Differences:
version 8 (2007-02-09 20:20:58 by CraigBrozinsky)
version 9 (2007-02-09 22:32:57 by SteveOstrowski)
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 1: | Line 1: |
|
Srsly, that guy is just annoying. You should ban him. --["BrentLaabs"] * Discordians are evil. Ban Brent while you're at it, too. :-P (N.B. : This comment is from when this page was named " Ban Daniel Poole") --["WilliamLewis"] * I don't think he is a discordian, hail eris! ~D 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"] I've always been of the opinion that the wiki should be less tolerant of this sort of thing, but we've only banned one real person, ever. Most disputes have been settled on the wiki, and in some cases, over the phone. I'm not willing to have a heart to heart with Ostrowski, and frankly, I doubt he'd listen to me. Someone more neutral than myself should have a talk with Steven. If Steven truly understands what's going on here and is just trying to make this community miserable, then yes, he should be banned. When interviewing ASUCD Senate candidates, Rob and I asked each candidate at the end of the interview "What do you think of Steven Ostrowski?" Everyone had good things to say about him, but everyone also said that he was misguided. I think that Steven genuinely cares about ASUCD, but is trying to push his own agenda in the wrong ways. His actions on and off the wiki are unacceptable. ASUCD was willing to give him a chance, and he screwed it up. Wiki needs to set firm boundaries and say "this is not ok, play by the rules." I think that Steven can play by the rules and can be a productive member of this community. --["ArlenAbraham"] ---- Moved from the ["Wiki Community/General Discussion"] page: ------ ''2006-12-14 12:56:08'' [[nbsp]] 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. --["EdwinSaada" 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 [http://daviswiki.org/The_Davis_Enforcer?action=recall&version=1 the most vague and meaningless way] ever, argue about whether a fact is true or not ["Christian Slate" (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. If someone deliberately and continually refuses to play by the rules, they should not be allowed to play at all. --["WilliamLewis"] ''2006-12-14 23:26:08'' [[nbsp]] Well said. --["GrahamFreeman"] Yeah, but if we ban him, he'll just ["The Davis Enforcer" his own wiki]. -- ["ArlenAbraham"] ''2006-12-15 17:06:57'' [[nbsp]] 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. Whether or not he actually achieves his personal goals is irrelevant. --["GrahamFreeman"] ------ 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"] |
deleted |
deleted
