Ban Steven Ostrowski


There has been a proposal to ban Steve Ostrowski(public page) SteveOstrowski(user page).

This isn't the first time the wiki community has considered banning a user.

Steve's Wiki.JPG

He can be reached on AIM at empirestv12


Note: You must be logged in to add comments

Seriously, Steve doesn't play by the rules and has shown us he doesn't intend to. He should have been banned months ago. —WilliamLewis

2006-12-14 12:56:08   What should be done about people who disregard normal rules/ettiquette, and do so purposefully? I'm talking about SteveOstrowski. He continually reverts and refuses to use talk pages, and he's definitely an established user, doing this for months on several pages. He's even said on his own page when asked about it for a specific page, and even mentioned it on his own blog, that he'd continue to do so to get what he wants. That's whack. —ES (23:18:05:)I think my annoyance is compounded by annoying edits or lack of clear contribution. I really feel this guy is just trying to use the wiki to promote his own agenda, from the start. He always edits things to be [WWW]the most vague and meaningless way ever, argue about *whether a fact is true or not (like # of members), loves to say everything is secret (ACT rankings, CDP strategy, CDP agenda isn't for public [actually, a lot of CDP stuff lost in the millions of edits to those pages]), and just make a general muck. Try to deny involvement of this or that, claim no one knows! I know when he was new to the wiki he was talking about how chaos is a good thing, and said stuff like "if you only knew it would blah blah WHOA". But I think it's kinda just annoying and all self-serving. I was fine with that, other people edit and noticed, but when you start throwing on intentional revert wars and intentional disregarding of normal rules/ettiquette, as well as pseudo-lying/deception..bah. Just throwing it out there as a general feeling.

I don't read or care about the page's Steve contributes to, so I'm ignorant of why people want to ban him. That said, 9% (122/1377) of his contributions are reverts, suggesting either he or his detractors need to grow up, and learn how to converse without using the digital "shut the f* up" button. —CraigBrozinsky

MatthewKeys almost begged to be banned and even he didn't try [WWW]this. —WilliamLewis

What would be the point. I am sure you all realize that if you ban someone that there is not much preventing them from coming back, e-mail addresses are not hard to get, new ips are as easy as reseting a connection, he will just be a childish jackass and come back screw things up, and then repeat every once in a while. Furthermore, out of concern for Steve, who seems rather to realize that most people dislike him, what will this do but be another group he has been kicked out of, I have a much better solution to all this. As part of the wiki settings, I think you can set user groups and disable people from accessing/editing certain pages, perhaps as we dislike him editing his own personal page, we should just limit his access to those pages, then again this would logically cause a childish backlash so there really is not much point, provided he creates sufficient annoyance, that people are required to acknowledge his existence by the obstacle and hardship he causes others, he will remain, he seems to feed off such things, whatever, you are all smart folks, you can figure out what to do. ~D

"Brent, what justifies deleting his own personal user page. That is his own space... and this little thingy? {"i hate you, please go away"} Come on now..." - CarlosOverstreet

Just to rehash the comment I made back in December, check out the [WWW]info on CDP from version 338 on. SO "Revert to version 336 (You need five officers to register a SPAC group, don't be irritating )." I edit the page: " please list the 5 officers used to register. make an informative edit :)". I edit a couple other things, Max fills something in, and rather than edit or fix, he "Revert to version 338 (If you don't know, don't edit. ).". It's not just his personal page that ["Steve Ostrowski/Talk" maybe he should be kept away from], it seems to be pretty much any page in which he has ties to. Why not fill in the Officers? Why remove the info of 5 officers were needed to register with spac on the page if it's what he himself put into the changelog? It's like a fundamental aversion to positive edits and a huge attraction to secrecy, deceptions, and vagueness on everything associated with him. So revert happy! (As Craig pointed out above). I made that comment above back in December, it's two months later, and nothing seems to have changed. It may have gotten worse, as even dedicated wikignomes like JasonAller get involved in such drama and suggested some sort of action. -ES

