| 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
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 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
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.
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 Well said. —GrahamFreeman
Yeah, but if we ban him, he'll just his own wiki. — ArlenAbraham
2006-12-15 17:06:57 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
-
This is stupid, I am in the top 20 editors on this Wiki. And I have made plenty of talk pages about stuff when they come up. Point being is that when you have an entire slate getting on the Wiki and messing with you, you get all the reverts. —SteveOstrowski
-
Steve, the vast majority of your edits on this Wiki have been low-quality. I would argue that most of them actually detracted from the value and usefulness of the Davis Wiki. So, the fact that you've made a large number of such undesirable edits doesn't work in your favour. —GrahamFreeman
-
He does have a bit of point... DW has quite a large ammount of LEAD folk that are very vocal and tend to dictate "facts" toward their benefit. Though Steve, most of your edits have been involving you and stuff about you. I don't think you've written about Town Life, California or School History. Correct me I'm wrong though. - CarlosOverstreet
-
Carlos, personally I don't really care if someone is more focused on their opinion rather than facts - this site is not intended to be an encyclopedia, but rather a community resource. A respectful dialogue and respectful behaviour is critical to any community effort, and in my opinion Steve's behaviour has been consistently disrespectful. My main beef is his constant reverts, which are mostly without any explanation of substance, and almost always without any good reason. —GrahamFreeman
-
I would agree, he's been in more revert wars than perhaps the rest of us combined and squared. - CarlosOverstreet
MatthewKeys almost begged to be banned and even he didn't try
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
-
I'm sorry, I'm just a little upset with him. But no big deal. It's just that no matter when I imagine a world without Ostrowski, I can't imagine anything that would be worse — everything gets better. God? Why have you put people like him here on Earth? —BrentLaabs
-
Dear Lord - save me from your followers! :) I agree that many of Steve's edits are focused on himself, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. A lot of my edits center around things I'm interested in - in part because that's what I know about. (Bees, food, etc) My major gripe with his editing style is the fact that he deletes or reverts pages (like this one, even) rather than coming to the table and discussing things with other editors. Half of his edits seem to be his constant re-wording of his pet pages (himself, enforcer, CDP) every other day. However, I think we need to keep in mind that the guy has just had a major shit-storm hit him with his questionable emails over court cases, unfavorable aggie coverage, and getting fired from ASUCD. I don't know if anyone else has noticed that his really destructive wiki behavior coincides with these events. I imagine that a couple weeks to a month from now when the frustrations get more distant he'll be back to his normal blah-editing-self and could probably be let back in to the wiki. If his behavior doesn't change, I would suggest a temporary ban so he could find a better hobby. -KarlMogel
Just to rehash the comment I made back in December, check out the
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_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
-
See, that's funny — I have actually accomplished quite a bit on the wiki tonight. And I'm not affiliated with any slate — other than FUCK and SOSSS, and those are long gone. —BrentLaabs
-
You are part of the LEAD team, it's obvious to everyone on the Third floor. —SteveOstrowski
-
When I say party I mean that I am neither Ostrowski nor one of the people who are so vehemently opposed to him, like yourself Mr Laabs.
