Excellent work by the Moderators.

[audioguru]

Before I got a chance to push the REPORT button, davewalker (Walters, also known by about 20 other banned names) was gone.

 

[picbits]

Blimey - is he *still* trolling the forums !?

 

[Ian Rogers]

We must have seen him at least four times.... Different aliases..

 

[audioguru]

Walters was banned again at EDAboard two weeks ago.
His names were Walters, Billy Mayo, Danny Davis, Castillovanv, Vancastillo, PrescottDan and some names I can't remember.
I don't think he still has a job destroying aircraft guidance control circuits anymore since he talks about old TVs lately.

 

[MikeMl]

They seem to tolerate him at AAC. I guess he gets their site traffic count up.

 

[jpanhalt]

Actually, I reported him at AAC, and Bertus responded by PM. AAC was aware of the problem with his just previous incarnation (watsongrey) and have diminished his activity significantly without invoking a ban, which tells him he needs to re-register. It sounded kind of devious and clever to me, and I will keep an open mind and see what works best. My bias is toward banning and blacklisting, which AAC. EP, ETO, and EDABoard could actually collaborate on.

John

 

[shortbus=]

Actually, I reported him at AAC, and Bertus responded by PM. AAC was aware of the problem with his just previous incarnation (watsongrey) and have diminished his activity significantly without invoking a ban, which tells him he needs to re-register. It sounded kind of devious and clever to me, and I will keep an open mind and see what works best. My bias is toward banning and blacklisting, which AAC. EP, ETO, and EDABoard could actually collaborate on.

John

Yeah, AAC seems to forgive and forget. But I think a ban under one name should be a ban under ANY name. I reported watsongrey too.

 

[DerStrom8]

I have spoken with some of the moderators at AAC and they are beginning to crack down on this particular character. They've had about enough of him too.

 

[JimB]

It amuses/puzzles/confuses me the way people pander to Walters/BillyMayo/watsongrey.

There are some people who, despite having it pointed out to them that the guy is just spinning them along for his amusement, will keep on giving solid technically correct answers to the endless random questions.

When I look "over the fence" at AAC, I see good guys who used to be here and left, feeding Billy in whatever incarnation he dreams up.
The moderators at AAC seem to fall over backwards to give the guy a fair chance by just letting him have his way.

Strange old world, isn't it?

JimB

 

[jpanhalt]

I think the issue is more how to block him, rather than whether to block him. If you have a better workable idea, why not put it forth. Banning him just gives him a signal to create a new persona. The AAC method may confuse him. I have hope, but am not optimistic.

John

 

[dougy83]

The administrator could set up a global ignore list for such users (or just add them to everybody's ignore list). Then they can just wonder why no-one's replying to their incessant posts.

 

[DerStrom8]

The administrator could set up a global ignore list for such users (or just add them to everybody's ignore list). Then they can just wonder why no-one's replying to their incessant posts.

The issue is that this user creates new accounts, each using different IP addresses. For example, we could ban an IP address but he would just create a new account with a new IP. A global ignore list wouldn't work for several reasons - We would have to base it on the username, which can be changed, or the IP, which can also be changed.

 

[dougy83]

The issue is that this user creates new accounts, each using different IP addresses. For example, we could ban an IP address but he would just create a new account with a new IP. A global ignore list wouldn't work for several reasons - We would have to base it on the username, which can be changed, or the IP, which can also be changed.

The username of each unwanted user is added to a global ignore list. I meant global to ETO (i.e. across ETO / all ETO users), not every site. Even add a few views to each of their posts, so that it's not so obvious that they're being actively ignored.

 

[atferrari]

It amuses/puzzles/confuses me the way people pander to Walters/BillyMayo/watsongrey.

Rest assured that this type of guy will get better and plentiful answers from most qualified contributors. According to the article No. 3 of the Trolls Law (or equivalent). I should have to write it, I think.

No other option that quoting you: Strange old world, isn't it?

 

[DerStrom8]

The username of each unwanted user is added to a global ignore list. I meant global to ETO (i.e. across ETO / all ETO users), not every site. Even add a few views to each of their posts, so that it's not so obvious that they're being actively ignored.

I'm still not understanding what you expect to achieve with this. I think you may have missed my point entirely--We would have to add every username manually to the ignore list whenever it pops up. He doesn't create a new username just because an old one is closed--he generally creates 3-4 at a time. We just ban them whenever we see them, and reports from members who have suspicions is certainly appreciated. How would ignoring the user's posts individually be better than banning them?

 

[dougy83]

We just ban them whenever we see them, and reports from members who have suspicions is certainly appreciated. How would ignoring the user's posts individually be better than banning them?

For the reasons jpanhalt pointed out, above.

 

[DerStrom8]

For the reasons jpanhalt pointed out, above.

Oh, I see. This:

Banning him just gives him a signal to create a new persona.

Is not necessarily accurate though. Like I said, he tends to make 3-4 personas at a time. He doesn't create a new one just because he's banned under one name. He often has multiple aliases going at a time.

 

[ericgibbs]

Block his ISP address accessing ETO, as I wanted to do some months ago.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Block his ISP address accessing ETO, as I wanted to do some months ago.

Hi Eric,

As with most people he doesn't have a fixed IP address, but we keep banning the ones he pops up using.

 

[killivolt]

Wouldn't blocking the ISP also block others using the same ISP? If he chooses to use a Proxy he will mask his IP and be able to choose several IP's if he has a server that will issue new IP's at will.

What I'm saying is if he's using a ISP lets say the same one as my University but; he is on the same one. He will affect more than himself shutting down a host of people. The Uni has multiple computer labs and are full at all times. We would have no idea how it would affect other people.

I'm wondering if a suspected person; AKA Walters, Billy Mayo, Danny Davis, Castillovanv, Vancastillo, PrescottDan could be acknowledge as an abusive poster with a button that members can use if suspected; once the button is pressed X amount of times and reaches a "Tally" that abusive user can no longer post in that Thread

(The report button has it's limitations; a button as I'm suggesting would offer a fast stop to an abusive thread and allow the Moderators to review when they can get to it.)

However, I would say that not just anyone can use that particular "Button" Only the Most helpful Members can do it or of course Moderators.

It would also be "Nice" if it "Suddenly" side lined the "Thread" to a location un-seen by the rest of ETO until the dispute is settled and re-entered or washed completely from the board.

The only people who could see it is "Most Helpful Members" and "Moderators" after a vote is tallied to determine which it is; "Valid or Hoax" of course this says the "Thread Lives" or "Dies"

Sometimes these people start something worth looking at only to bugger it up.

Edit: Didn't see your post Nigel.