Forum:GEMW Script

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > GEMW Script
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 9 August 2010 by Stelercus.

Quarenon came up with a script a while back that will automatically update GEMW pages if you insert the new value of the item in a field replacing the instructions in the green box (which would return as usual if you hit the regular edit button). This script would make it easier for our new users and IP users without their own js file to maintain the GEMW, as it is more straight forward than the default method of editing. I recommend we add this to [[MWI:C.JS]] so that all users can use it by default, though Quarenon said there is a way to remove the script via your personal js if you dislike it.

Preview image

Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 00:26, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Update - I just did some testing with the script. Vandalism should not be an issue as it prevents one from updating the number by an unrealistic margin, only allows numbers to be used, and so forth. I can't imagine vandalism becoming a greater problem with the introduction of the script than it already is. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 12:31, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - As nom. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 00:26, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - Not only will this cut down on 90% of incorrect GEMW edits, but it will make the pages smaller and easier to use. Now, can someone please explain to be why quarquar is so awesome? ajr 00:28, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Rumour has it his mother signed a contract with the devil to grant her son copious amounts of awesome from birth, ...but at what cost? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 01:56, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
I heard that his mother soaked him in the Styx when he was a baby, and any part of his body that touched the water would become awesome. Luckily, unlike Achilles, his mother held him by his hair, so every part of his body became awesome (the original hair was shaved off). Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 16:46, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - what is this i dont even --Iiii I I I 00:29, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - (edit conflictx2)This will make it a lot easier as long as you can do it the original way as well (as in not having to remove the srcipt though), because sometimes I add the previous days price when it hasn't been updated for a few days.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 00:31, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It would be phenominally helpful for IPs who don't update correctly on their own. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 00:32, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The only downside to this is that some people with fail browsers... erm... I mean Internet Explorer won't be able to use this. Because of that, we will need to leave instructions for manual use on the page. ajr 00:34, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

I was talking to Quarenon a few minutes before I put this up. He is adding the instructions back in, so that will not be an issue. The edit conflict starts now. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 00:38, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
This script was tested in all major browsers, including IE8. Can you be specific about what problem you get with this script? --Quarenon  Talk 00:46, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Edit confilct: A lot quicker to use. —Manyman (talk) 00:36, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment I don't oppose this, but it will lead to more vandalism, because of the ease of updating, which will bring more edits. JJOCBucket detail.pngrwojy 00:48, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

That will always be an issue, though I assume it is possible to make it so the form will not allow any letters, spaces, or any number that is x percent higher than the current number to prevent the vandalism. Of course, we can remove the script if GEMW vandalism skyrockets after the introduction of the script. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 01:35, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
These types of checks are already being performed by the script. Non-numeric values or values that do not fall within 0.75 to 1.25 times the current price are rejected. Granted, if the current price is vandalized, the script may not accept a correct price update, but a manual edit or a rollback/undo can still be done. --Quarenon  Talk 01:39, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
Will there be a log for it? If so, where, and how big will the log be? ARYSHBucket detail.pngrwojy 01:54, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
No log is made outside of the usual page history entry when a successful edit is made. I'm not sure what useful purpose doing any other logging would serve, but do clarify if you have any ideas Smile --Quarenon  Talk 21:57, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
Having to fix one tenth the amount of incorrect updates > having to do 10x more rollbacks. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 01:56, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - Wonderful idea. Although, I am a bit worried, per Woj... well, it couldn't be as bad as having vandalism and incorrect edits - what we have now. With the implementation of this proposal, we'd be taking away the incorrect edits part, and that's a huge step for us (I swear, very few people know how to read instructions and update correctly Concerned). Vandalism will always have a chance at popping up, whether we have this script or not. There is no way to stop it, and we'll just have to live with the eternal threat of vandalism (can you hardly call it a threat?). We'll just rollback and warn as we've always done. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 01:02, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Epic. Chicken7 >talk 01:58, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Not much to say here, it's just a good idea. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 04:13, June 27, 2010 (UTC) 