I also find him terribly amusing. If only I had some popcorn..... Though in all seriousness, steve is discovering what happens when you act like a dick to everybody. What makes it even funnier is how he is convinced everything is part of some grand conspiracy against him. ~MS
-
To his credit, this page does exist. -KO
-
The first thing he did when he saw it was delete it. -WilliamLewis
-
Actually if you look above, one of the first people speaking out about it (back in December) was GrahamFreeman, who lives in Oakland, and didn't even attend UCD as a student I believe. (AKA< nothing to do with a conspiracy) And there's a separate page, Steve Ostrowski/Talk where JabberWokky and JasonAller (dedicated wiki gnomes who are in no way students. affiliated, or likely care about ASUCD) brought up the idea of locking him from his own page. Maybe there's an on-campus conspiracy and he's not nuts (lol), but he managed to annoy a lot of people on the Wiki who are most assuredly not part of the conspiracy, and it's due to his editing style and habits. -ES
I second that....in a few days I will have this page deleted. —SteveOstrowski
-
What the hell are you seconding? Also, you're psychotic. —TravisGrathwell
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
-
Because that would be so productive, with unlimited amounts of profile names. —SteveOstrowski
-
Well steve, it was a communal effort in Banning Matthew Keys. And while I think many things you do are inherently noble, your edits pertain primarily to your pages, and the consistency at which you update is so meticulous it reminds me of a
decorator crab always moving a piece of seaweed or sea anemone to change its appearance in some triflely annoying manner. — CarlosOverstreet
-
Decorator Crabs look awesome. —SteveOstrowski
-
History has shown that democracy doesn't really fly on the wiki. Just about the only way you can get banned is by repeatedly posting gay porn. —TravisGrathwell
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...
-
As much as I enjoy this little debate I feel the need to add my motivations in these cases. If a person of the LEAD persuasion or someone who just doesn't like me starts deleting my pages which exists on UC Davis or in the City of Davis then I will probably revert war until the page is back to way it was before. This is no different than if someone decided to delete a place of business of the Davis Wiki simply because someone didn't like the food or service or the owner for that matter. The reasons for these deletions is not about the Davis Wiki but personal gratification of messing with me. There is rarely anything that can be talked about. It is firmly within their philosophy or "needs" to have these pages deleted. Also the Davis Wiki is dominated heavily by LEAD or anti Student Focus people who enjoy settle changes on the Wiki to make Student Focus look bad. When almost all editors oppose Spencer Higgins you will get a biased page. Sorting fact from fiction, incredible bias from what is actually real is an important deal to me. Anyone can make budget calculations, say it is true, and then put it on a Davis Wiki page with the purpose of defaming someone. The point being is that Student Focus is not all that interested in Davis Wiki except for a few instances where is LEAD officials will use ASUCD computers and ASUCD time to make all sorts of edits. As such I am the only on the Wiki to bring balance to some Student Focus pages as well as my own personal pages. I of course will not give out names, but some Student Focus people enjoy what I do on the Wiki because they believe I provide a way to balance out. They see a great many of the edits on these pages filled with half truths and filled with bias. When you have a half dozen LEAD editors messing with my pages and those of others you will get conflict. For those not attached to LEAD but like to make similar edits you should know that the LEAD editors are not interested in the whole truth or creating any type of balance on the Wiki. You could ban me, but in the end I am doing what I have been asked to do, I am doing what I believe is necessary, which is to bring a sort of balance to ASUCD pages so that LEAD doesn't do whatever they want. Maybe balance is not your thing, but it becomes an issue when people post their blogs or their own bias and then name it as fact. Oh, and by writing this I am not conceding at all that I need to explain myself. —SteveOstrowski
-
Strangely none of my top four votes were for LEAD, this is not all about campus politics Steve, I as well have tried to be unpolitical regarding the campus elections, the only person I have a bias to is Spencer Higgins, namely I just don't like the guy and he never sent me a copy of that glorious paintball bill. This page is to discuss if you being here is good for the community on the wiki, it is not about politics, given your recent updates on non political matters, I think that this issue will probably blow over with the election. Brent deleting your pages is not because of some political bias, and not associated with LEAD in anyway, he just has an extreme dislike of you and will vent sometimes in deleting your existence on the wiki, it is relatively silly and pointless, but after some reverts it is all back to normal and life goes on, right? But this is all aside the point, if you use this system as a personal soap box, in order to create a greater glory for yourself, people will probably be annoyed and think rightfully that you are not contributing much to the community and only adding drama and incredulity to the wiki, as such, help the community more, be more gnomish, find some stubs to expand, a wanted page to create, a photo request to fill (if you can beat Jason), or just update some old pages and the like. Anyway have a nice day and good luck with the elections.
