Ban Steven Ostrowski

InfoInfo
Search:    
Differences:

version 94 (2007-02-23 18:32:38 by WilliamLewis)
←previous edit
version 95 (2007-02-25 22:07:51 by BrentLaabs)
next edit→
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 124: Line 124:

-----
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 [http://sostrowski.livejournal.com/24077.html eljay])
 * I think the problem is that you don't really post factual information. Or at least the fact/vague rumor ratio is much less than 1. Oh, and that you're an asshat and deserve to die. --["BrentLaabs"]

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


Moved from the Wiki Community/General Discussion page:


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 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.


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


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 that....in 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 villifies those whose intentions differ from his. Its hard not to villify 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 dont 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. -KO

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?


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 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)

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