Ok, so earlier today I made edits to the Christian Democratic Party page to reflect the fact that they are not actually an ASUCD slate and that they are a SPAC recognized group with low membership. I also updated other info on the page and deleted a few frivolous statements. Steven disagreed with the membership count (since he counts facebook members as official members of his SPAC group), but instead of changing the one particular sentence about membership, he reverted my entire edit. -PaulHarms

William Lewis requested that I add an excel file to Spencer Higgins' page for clarification of my comments. The spreadsheet was damaging to Ostrowski's political cause, so he deleted it within a minute. Somebody please ban him. — PaulHarms

He's a [drama]Drama_whore. Vote to ban. — BrentLaabs

I just want to say that I find it highly amusing how much you piss each other off. Neither one of you will let the other accomplish anything without a fight, no matter what it is, and to someone who isn't affiliated with any party, it is honestly hilarious and a great way to waste my free time.. watching all the action. —Kirsten O'Nell

I second a few days I will have this page deleted. —SteveOstrowski

This is not a case of banning someone because of what they say or feel, but how they act. Ostrowski's behavior on the wiki constantly violates common wiki rules and norms, I feel nerdy saying that, but its true. I am apprehensive about banning him simply because I think he has something wrong in his head, seriously. I believe he is stuck in a video game-esque world that is black and white, good versus evil where he constantly fights an identity crisis about what side he is. I am not joking. In reality, he has burned bridges with those that would agree with him (DCR, Newman Center Molnar) and has constantly antagonized those he opposes, LEAD, by demonizing them. I believe 99% of the people in ASUCD have good intentions. What those intentions are of course of up for debate, however Steve vilifies those whose intentions differ from his. Its hard not to vilify him him back in retaliation. In his fantasy world is he fighting some big power struggle through "wars" online and in ASUCD and he is positioning himself to take power. Anyways, we really should just ignore him as he has proven time and time again his inability to leave his fantasy world long enough to have lucid moments where he can actually accomplish political goals. —JamesSchwab

So far I think I count 7 heads who would approve a ban on Steve. Should we take an official vote? — CarlosOverstreet

I won't miss the ASUCDrama, and I won't miss the updates Steve so thoughtfully provides. However I will miss looking at long strings of reverts and edit wars over things that really don't matter in the grand scheme of things. —StevenDaubert I think JW was right in saying a couple months back that there seems to be a backlash against Ostrowski, but you reap what you sow...

What concerns me is that the hardcore gnomes think that you are detracting from the wiki, being aDavisites and one who has always been leery of any form of student govt (from Jr high to College) I could care less about ASUCD, yet it's your apparently your whole world on the wiki. We should foster a sense of community but many people seem to have just grown tired of how you try and convey your message. I'm amazed that you've managed to piss of brent to the extent he makes pointless edits / deletions that he know will just be reverted.

I, George Andrews, endorse a ban. He is an embarrassment to the conservative cause and has made a mockery of the years of good will that DCR built with the ASUCD/UC Davis community in mending fences. Granted I don't think my endorsement will go far because ive been out of college for a while now. But its worth what its worth - George Andrews

You are not on the ground at all, I recruited someone to run for Senate who later got the DCR endorsement, I am writing what many consider a Republican newspaper, I continue to support conservative asucd candidates. And as for good will, the amount of interaction between DCR and ASUCD has been very little so I don't know what you are talking about. And again conservative stuff like the Pledge of Allegiance is being addressed frequently and will be passed before I graduate. And again I am working with a seperate conservative organization and I am not any kind of representative of DCR. And lastly your opinion of my outside activities has no bearing on whether someone should be banned or not. —SteveOstrowski

