Ok, so we've got between 2 and 4 weeks, approximately, before the 2 millionth article on en-Wikipedia.

I'd like to claim that honour for Wikipedia Review. Suggestions by private message, please.

Ah, so you are repentant, after all.

Jonny

Some of the worst vandalism is new build

Well, Durova did tell me that an article on Wikipedia Review was a possibility. Is that what we want?

"The 2 millionth article is a stub on Wikipedia Review".

Well the thing is how will we count something as 2 million when articles constantly get made and deleted all the time?

Wikipedia was apparently able to count the 1,000,000th article, [[Jordanhill railway station]], using Special:Statistics.

There's no earthly guarantee that we can hit 2,000,000 on the nail. Lucky to get within five of it.

Perhaps WR could be the 2 millionth, then it gets deleted on the spot, so then something else is the 2 millionth lol.

There's no difficulty at all. We just need to create 100 articles at the same time.

We just need a trove of about 10-20 possible new articles that we'd be happy with ([[Gregory Kohs]], [[Wikipedia Review]], [[Wikipedia Review]], spinning off [[Section 230 and Wikipedia]] into its own article, [[all of the Wikia and Wikimedia staff who don't already have an article]], etc.), then we each set up with dynamic routers or WiFi or library connections, and at the moment of truth -- around 1,999,950 articles -- we just go to town creating these articles, faster than the admins-that-be can perma-block them.

Problem would be this -- we couldn't work on these article titles out in the open, because then the Wikipediots would see what we're up to, and pre-block the articles before we can even post them.

The media notability of the 2,000,000th article would be really valuable to us, though. No denying that.

Greg

I think what's called for is some kind of Automatic Stub Proliferation Bot (ASP-Bot Wot Yer Country Can Doofer You).

Jonny

Structured vandalism? LOL. It'd be the biggest WP:POINT violation of all time.

But I guess sometimes you need to make a point. I dunno.

So let's see if Wikipediots can block all of the different variations of it:

Criticism of Wikipediots
Wikipedia Review vs Wikipedia
Real Criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia: Banning experts
Linda Mack
Sarah McEwan
Linda Mack / Sarah McEwan / SlimVirgin scandal
Wikipedia Scanner bogus criticism

Could keep going on forever.

And of course then perhaps ED people could do the same thing.

Create your sleeper accounts now!

No, that's what I'm saying. They took an obvious article that stayed and not one of the many ones that get speedily deleted (e.g. "My website at geocities", "Brian's butt smells like poop", "Jordan was here") that are made 100x more often than articles that stay. So obviously it wasn't what finally hit the 1 mill mark (as that goes up and down), but they waited. Heck, maybe they didn't even update the article count statistics until well after things settled down.

Let's keep going:

SlimVirgin scandal
Why SlimVirgin is secretly an anti-semite
Why you shouldn't use Wikipedia
Wikipedia:Come on, seriously
Snowspinner scandal
Why Snowspinner wasn't stalked, he was just an idiot
Why Snowspinner is an idiot
Wikipedia: How to hide your real problems by using Wiki Scanner
The real problems on Wikipedia
Why 2 million is enough
Why 2 million is too much

etc.

Keep suggesting more ideas. See if we can get 2 million ideas, and go straight from 2 million to 4 million in one go!



Drat. That might be true.

So if that is the case, then we have to create an article that looks real...

Much tougher to then make 200 of them that are sure to stay.

Don't worry about that! My current sleeper account total stands at over fifteen thousand (all of them with the same password, incidentally) and I can distribute them to anyone who needs them for this. It may be a good idea to create another, "less secret than some but more secret than normal member" forum to invite people in to discuss ideas.

Tar Pit would do.

But yeah, as LSS says, its unlikely that they'd allow a silly article to be their official 2 millionth article.

Or indeed an article about Wikipedia Review.

Nope. We've got admins actively posting here who would come under pressure to reveal its contents. Seems unfair to put them in that position.

Yer not saying they would deliberately distort the facts !?

Oh, say it ain't so !!!

Jonny


What sort of position — oh, never mind, 2ez —

Jonny

Looks like only around 2 days to go... We really need to organise this.

2 million was just passed. Did anyone try [[Wikipedia Review]]?

MONGO Wikistalking scandal

Nope, I'd pretty much forgotten about it

Never mind, 2 222 222 is the next target, perhaps.

Oh um, yeah, on to that now.

I thought we decided not to bother? Looks like we didn't.

Besides which, technically Wikipedia Review exists, its just a redirect right now. Someone is free to write an article on it.

Use my fake wiqipedia article as a guide if you like:
http://www.wiqipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Review

Just remember that what I wrote was entirely fake, so you'll basically have to flip everything around.

Um...I thought everyone had forgotten about this. oh, well.


I knew this thread would come back to haunt me...

You didn't start it, UV did.

Oh, no! I didn't post before! I remember writing in this thread, though...

Maybe I didn't post my reply by accident.

You misquoted me! I actually said "You didn't start this, UV did". Its weird that your quote ended up like that. Did you fiddle with it a bit?

lol! I did, oops! No more fiddling for me...