testament to this.
At what point was my presidency taken away, and for what reason? Why was I denied a formal process? Why was I not notified *at the time*?
- How do you explain this sudden modification to the corporate structure
with no notification to the other involved parties?*
Out of all the issues I have, perhaps the most troubling is my issue with share percentages between Angelo, you, and me.
In the original corporate documents, which list you, Ian, Angelo and myself as stockholders, I have a 45% stake in deviantART, Inc. At the time that Angelo had the founder agreements drafted, my "piece of the pie" suddenly dropped to 35%. Unfortunately, at the time I was not able to locate the original corporate documents to compare the numbers though during a phone call in July of 2004 Angelo assured me that I had
- always* had a 35% stake in deviantART, Inc., and that nothing had changed.
How do you explain this dishonesty by Angelo, stating that my percentage had always been 35%, when I have legal documentation proving otherwise?
"* You also appear to raise concerns about selecting Angelo as CEO. When we began to document corporate matters in a more formal and complete manner, we determined that Angelo was effectively operating as the CEO already. We worked with you to find a role and title appropriate for you given that you were working remotely and on a part-time basis. Again, this is something that we have discussed and that you have been aware of for quite a while, and that frankly I thought was acceptable to you when you signed off on the founders agreements and related formation documents."
During deviantART, Inc.'s initial stages of development it made sense to have Angelo as the CEO. However, while site traffic has continued to rise during his time at the helm, the site itself has remained stagnant; with many important projects left uncompleted. Many of these projects were at some point openly promised to the community, yet never delivered.
Angelo consistently places more emphasis on his own agenda than furthering the site. I ask you to take an *honest* and *impartial* look at the state that the site is in today. We have not completed groups or collections, even though they have been in development for almost 2 years. Angelo claims that some of this is due to lack of funding. Angelo has a number of Personal Assistants, as does Spot. *Why are we continuing to hire people when we (according to Angelo) can't afford to do what we've already promised the community*? We continue to waste money in areas that are not important to the growth of deviantART, and it shows in the site itself.
Angelo has consistently misappropriated deviantART funds, and continues to do so. I believe that is the reason that he has withheld the financial documentation that I have asked for since November 2004. His young age has begun to shine through, and it shows that he is incapable of properly running this company and getting it to the point that it needs in order to truly be considered a "success."
Another issue is that even though I have been labeled as working on a part-time basis, my involvement on the site is obviously anything but. During a conversation between you, Angelo and myself in August 2004, I expressed extreme dissatisfaction with my vesting schedule and part-time status. My signature on the founder's agreement was based on a promise between you, Angelo and myself that if I were to work full-time hours then the agreement would be amended as such.
Since this was implemented I have been documenting the hours that I have worked for deviantART, Inc. in order to accurately reflect the workload that I have supported. I expect proper compensation for the added hours worked.
Furthermore, my attorney has been instructed to contact deviantART, Inc. in order to obtain the financial documents that I am legally entitled to.
"* You indicate a number of times that you have concerns about the number of staff leaving deviantART. We are trying to establish a positive and professional vision for deviantART that the employees of the company believe in and support, which we hope will help the company retain existing staff and attract new staff. But the reality is that some people will not agree with or believe in that vision, and they will leave the company, as has happened in some cases. While we're always seeking ways to minimize turnover, we don't feel that the level of attrition is a chronic problem."
It is unfortunate that you do not see that it is a chronic problem. Considering how aware of Kevin's situation you were, I would be surprised to find that you are aware of anything happening directly in front of you. You can not deny that your remote location has proved disastrous to your department; yet you continue to pull full-time pay along with full-time status and a full-time vesting schedule.
My status, however many hours I work on the site, remains consistent at part-time. *Why*?
"* Let me know if you have any additional concerns beyond those listed above and, assuming you continue to have concerns on the above points, how you would like to proceed in trying to amicably resolve your concerns. If you want to discuss matters by phone further, let's arrange a time to do so."
What I really find interesting are the various articles that are written about deviantART that no one knows about beforehand except Angelo. In every single press appearance, print, video or otherwise, that Angelo has appeared in, not *once* has he ever given the impression that deviantART was anything other than *HIS* concept, *HIS* creation, and
- HIS* labor of love. Do you have any idea how insulting that is to
those of us who actually did the work?
Now that I have outlined my concerns let me address resolution. The following is a list of conditions that must be met no later than July 31, 2005 if Angelo is to avoid legal action:
1. The absolute first thing I want reconciled is a public statement regarding the *real* history of deviantART. Angelo must post it publicly as a Hot Topic that he was not, in fact, the "mastermind" of deviantART. He must also apologize for misleading the community and the media by claiming deviantART was his idea. After all, one of the major catalysts to this relationship going sour is his constant riding of coattails and taking all the credit for the hard work of others.
2. The full, complete and unedited corporate financials that I have been asking for since November 2004 must be provided to me.
3. The structure of the company must be realigned to that of the original setup. Angelo gets a 25% stake, you and Ian each have 15% and I have my full 45%. Original company documentation that I provided clearly outlines this structure, and it needs to be returned to that.
4. I must be reinstated in my position as President of deviantART, Inc. and also be placed on the company Board of Directors.
5. There must be a modification to the existing founder's agreements to reflect my status as a full-time employee and to depict my vested stock as such since August 16, 2004 when the agreement was executed. Furthermore, I expect back-pay dating to August 2004 for the extra hours worked.
7. Angelo will no longer have sole control. While he may hold the
- title* of CEO his activities are to be restricted. *All* decisions
which affect the direction of the company *and* the website are to be appointed to the Board as a whole. Furthermore, he may not have control over the finances in the company. Responsibility for all financial decisions will be appointed to the Board as a whole.
If these conditions are not met by July 31, 2005 then my attorney will proceed on the course that we have charted.
In the event that you would like to discuss these conditions, or anything else in this email, then feel free to contact me in order to setup a time for us to have a private conversation.
[s] -- Scott Jarkoff Co-Founder/Director of Community Development deviantART, Inc. http://www.deviantart.com/
- Spyed owned deviantART from day one cause he had the cash to back it up, proving as always that money makes things work, not wishful thinking. Jark put up no money up front and let everyone else do the hard work. He's a visionary like that.
- Jark actually fired Matteo, but anyone with an IQ above that of your average TARTlet already figured that out seeing as the two weren't canned at the same fucking time, or even in the same fucking year.
- Jark's wife is apparently a gold digging whore.
- Jark has a shitload of deviantART stock that's probably worth more than his cyber job ever was, and if the "Company" is selling out and making shitloads of money off the blood of the innocents as Jark claims, he's profiting.
- Spyed really fucking loves the term "sour grapes".
It should be noted that since this incident Jark has had no activity on devianTART, it is assumed he has fled the internets or become an hero to restore his Japanese wife's family's honor.
Jark is part of a series on
Visit the DeviantART Portal for complete coverage.