I just want to make sure I have all of this straight: You want to ban him for reverting/deleting pages that would take away the negative 'spin' he believes is put there maliciously? Instead of deleting/reverting he should add in a paragraph underneath it saying how he believes how biased it all is. Deleting things from the wiki that other people have put time into on the basis of bias is a problem but if you are going to ban him for that what about anyone else he is in these edit wars with? It seems to me that it is the same people that continually get in edit wars with him. Granted they do nothing as extreme as Ostrowski but it is along the same lines. From what I have seen over the past few days, there have been a few specific people who have put up a number of hostile pages/comments against Ostrowski. I'm not suggesting we ban anyone but isn't it somewhat of a double standard? I also think it a bit strange to ban someone on the basis of an unfair edit count. A wiki is a wiki because anyone can edit it, what does it matter the count? Of course I am no expert on the wiki community — I don't know what is important to the prominent players of the wiki community and should therefore have no say in what is going to happen. But if anyone or anything is causing a major disturbance in the wiki, something that is affecting improvements or progress, then it should go. —Kirsten O'Nell

Why can't we simply remove the stuff we don't like? If we always think "let's ban this guy we don't like" then the natural power of the edit becomes diminished and banning people becomes recourse for edits we don't like? Editing is something that we as a community can easily correct. If an edit war breaks out then we can just temporarily lock the page until things cool.

It has been a couple of months since this discussion started. There does not appear to be any discussion of better behavior in Mr. Ostrowski's contributions. Is this enough discussion to ban him? or is it possible for him to play by the rules and no one has commented? rocksanddirt

If Steve isn't hit with the ban stick, maybe a reprimand or ["Steve Ostrowski/Talk" something] is in order... —StevenDaubert

Let's focus our discussion not on the beliefs of the editor but rather what exactly it is we think he is doing wrong. Once it's clear what he is doing wrong we can ask him to stop.

Well, it would be nice to just limit him from making any edits or reverts to his usual pages. However, that would be relatively unfair given that is what he is primarily concerned about, though I would like to see his offering me a bribe to not edit the IAC page come back to get him it is really not a big deal. I think that his obsession with student government is seriously damaging the quality of his life, and as such I vote for such a ban as to make his life easier, that he cannot edit any ASUCD page, thus perhaps he will become more of a better user, offering his views upon other issues such as music or movies, he should still have the ability to show he has changed etc. Maybe a ban on him viewing said pages would also be good to put his mind at ease? (this is a silly and pointless suggestion I know, I expect to be wholly ignored). In any case, that is the last of my cents, I rather see a peaceful end to conflict where everyone walks away with at least something good? eh whatever, I need sleep. ~Dave

If there were more people offering a Student Focus, or simply non-partisan ASUCD viewpoint on the wiki, I doubt that Steve would feel the desire to do anywhere near as many ASUCD edits. Alternately, if there were more restrictions on reverts, ya'll would probably end up less annoyed at each others. —JosephBleckman

The Davis Wiki is currently having a pointless debate over my account. They will give me terms to which I may or may not agree with, and then I will go ahead and post what I believe to be factual information anyway. —SteveOstrowski (from his [WWW]eljay)

2007-02-25 23:47:19   I'm against a ban. However, I am definitely in favour of enforcing our community guidelines and wiki ethics, both of which Steve has repeatedly violated. Preventive actions can and should involve select wiki editor(s) having an honest, forthright discussion with Steve, escalating to some formal mediation (perhaps via UCD), or failing that, enforcement can take the form of the Davis Wiki Board of Directors filing formal complaints with Steve's ISP(s). —GrahamFreeman

2007-02-26 10:36:16   I'm not nominating myself for this task, as I am not as personally familiar with the specifics of Steve's abuse of Wiki ethics as more experienced veterans, but I would recommend a one-on-one conversation with Steve. Throwing insults, even constructive criticism, back and forth online, can't be as effective as a personal conversation, in which one can not hide behind a plastic display or resort to edit wars. Or, perhaps a conference can be arranged, open to all registered Wiki users, featuring a debate over this issue and, ultimately, a democratic vote on this and other such matters. —LeonardMarque

For your consideration (from Church of the Divide):

