I'll just make this short and sweet.

As we all know, Guy Chapman is back on Wikipedia.

Too bad he forgot recently to sign in before editing.


So, we know that Guy Chapman is using a computer with the IP address 80.176.82.42.

Let's see what Wikipedia Scanner shows us in the edit history of 80.176.82.42, shall we?

It would appear that User:JzG applies his gentle, loving hand to the Wikipedia articles about:

Charmaine Sinclair



Dani O'Neal



Letha Weapons



Lisa Lipps



And he spent just enough time on the Wet T-shirt contest article to protect the honor of the United Kingdom, and to try to spare Catherine Bosley some humiliation -- even though his effort was reverted, and Mrs. Bosley writes triumphantly and openly about her experiences in Key West on her own website.


...time for a breather...


I guess I should say that at least I'm pleased to see that Guy Chapman is a red-blooded American English male, if his anonymous IP edits are any indication. This might also shed some light on Guy Chapman's claim that there are no notable female opera composers. Who would notice opera composers Dame Ethyl Smyth or Judith Weir...





...when all you've had on your mind are

Charmaine Sinclair, Dani O'Neal, Letha Weapons, Lisa Lipps, wet t-shirt contests, and the "list of pornographic sub-genres" occupying 7 out of your 19 Wikipedia Mainspace edits from your anonymous IP address? Folks, we can't say JzG has a one-track mind, if only 37% of his Mainspace edits (when not signed in) are related to boobs. I guess the old saying is true:

It takes one to know two.

Greg

Lookin' for female opera composers in all the wrong places.

On A Related Note

'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:80.176.82.42&action=edit'

How come no "alternate account", "dopeyganger", "sockpuppet", whatever tag on this user page?

Even Funnier

THF and JzG, sittin' in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G

Jonny

Oh, MAN, I haven't laughed so hard in a long time....Thanks, Greg!

I think I may have underestimated the utility of the Wikipedia Scanner.

YUP it is funny how admins play wack a mole....

Odd that there are no articles about porn stars whatsoever on Mr. Chapman's personal wiki, but there is a page about Mr. Wordbomb, one for Mr. Looch, and of course Wikipedia's User:ATren and Rfwoolf.

He's been busy, I'll give him that much! There's also an article about his dad, entitled simply "Dad." (Actually there are two, including this stub.) But most of the material is about bicycles, or rather, bicycle helmets. NOT about porn stars or large, floppy breasts.

Man, was I ever disappointed!

Non-authoritative answer:
42.82.176.80.in-addr.arpa name = chapmancentral.demon.co.uk.


Even better, he can't deny it.

Y'all should do more of this. You don't need Wikiscanner for a single IP address — you can use Wikipedia directly. For an IP range you have to use Wikiscanner. For a single IP address, just stick it on the URL like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/80.176.82.42

And you don't have to wait for them to forget to log in. If they've used Wikipedia's IRC channel in the last year, I may have caught their hostmask. For example, if you search for jzg in the box at the bottom of hivemind, you get this:

I have 24,000 hostmasks in this file now.

I was going to make the same comment about the contributions link as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...et=80.176.82.42 but as expected, Brandt outdid me bz a factor of..... over 24,000.

Damn that Brandt!

I never noticed this until now, but JzG actually deleted that page, too.

He must spend 10% of all his time on Wikipedia back-pedaling and covering his tracks.

Greg

This thread doesn't seem to come up on Google searches. Have the mods "courtesy hidden" it?

If so, is it just this thread, or the whole JzG sub-forum?

Greg

I had noted that this page had been blanked, but you just can't get to it by typing in User:IP. You have to click on the "contributions" to a given diff from that IP (if you can find one) or else (as Brandt notes) go directly to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ns/80.176.82.42

Is there a moderator who can answer my question?

The editors forum was briefly opened for Google and search bots after JoshuaZ's attempts at keeping the Daniel Brandt redirect alive and well. However, the being shielded from Google thingy was later reimposed, I believe.

Am I right, Somey?

As far as I knew, the editors forum is supposed to be open to the google bots at the moment. And if you google any of the titles in the main editors forum such as The Iamandrewriceee/Benniguy "fiasco" or Deeceevoice gagged they show up, but if you google threads from the notable editors forum, they don't.

Which means that it isn't working as intended.

Google aside, it seems to me that generally the reorganization of the notable editors forum, while not without virtue (we can see the other threads without scrolling,) has had the unintended effect of reducing traffic to these by hiding them behind another link. Perhaps that's a good thing, not channeling all criticism their way by painting a bullseye on their usernames…just observing.

Ehh, not quite...

As it turns out, whoever added the additional "Notable editors" layer, into which the individually-named subforums were moved, forgot to set the "Bot" group permissions on it so they could read the subforums in question.

I should have checked it, but I was so fed up with the whole thing at that point, I just washed my hands of it all.

I just fixed it, though, so kudos to GK for pointing that out! The results are likely to be a little spotty for the next 2-3 weeks before the Googlebots finish indexing everything in (t)here... Some threads are probably visible already, which I would assume is because they were linked from other threads or other websites. It's also possible that if one thread was visible, the crawlers might have followed the header links to the subforum listing, and thereby gotten some or even all of them... Hard to say. Anyway, the indexers wouldn't have seen the "Notable editors" link from the home page, so they wouldn't have known where to find most of that stuff.

Oh well... I often mention how the flexibility of board software like WR's in determining search-engine visibility (among other things) makes MediaWiki look primitive, but flexibiilty can also lead to embarrassing screwups. Sorry, everybody...

With Firebug, I see no headers or meta tags that would indicate this is the case, and the way the URLs are structured would make it impractical to deny it with robots.txt (however, this does not preclude the possibility that the pages are actually not being served to recognized search bots)

At least in the hotter threads, postings are showing up in Google searches the next day.

...And that's exactly how it's being done.

The "hotter" threads show up on the homepage as "Latest Post" links for fairly sustained periods, so IMO that's why they show up and not the older ones. If you bumped an older thread, it may have been on the homepage for an hour or two, but if the bots didn't visit us during that period of time, they wouldn't have seen it. So, like I say, coverage is going to be spotty, and may even appear almost random.