-
I just think that people such as GrahamFreeman, JabberWokky, and JasonAller getting involved speaks to that it's not just some sort of ASUCD thing. I had no idea who LEAD or Student Focus was until I started using the wiki. I still maintain ASUCD is stupid and I wish I didn't have to give money to it for mostly useless things. I even originally thought the Christian Slate was a prank by the Orwellians. And the reverts aren't just people deleting your page, though Brent has been doing that too much, for a while you reverted almost any change on your pet pages. Or you started randomly deleting pages like Cults citing "anti-religion", and going through and safe editing others. Someone else said it, the majority of your edits have been vanity edits on your own stuff. But it really does intrigue and slightly frighten me that you really think it's all about LEAD or whatever, I told you a year ago I thought it was a game to you when you im'd me randomly, and I think I now agree with James comment above. -ES
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
-
Steven, don't kid yourself. It's conservatives like you that make me ashamed to be a Republican sometimes. I don't care who you recruit for ASUCD Senate or what your newspaper talks about, everything you do is for political gain. Especially your use of the wiki. This is why you're up to be banned! You don't care about the wiki community just like you don't care about the moral values of individual responsibility that the Republican Party stands for. Everything's just a game for you. -Paul Harms
-
No, you just want to silence the only person on the Davis Wiki that tries to keep Student Focus pages from becomming attack ads. —SteveOstrowski
-
Ok Steven, hear me out here instead of using some self-righteous spin. (It’s what I deal with for a living so I can see right though 99% of whatever is in the public). I’m sure you work hard and believe in the conservative cause as much as anyone on the UC Davis campus. I think most of my friends know that im a pretty light hearted guy that likes to have fun. Im all for making jokes and having fun. But when I figured out you were actually serious about all this crazy stuff you have been spewing out over the past year….it scares the living daylights out of me. I think you seriously need to re-evaluate your tactics. When you go out and promote “conservative” issues, you have to keep in mind that you are the ONLY conservative representation most people see on this campus.You can’t act like a complete psychotic lunatic. Your first group, the Christian Slate, played into every horrible stereotype of a conservative Christian. It was soooo insane that I thought it was a parody put on by my Orwellian Friend Rev. Chad Van Schoelandt. I take great personal offense to people who make conservative Christians look like “Looney toons” in public. Have some dignity if you want to be a leader instead of getting in these insane wiki edit fights. My main worry is that the people you interact with will get a bad taste of what a conservative Christian is….and will hold that negative opinion throughout their adult life. I guess what im saying is….be conscious of your actions and the cause you want to represent and fight for. In terms of the wiki discussion, it dosent take a lawyer that you are abusing wiki Etiquette... - George Andrews
-
While I absolutely 100% agree with you George (200%), to be fair that isn't really a reason to ban from Davis Wiki. But his actions on the wiki inregards to these things (and some that aren't related), such as constant deleting of talk pages, persistance in reverts an dignoring said talk pages, deleting entire pages multiple times (citing 'anti-religion' even), and hawkish protectiveness of any edits against anything he is a part of would be relevant reasons. I don't think Steven has contributed anything that does not concern his political views and/or ASUCD. The one edit he did do that JabberWokky congratulated him on, was about adding a paragraph to a former ASUCD president who said she disagreed with something KrisFricke said or did, and that was likely personal motivated as Kris is/was? the top dog for the court that Steven submitted a lot of cases to and dealt with, so I think even that edit was personally/"politically" motivated. -ES
-
I agree that one's views aren't particularly relevant, except when it results in someone trying to turn the wiki into their own personal sandbox made in their own image. Which is what Steve has been doing. Myself, personally, I find many Steve's stated goals and views repugnant, but banning over that never crossed my mind. Whatever he does in ASUCD is also irrelevant to the wiki. His dishonesty in pushing for the Pledge of Allegiance while lying and blackmailing his way there also don't matter. Bigoted statements about atheists can be easily edited out of the wiki as well.