As the Minister of Supression of Information on the Davis Wiki I must say that however amusing this debate is, content and comments should relate to the subject at hand and not necessarily a theological debate. As for the Truth only I know the Truth. —SteveOstrowski

2007-02-28 23:49:49   Ok, I'll vote for not banning him. I don't want to be misunderstood as endorsing the totality of his behavior; some of which is rather poor form. Within the time frame of those who associate with him through ASUCD he is not going to change, but banning is not the solution in this case. I went to college with Steve's double years ago.. I've been through this is the days of usenet. I won't spoil the story to tell you how Steve's double turned out. Steve's presence does bring with it some value. Many of you weight this against the amount of work you've had to do to provide some balance to the wiki and feel that his contribution comes up short compared to that amount of work. I don't disagree that having him around means more work for a LOT of other people, but to leave out his contribution would detract from accurately reflecting the community that this wiki is trying to serve. Now on the other hand... his edits that serve only to hint at secrets, or remove facts should be corrected by the rest of us. I'll try to be a little more diligent about that, but I notice that many of the revert wars take place during hours in which I do not edit. —JasonAller

2007-02-28 23:58:23   I also vote "no" on the ban. —GrahamFreeman

2007-03-01 00:02:20   3rd "no" vote here. —ArlenAbraham

2007-03-01 00:03:28   "No" vote from me... —DavidGrundler

2007-03-01 00:22:21   Can we use choice voting? My number #1 Choice is No. #2 Choice is Yes. #3 Choice is Hilary Clinton. —JamesSchwab

I vote no for banning Steve, however as a friend of his, I have pleed to him, on all of ya'lls behalf, to revert less, and to follow my precident in using backoff editing more. I also vote no in regards to banning Hillary Clinton. —JosephBleckman

2007-03-01 23:39:01   I vote no... —CarlosOverstreet

2007-03-02 15:41:37   If you can't get on with it and ban him, at least rename him RevertMonkey —GrumpyoldGeek

2007-03-02 15:57:16   I second that nomination. :) —KarlMogel

2007-03-16 12:11:29   Just to add to the list in case it comes up again, he still tries to do annonymous sock puppeting. After all the fuss he made about JoeLevy account being a "LEAD agent" and whatnot, he went and made a JoeLevy. (note the period) to edit his page and confuse other people? Weak. —EdWins

2007-08-10 00:31:33   He keeps editing his public page in non-minor ways, which is against wiki policy. Aren't there enough reasons to ban him yet? —BrentLaabs

2007-08-10 01:08:02   Brent, I agree with your concern over the quality of the wiki and respect for community consensus, but I don't think it's time to ban Steve. Banning someone is a big deal. Steve's not doing anything especially destructive; he's just behaving in a childish way. It's a reason to think less of him, but not a reason to ban him. Maybe everyone involved should spend more time AFK (maybe even see some daylight?) to calm down and gain perspective. —Graham.Freeman

2007-08-10 01:12:50   Hey Graham: we're back to disagreeing with each other! I'm actually really calm right now. Really, what I'm asking, is why don't we enforce the "don't edit a public page" rule at all? —BrentLaabs

2007-08-10 01:15:15   i don't even understand why people have such a big problem with him. it seems like people just want to pick on him. or maybe i'm just not seeing what edits are causing such a commotion. —JessicaRockwell

2007-08-14 22:01:11   Most of his edits lately have been his public page. —KarlMogel

2007-08-15 17:22:42   Daviswiki is far too sympathetic. We need to be like Kotaku and have "Ban Mondays". Nip these douchebags in the bud on day one before they fester like so many termites in a cedar house. —JesseSingh

I think some wiki editors need to take a chill pill with regard to Steve-O, and try not to provoke him on his public page. Try to involve him on the talk page for his public page, and make conservative edits. With regard to editing one's own public page, I think one-day restrictions from editing would be a good idea, regardless of who it is. Ever tried to edit a page about your own projects on wikipedia? That's a real pain in the butt, which it shouldn't be here, but there should be more done to keep people from editing where there is a clear conflict of interest. - KJM

