Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ JzG _ JzG caught by Wikipedia Scanner
Posted by: thekohser
I'll just make this short and sweet.
As we all know, Guy Chapman is back on Wikipedia.
Too bad he forgot recently to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=153550691.
(and one minute later)
...if you did not use this as an excuse to push your own campaign. Frankly I think it's rather tasteless. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 13:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
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 http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=80.176.82.42&ip2=&ip3=&ip4=?
It would appear that User:JzG applies his gentle, loving hand to the Wikipedia articles about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charmaine_Sinclair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dani_O%27Neal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letha_Weapons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Lipps
And he spent just enough time on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet_T-shirt_contest article to protect the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=96094513, and to try to spare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet_T-shirt_contest#Catherine_Bosley http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=96094466 -- even though his effort was reverted, and Mrs. Bosley writes triumphantly and openly about her experiences in Key West on http://www.thecatherinebosley.com/.
...time for a breather...
I guess I should say that at least I'm pleased to see that Guy Chapman is a red-blooded
...when all you've had on your mind are
Charmaine Sinclair, Dani O'Neal, Letha Weapons, Lisa Lipps, wet t-shirt contests, and the "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=96098158" 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
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
It takes one to know two.
Lookin' for female opera composers in all the wrong places.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:80.176.82.42
Jonny 
Posted by: the fieryangel
Oh, MAN, I haven't laughed so hard in a long time....Thanks, Greg!
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
I think I may have underestimated the utility of the Wikipedia Scanner.
Posted by: Joseph100
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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:80.176.82.42
Jonny
YUP it is funny how admins play wack a mole....
Posted by: Somey
Odd that there are no articles about porn stars whatsoever on Mr. Chapman's http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/, but there is http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/WordBomb, one for http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Jonathan_Barber, and of course Wikipedia's User:http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/ATren and http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Rfwoolf.
He's been busy, I'll give him that much! There's also an article about his dad, entitled simply "http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Dad." (Actually there are two, including http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/George_Chapman.) 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! 
Posted by: Infoboy
Non-authoritative answer:
42.82.176.80.in-addr.arpa name = chapmancentral.demon.co.uk.
Even better, he can't deny it.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
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 http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html#search, you get this:
JzG (n=JzG@chapmancentral.demon.co.uk) 80.176.82.42 | DEMON INTERNET / THUS PLC * UNITED KINGDOM
I have 24,000 hostmasks in this file now.
Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey
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 http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html#search, you get this:
JzG (n=JzG@chapmancentral.demon.co.uk) 80.176.82.42 | DEMON INTERNET / THUS PLC * UNITED KINGDOM
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=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=80.176.82.42 but as expected, Brandt outdid me bz a factor of..... over 24,000.
Damn that Brandt!
Posted by: thekohser
Even Funnier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:80.176.82.42
Jonny
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
Posted by: thekohser
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
Posted by: Milton Roe
Non-authoritative answer:
42.82.176.80.in-addr.arpa name = chapmancentral.demon.co.uk.
Even better, he can't deny it.
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:Contributions/80.176.82.42
Posted by: thekohser
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?
Is there a moderator who can answer my question?
Posted by: The Joy
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?
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?
Posted by: Kato
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.
Posted by: Proabivouac
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.
Posted by: Somey
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...
Posted by: Random832
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?
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)
Posted by: Moulton
At least in the hotter threads, postings are showing up in Google searches the next day.
Posted by: Somey
...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.