-
Bigoted statements of atheists? You write essays bashing Christians all the time. —SteveOstrowski
-
I will criticize any attempt to undermine rational inquiry and the pursuit of what is true. In contrast, you spent a whole summer in an intolerant campaign to get atheists banned from MySpace, and you were proud of it. The first is argumentation, the second is bigotry. -KJM
-
Do you understand that this is the Davis Wiki, not the ASUCD Wiki? And you really are fanatical about that.
No, what really matters here is whether or not Steve is damaging a resource that thousands of hours of volunteer time have gone into producing. I check the stats every now and then to see how much people are contributing, and I watched Steve's count skyrocket past mine, yet, I can't name any pages or sections where Steve put in a lot of time and research and image editing, page formatting, etc, that would reflect someone who is really helping out as much as the numbers seem to indicate.
There is, however, one thing that I think Steve has done that is positive. As George alluded to the creation of the Christian Slate, George and I found ourselves agreeing that it was a dumb idea. Indeed, we see the uniting of many different people on this wiki against what he's trying to push, both politically and in the wiki. If the "Anti-Steve" conspiracy is true, then he has succeeded in uniting Student Focus, LEAD, Independents, etc, who can now collectively see that despite differences of political opinion, it could be worse. Steve (and people like him) could have actual, real power.
We could vote, but I have an interesting idea, is there anyone here who is willing to defend Steve and suggest that he not be banned? (No Wiki Gnomes, so Steve can't defend himself.) I think it's pretty universally recognized that his editing has in general, not been productive. - KarlMogel
I don't have time to fix LEAD attacks on my pages, fix Student Focus pages, research what is missing in the Davis, and so on all at the same time. As you may have observed the wiki editor count for Student Focus officials is a tiny percentage compared to that of anti-Student Focus. I don't particularly care about the edit count, change the measurement system if you want. —SteveOstrowski
Actually I tend to not allow people to come to my aid in these sorts of things. —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?
-
If we do this, an edit war ensues. We've had far too many of those with him.
-
I've tried it. He just reverts it. Repeatedly. -ph
-
I'd just like to restate this was originally brought up in December, over 2 months ago. Since then, more people have commented and brought up the idea of at the least excluding him from self public page edits. And it's not something he can be asked about, imo. Constantly trying to delete the cult page cause it was anti-religion. Deleting talk pages made about any of his edits. No comment, just deleted. Reverting without reasons. Like I said, ignore Brents stuff, and look back at his stuff over the last four months, it's virtually all deletes and reverts. And he still failed to make a useful, non ASUCD contribution. And even his own contributions were pretty lame. If I remember, even you said the initial page he made for his paper was crappy because it was so vague and misleading on purpose. He tried to make pages for Freshman to run on his slate, then people said wait for them to be users...he fake signed up as a user and tried to make a page. There was the mysterious edits by RonaldPayne (not RonPayne) from the same ip minutes after one of his. Ignore the stuff with Brent, but think/look pack into the past too. Like the constant revert war with the Kirk Cowgill page...he specifically said he'd keep doing it on purpose, both on the wiki indirectly on the ocmments log (which Jabberwokky asked to verify if he was specifically refusing to compromise and use the talk page), and on his blog because he said something akin to they can't stop me, I'll do it cause it needs to be done til the elections ever. too bad. He seems to take that attitude with everything on the wiki, well he'll just click and too bad for anyone else. And like I said to someone else, I think it becomes more of an issue than a "guy we don't like" when the dedicated wikignomes even bring up talk about excluding him from ediitng certain pages. If anyone deserves to be banned, it's this guy in my opinion. And I don't believe *anyone else* has ever been nominated for a ban on the wiki except for Matthew Keys who started purposefully vandalizing it and trying to get banned, so I don't think it really diminishes the wiki or sets up banning as a precedent. I don't know if the idea of compromising would work, as he's been on the wiki for well over half a year (8, 9 months?) and it doesn't seem to, even over the last few months for all the reasons above and probably more. -ES
-
I think Edwin put it very well. Steven's edits and behavior on the wiki in general have almost always been done in a childish manner. The point has been brought up about not wanting to make banning something that we perform often. I believe this is a good point, however something should be done to Steve to show him that this behavior is unacceptable. It has really been getting worse and worse. Before the reverts were only with a few people but recently he has been getting in revert wars with 5-6 people across multiple pages. Sometimes he isn't as active and so people forget about him but all one has to do is wait and he will cause more of a ruckus with revert wars that fill up the recent changes page. I'm strongly in favor of some form of reprimand to get the point across that this kind of behavior is unacceptable on the wiki. ~MS
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
-
I have been holding back to see if there is consensus and to let the community decision be dictated by cold rational thought, not hot outrage due to his rather antisocial behavior in recent days. I'll kick this out a second time before a formal vote to ban: does any member of the Wiki Community wish to speak on Steve's behalf regarding his actions on the Wiki (and only his actions on the Wiki)? Steve, this includes you. —JabberWokky
-
Polls can create the impression that one must choose sides and can create an environment where someone is uncomfortable to oppose the norm.