2007-08-16 20:13:05   Well said. —StevenDaubert

2007-09-05 20:58:38   Bump. So, how many strikes does someone get? Gabe [WWW]edited a page saying that Steve self-proclaimed himself the president, and in reality has nothing to do with the group officially, etc. What was the response? An instant revert. No comment left. Classic! JasonAller fixed that with his own revert: "(No, No, No. That isn't how things are done.)" So, by now, after alllll this time...shouldn't he know that's how things shouldn't be done? Hasn't this conversation about reverts come up multiple times? Just because he occasionally makes an edit that has nothing to do with ASUCD and gets a [WWW]pat on the back for it, what's changed? Anytime a revert war comes up he flat out says he doesn't care and won't step reverting. Anytime people edit his pet pages in ways he doesn't like, it's a kneejerk revert. And the thing with this's just another example of him promoting himself on the wiki. When JasonAller stopped him from deleting Gabes information, SO ended up responding with how it's trivial and that the page accurately describes 'the second group.' He neglected to mention any of this information in the entry. Graham left a comment on this ban page in December of last year, The issue at hand is whether Steve should be permitted to reduce the value of Davis Wiki for everyone else in the process of abusing it to further his own personal goals. Topics have come up multiple times, I believe this page has been commented on by 24 or 25 editors (a rough count). Once again, I'll ask "how many strikes?". I agree with Jesse, Daviswiki is far too sympathetic.EdWins
Cross-posted at Students for Life at UCD:
There is one glaring continuity here, and that is the misuse of the Davis Wiki for personal ego-stroking, and the posting of false information, along with the purposeful with-holding of factual information. Add that to Steve's attempt to delete the information once it was put up and you've got a perfect storm of wiki trollery. There should be no reason why someone who has declared war on reality should be allowed to continue to deface the Davis Wiki like this.

2007-09-05 23:15:50   I say we ban Ostrowski from Davis Wiki, but make ASUCDaviswiki, where he can live happily ever after —StevenDaubert

2007-09-05 23:18:44   Why don't we just let Steve have his own wiki: SteveEmpireWiki - where he can make up whatever he wants, his own personal crybaby sandbox. —KarlMogel

2007-09-05 23:58:14   Anybody want to defend him? Anybody? —JabberWokky

2007-09-06 00:00:06   defend him (yet again). —EdWins

2007-09-06 00:18:12   I went back in time and voted for Hitler. —BradBenedict

2007-09-06 00:29:06   I'd prefer not to ban anyone, but Steve is really trying to get me to change my mind. I'd prefer a limit for him on the use of the revert button to a ban if that is possible as it seems that he is incapable of limiting his own use of it. —JasonAller

2007-09-06 01:33:22   His latest "Students for Life" antics annoy me to no end. He doesn't care about the truth, just looking good on his pet pages. He makes it impossible to make a page accurately reflect anything he's involved with. What does someone have to do to get banned around here? I swear, it's impossible unless you ask for it. :( —WilliamLewis

2007-09-06 01:49:03   Keep in mind everyone the entirety of events/reasons, don't just skim over the pages of reading above. It included many, many revert wars, talk page deleting, refusal to compromise, several outright lies/misleading editing, a refusal to add information to his own pet pages and deny others, and sockpuppet accounts - including impersonation (made an account pretending to be a freshman girl he wanted to run under his group). And despite so many of you trying so hard to 'outreach', he repeatedly has said he'll just have others come edit it the way he wants, or continue regardless. Call his bluff? Full ban, imo. Removing the revert button won't stop it, JA. I think that removing the revert button may have been viable as an option - 6 months ago or more. I think after all this time it's painfully obvious that hasn't changed. (Of course, reverting insults/userpage deletion is totally valid. No one is including those). —EdWins

2007-09-06 09:21:34   ban his ass. really annoys me to have to keep checking to see when he deleted my comments about his show or SFL. totally lame. —PxlAted

