Wiki Community Proposal 1: Steven Ostrowski

InfoInfo
Search:    

Given the history and behavior of user: StevenOstrowski, a consensus was taken of the wiki users to resolve an action to hopefully lead to a better community.

Options

A

- retracted -

B

Implemented: Lock Steve out of entries specifically and allow all others to edit the pages like normal. Ban Steve's fake accounts. He would be free to contribute to discussion on the Talk pages and to edit the other pages around the wiki as usual.

C

(This option added hours after B was implemented.)
Implemented: Banish the user from the editorship of the wiki.

Discussion

Note: You must be logged in to add comments

2007-09-06 12:12:34   Sounds good to me. When you say new users though, do you mean newly registered users or just anybody that hasn't posted on one of his pages yet? —BradBenedict

2007-09-06 12:18:04   I think it should be tried on a trial basis and assess its effectiveness on a regular basis. —JamesSchwab


2007-09-06 12:18:04   I think, if Steve is to be locked out of entries, that it would be good to just lock him out (and ban his fake accounts) and not instead create this "whitelist" style system. The wiki should be free for all to edit. I greatly oppose a whitelist-style system. I think we should do B. —PhilipNeustrom


2007-09-06 12:48:42   'b' sounds cool. —PxlAted


2007-09-06 12:53:25   Let's hope he doesn't start editing from other places to try to get around the ban. I'm glad that the madness has subsided for now. —KarlMogel


2007-09-06 14:05:50   If we're locking Steve out of pages that he tends to allow no changes to, I certainly hope that we are also applying that rule to other people who do the same. Double standards are lame. —JoseBleckman


2007-09-06 17:22:34   Steve has contributed almost NOTHING of value and his antics have gone on for too long. Sure, B is good because it ended these current edit wars. However, Steve's going to keep on editing in the same way and we will simply have to keep on adding to the list of pages that he isn't allowed to edit. The work required to maintain such a list is not justified in light of the quality and nature of the other non-controversial edits that he makes. Additionally, B is not sufficiently punitive. Steve has blatantly disregarded wiki-norms for months and has gotten away with his behavior with little consequences besides losing his edit wars. A ban would be most appropriate. It's a permanent solution to the problem that is Steve. It also will signal that we as a wiki are tired of funny business and will not tolerate repeated, intentional, and malicious disregard for community standards. —WilliamLewis


2007-09-06 17:26:43   There was only one option up on this page (the first was taken off in hours?), and it was implemented almost instantly. I disagree. JabberWokky made the proposal, but I don't think it was a fair set of choices from what's been voiced.

From the last 48 hours on the ban page, several people voiced in favor of banning: me, Karl, SteveDaubert, JesseSingh, WilliamLewis, Pxlated, BradBenedict (6monthban), JamesSchwab. There were also many votes prior to the last 48 hours as it's a rather long page, but not including those. (Though it's indicative of former frequent editors opinions which (imo) are still valid and just shows that theres a lot of people in favor of banning).

JasonAller posted said he doesn't prefer a ban, but wanted a limitation. No one posted in SO's favor (JabberWokky asked if anyone would defend him). Several people called for a ban yet again, none defended, and yet banning isn't even on this proposal, which was implemented immediately? Maybe people are fine with choice "b" now, but if banning wasn't even offered....I don't really feel like that's appropriately representative. That is, unless B is temporarily implemented until a ban takes place? Are people waiting for more feedback? It's not really clear. —EdWins


2007-09-06 17:58:22   Nobody saying being an admin would be easy. And I'd rather trouble the few admins than the hundreds of users who have to put up with his nonsense on a daily basis. Proposal B would've been good... 6 months ago. —JesseSingh

I think you all know where I am on this proposal, being the one that created the Ban Steven Ostrowski page, [drama]at least 100 years ago. —BrentLaabs


2007-09-06 20:38:43   steve can play the game of politics and come up with cute wordings all day long, I'm just sick of it —StevenDaubert


2007-09-06 21:20:26   It may create more trouble initially, (remembering What's-his-face from Vacaville). However once this has settled down, if he is banned, his puppet pages should be pared down and removed of the slights against him. This should reduce his desire to try to find a workaround to continue doing what he does.

I am continually disturbed at his choice of language in this matter, rather than duck his head he is saying "do what you want to me now - I'll have it my way when you look the other way" which pretty much signals that he has no desire to do things differently. Ban him from specific pages, he'll just create more for himself to play in and clog the Recent Changes with his drama. Even with option B we still have whack-a-mole.

He's got until June 2008, and then he graduates, and will probably be gone and won't look back. The question may become, which will be the easiest way to keep him from peeing all over the wiki until then?
C
KarlMogel


2007-09-06 23:00:30   Because Steve has repeatedly and blatantly and willfully violated our community standards for so long, and yet because I do believe that people can redeem themselves, I vote to ban Steve for 6 months.

I'll help on the admin side (mostly with IP address investigation, firewalling, and filing abuse complaints) when Steve tries to circumvent the ban.

However, I no longer have the time to keep an eye on Recent Changes, so I'll rely on the community to notify me via email/Jabber/phone when Steve plays fake account games. —Graham.Freeman


2007-09-07 15:49:45   [WWW]Backoff editing > Banning. Try it, folks. It'll work. —JoseBleckman


2007-09-07 16:18:53   Clearly, as these games progress, Steve has no respect for the Davis Wiki Community. Each warning goes in one ear and out the other. —KarlMogel


2007-09-07 23:09:53   I support a ban. I don't want to see Recent Changes cluttered with junk anymore. —GregWebb


2007-09-08 00:56:30   What Karl said...