-
Last night I had a pleasant conversation with Steve about music and bad movies. I know the guy is passionate and concerned, but I never really gave him a fair shake. I think he just sees himself as a filling a necessary role. While I disagree with him on most political issues, I know that it is impossible to ban him, because just as he did with facebook, he will just get a new user name and keep contributing his brand of contributions. There is no official wiki code of conduct. If Steve behaves in a way that you dislike then you’ll most likely simply not respect his edits. But, I think even Steve knows that eventually some sort of compromise must be made because edit wars cannot go on forever – they detract from the power of the wiki. And Steve understands power. —RobRoy
-
You guys have a few days to consider, I am going to be out of town for a few days. —SteveOstrowski
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
-
In a converstation with Steve, he was pleasant and sharp. However he told me that he does 95 percent of his wiki work on ASUCD. Dave's suggestion would force Steve to branch out. Maybe he will relax a bit after taking realizing that this isn't the ASUCDavisWiki.
-
As I said before, I think a temporary ban would be better than a permanant ban. His destructive edits are directly linked to his obsession with ASUCD, recently fueled by his negative publicity. I have suggested to him that he take a break from ASUCD, as if that would happen. But if we banned him for a month, he might cool off and stop trying to abuse the wiki, and come back to do more productive edits (I realize that is a relative concept). If he continues the same edits after the ban is released, then we can consider a permanant ban. How about we each weigh in with "permanant" "temporary" or "no ban"? My vote is "temporary." -KarlMogel
-
I vote temporary as well (People change, permanant is a bit mean I suppose), but it may be a moot point, it could become voluntary once he sees the election results, and there's no election/ASUCD stuff for a long while. -ES
-
I'd just like to concur with this point, because while the next big issues are the budget hearings, they aren't for quite a while in Spring Quarter. However, we must remember that Steve has proven that he can and will engineer controversy where there was none before. Hell, he started the Christian Slate page here at the start of last spring quarter, as a simple example. Also, because of the work and experiences outside of the wiki that I've had involving Steve (Including being featured in the video), I have been holding my tongue on this thread, so as to keep it on the topic of Wiki. —MaxMikalonis
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
-
scapegoating in my opinion. It started long before any of that, I feel that's a cop out. He reverted practically any change to the Christian Slate page for a while, as an example. And I don't see how deleting pages citing "anti-religion" or "bias" has anything to do with ASUCD, especially when he also deleted the talk pages people tried to make. —EdwinSaada
-
Ban him until his presence is missed. - GregWebb
-
Haha, that's harsh. I thought we weren't talking about a permanet ban anymore! -ph
-
Just because Steve thinks the wiki is biased against SF doesn't mean that it's true. Two of my top six senate picks were SF and I'm someone he fights with frequently. —WilliamLewis
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
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