2007-09-06 10:44:08   For a while I thought he was a pretty shitty (but still lulzy) lulcow, but now people are getting TOO angry. He doesn't seem to understand that this is a _community_ thing. He's trying to be the sole source of information for anything he's involved in. And he seems to have more than enough time to do it. It's understandable that he doesn't like the insults about him, but he could limit those by being reasonable. As stupid as I think he is, I don't think he should be permabanned yet. Maybe just 6 months or so. That'd give some time to for the Ostrowski hate to die down and show him that not having complete control over his pages isn't the end of the world. —BradBenedict

2007-09-06 12:10:10   Please note Wiki Community Proposal 1: Steven OstrowskiJabberWokky

2007-09-11 22:15:20   i havent been on davis wiki in a while...but i got a call this weekend to go on davis wiki and vote for a ban. I forgot who called me. I guess im too late to vote. But here are my thoughts....

i vote for a ban....which has already been enacted

good job

Discussion of Ending the Banishment of Steven Ostrowski

2008-11-17 18:58:21   Hey, how about unbanning Steve if he asks nicely? —JasonAller

2008-11-17 19:43:17   Considering he hasn't followed this ban, no. —JamesSchwab

2008-11-17 21:12:01   Vote no. Reread this page. And consider how ASUCD-drama free the wiki has been the last few election cycles... —EdWins

2008-11-17 22:02:17   I vote in favor of unbanning him. One of the darkest days for the wiki came when his perspective was shut out by the majority. —JoseBleckman

2008-11-18 00:08:19   given the excitement over Steve's endorsement and his recent return, I think the wiki secretly misses Steve

I vote for his return but if he has revert wars again.... —GregWebb

2008-11-18 09:01:27   I'm confused. Did I miss a step? Why is unbanning Mr. Ostrowski even on the table for discussion? Has he submitted a request to someone? Has he shown signs of rehabilitation?

If the answer is, no, and nothing has changed, I propose waiting until something new happens and then evaluate whether Mr. Ostrowski should be unbanned from the Wiki. —CurlyGirl26

  * Commendable?! Commendable!?!?! I don't think two months between edits is commendable. Not that I'm doing better, but still. Maybe if he unbans me and my friends from [redding]redding, we'll talk about considering him a human being. —BrentLaabs
GoldMedal.jpgThe only commendation Steve-O deserves.

2008-11-18 12:57:15   other people speak for me nicely

I am still in favor of it, based on the edits he did, the circumventions, and the way that he runs the Redding wiki.
if you look through the multiple pages about Steve, or specifically the edit histories, you can figure out more than the simple history. Months of abuse, months of people *trying* to find a solution. IIRC, he was temp banned a few times too. Eventually, he always relapsed, or else he refused to try to compromise, as mentioned above.
there is far more to Davis than ASUCD.
Why is unbanning Mr. Ostrowski even on the table for discussion? Has he submitted a request to someone? Has he shown signs of rehabilitation?
If the answer is, no, and nothing has changed, I propose waiting until something new happens and then evaluate whether Mr. Ostrowski should be unbanned from the Wiki. —StevenDaubert

2008-11-18 23:15:54   I wasn't around for the original banning, and have no stake in this (other than seeing the wiki not have its intestines twisted in a revision warp). But how about the following:

-Steve would be asked to post a statement. The statement would indicate, to the satisfaction of the general wiki community, that Steve understands why he was banned in the first place, promises not to do it again, indicates what he will do to ensure that he does not cause a problem in the future, and indicates that he understands that if he does cause a problem again, that he will be banned once again (this time without possibility of parole.)

Thoughts? —IDoNotExist

2011-10-01 12:15:14   Is that pink lemonade that Steve is drinking? Whatever it is, it looks positively delicious. First chocolate milk and now this. These talk pages are torture. —ScottMeehleib

This is a Wiki Spot wiki. Wiki Spot is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that helps communities collaborate via wikis.