It's also the way he will obfuscate at everything —StevenDaubert


I'll throw my hat into the "no-ban" pile. Banning him from certain pages is one thing, but knocking him off completely would be, in my opinion, a terrible blow to the wiki's ability to fairly and accurately represent certain aspects of Davis. In my opinion, he represents a sizable portion of the community (opposition parties in student government, for example) that we don't have many other examples of hella-active editors from. Any "problems" he causes on a page can and will be worked out eventually, and I have faith that it will ideally be through consensus, not by the silencing of his side. —JoseBleckman


2007-09-08 11:37:20   what about just allowing him to make comments but not allowing him to edit pages. This way he can still add his opinions to the wiki, marked with his user name, but can't do anything beyond that. —MattHh


2007-09-09 09:32:51   A lot of you guys are talking in generalalities. Pick a page, any page, and I will tell you why I must be on the Davis Wiki to provide balance. —SteveOstrowski


2007-09-10 09:58:18   Though I am just taking a gander at this issue after my long vacation from all this drama, I am still adding my two cents as a quasi-netizen of this community. It seems clear to me that Steven has an obsession regarding certian issues and topics on the wiki, perhaps stemming from his own internal political beliefs (libertarianism thus anti-governmentish) and religious beliefs (catholic thus 'pro-life'), and perhaps personal sentiment against certian individuals who have been a barrier to him in accomplishing his goals. I am a bit of an optimist but I do not think that either a lockout nor ban are appropiate options for the community (I am curious as to what A is). Perhaps these problems are reflective of Steven's personal problems in life or something like that, or they are highly contrived attempts at manipulation for a greater sense of personal power (which reflects that he feels a lack of such power), in either case I suppose the question becomes that of the community 'putting up' with the difficulties caused by Steven. Before such measures are considered, has anyone attempted to talk with Steve, in person, in a non confrontational way? perhaps differences may be explained or resolved such that these things could work better, Steven probably feels that the crowd is against him (judging by this page it is), I dunno, perhaps you guys are being a bit to hard on the poor sod, thus is my sympathetic vote, talk to the guy? —DavidPoole


2007-09-10 10:25:04   Though I am just taking a gander at this issue after my long vacation from all this drama, I am still adding my two cents as a quasi-netizen of this community. It seems clear to me that Steven has an obsession regarding certian issues and topics on the wiki, perhaps stemming from his own internal political beliefs (libertarianism thus anti-governmentish) and religious beliefs (catholic thus 'pro-life'), and perhaps personal sentiment against certian individuals who have been a barrier to him in accomplishing his goals. I am a bit of an optimist but I do not think that either a lockout nor ban are appropiate options for the community (I am curious as to what A is). Perhaps these problems are reflective of Steven's personal problems in life or something like that, or they are highly contrived attempts at manipulation for a greater sense of personal power (which reflects that he feels a lack of such power), in either case I suppose the question becomes that of the community 'putting up' with the difficulties caused by Steven. Before such measures are considered, has anyone attempted to talk with Steve, in person, in a non confrontational way? perhaps differences may be explained or resolved such that these things could work better, Steven probably feels that the crowd is against him (judging by this page it is), I dunno, perhaps you guys are being a bit to hard on the poor sod, thus is my sympathetic vote, talk to the guy? —DavidPoole


2007-09-10 10:27:53   Dude...the first ban page was started in December of 2006. That was a pretty long time ago. I'm pretty sure that several people have spoken with him, many many times. Many times. Of course, every time the banpage is bumped, someone asks "why not try talking to him?". I'm just asking you keep the time frame in month - it doesn't seem to stick. If someone's been on the verge of being banned for *that* long...that alone should speak of a problem. JabberWokky has spoken to him on the telephone several times over the months, including as recent as within the last week I believe, and JasonAller is always the nice guy who tries to talk with him. I think the "talking with him option" wore out a while ago. —EdWins


2007-09-10 10:49:17   I was pretty sure I remember JabberWokky asking for your number months ago, then commenting that he had left you messages. I assumed that since he had your number, and commented that he was trying to talk to you multiple times, that he eventually had. Sorry for assuming! He may also have left his number for you to call around the same time, but I don't want to dig through the 10 million edits to find the page versions. [talk continued]. —EdWins


The question may become, which will be the easiest way to keep him from peeing all over the wiki until then? —KarlMogel

Yup. His good edits contribute little or nothing to the DW knowledge base. His bad edits, which are legion, clog the pipes with misinformation and edit-war BS. Complete silence from him would not rob us of any meaningful content, but would instead let us spend our time and bytes on real information and opinion.

The real question is, what is the best way to get silence, from the admins' point of view? We are waay beyond any freedom of speech issues here. If Option B would result in silence but with less work for the admins, I'll support it. But I am not bothered by any accusations of squelching speech associated with Option C. If that's the easiest path to silence, I'm all for it. — MattJurach


2007-09-10 13:11:53   Well, Graham offered (up the page) to help take care of enforcing a ban admin side. —EdWins


2007-09-10 16:37:37   WOW i had no idea the Davis Wiki was such a censor-whore. Who knew they're were a few powerful men who went around trying to shut up....ONE man on the wiki. I hope you are all satisfied with yourselves. Hope im not next... —WeMo


2007-09-10 18:02:57   ....Yes i have read it, but i, unlike some of you have actually sat down with Steve and have had a personal conversation to understand where he is coming from....did i get get fed up? Nope... —WeMo


2007-09-10 18:19:04   Thanks for making that comment extremely CLEAR....both on this page and my own.... i wasnt sure i got it the first time around..... you've expressed your opinion a dozen times.... so i think its only fair you let me express mine about Steve once....yea? Or is going to get me into WIKI trouble too? :::gasps::: —WeMo


2007-09-10 18:36:29   Don't embarrass yourself. —BrentLaabs

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