neutral - helpful, but the last thing we need to do is make vandalism easier

Runecrafting MythbustermaTalk   HSCabbage.png<= BRASSICA PRIME

05:59, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

You make vandalism sound like such a bad thing... we have anti-vandal getting edit conflicts with giving vandals warnings, and edit conflicts when trying to rollback. We have vandalism under control. It would be no big deal, at all. We'd probably have just as much trouble as we do now, and that's not much at all. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 19:37, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
90% less incorrect edits for about 10% more GEMW vandalism. Sounds like a bargain to me. ajr 22:31, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Quick. bad_fetustalk 12:57, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Would be fast and helpful. BUKKITZ WEEL SMITE YOU!!!Murd3rlogistTalk Contribs Sign here 14:44, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Sounds nice to me. HaloTalk 19:57, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - That's awesome. Suppa chuppa Talk 20:19, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Great. ʞooɔ 21:27, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Looks great! Andrew talk 17:00, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - With unanimous support, can we close this and put it in effect? ʞooɔ 03:07, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Let it run for at least another few days, to make sure that nobody has any good oppose points to it (although I can think of none myself). ajr 03:25, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Unless anyone objects, I will be working to implement this over the weekend. This will be a "trial" period; I encourage RC patrollers to keep a close eye on Exchange edits to see how this script impacts vandalism and incorrect edits. If a script was used to make a page update, it will be indicated in the edit summary. We can always disable the script if there are any problems. --Quarenon  Talk 01:00, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

This request for closure was denied A user has requested closure for GEMW Script. Request denied. The reason given was: see below

ʞooɔ 09:39, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Leaving this open until the changes have been made. C.ChiamTalk 12:48, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
Okay. ʞooɔ 20:52, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This script has now been implemented. Forms will now appear by:

  • Viewing an exchange page, where it will replace the instructions seen at the top of the page. If you click the standard edit link, the manual instructions will still appear above the editing form.
  • Viewing an infobox containing exchange price data. If the user clicks "update", the GEMW interface form will appear (see example screenshot).

The edit summary will indicate that the script was used to make the update and which location was used (either the exchange page or the infobox).

The script can be optionally disabled by placing this code in your javascript file:

var enableGemwUpdate = false;

--Quarenon  Talk 21:03, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

HeartHeartHeartHeartHeart ʞooɔ 21:09, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
Frown I'm not seeing it... --Aburnett(Talk) 21:51, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
I've made an update to fix an issue where the form wouldn't appear on Exchange pages. --Quarenon  Talk 00:11, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Notice of intent - Leaving open for an additional 5 days, as per Quarenon's "trial period". Unless bugs are uncovered or opposition is voiced, topic will be closed at that time.--Aburnett(Talk) 03:12, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Changes to other things - We have to change few things to to go along with this add-on. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 08:51, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Question - Is there any way to put a delay on how much an item can be updated with this, like 1 update every hour on a single item? I was able to make a bronze dagger go from 17 coins to 30 in 3 edit, which could mean something like a bandos hilt may be raised to twice it's price in a few updates. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 09:14, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting way to bypass the price change limits. An alternative prevention mechanism would be to consider changes relative to the last edit that was made by a different user. This way you can re-submit one of your own edits if you mistakenly type in a price that was accepted, but you won't be able to exceed the price range established by the previous contributor. --Quarenon  Talk 05:22, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Another question - Any way we can add a "X" to quit out of the updater box, like there is in the picture preview thing? Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 09:54, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

On the item infobox, clicking "update" again will hide the form. Maybe the text could be changed to "close" to make it more obvious. I'm not sure if it would be as useful on the exchange pages, except maybe to re-show the instructions that were there originally? --Quarenon  Talk 05:22, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Question - There is no longer a link from an item article to that item's exchange page. Would it make sense to change the 'GE Database' link in Infobox item to the Exchange page, rather than to Grand Exchange Database? Riblet15 16:21, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

No, we could add a little "Data" next to the "Update" or something like that. that would be easy to do. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 01:36, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and it should be added by the script, so that users with Javascript disabled don't see redundant links. Also, the script isn't working for me on Exchange pages, only on the infoboxes on item pages. Also, the incorrect edits for today are apparently up 200% from before the script was installed.
I think that the way the script works needs some redesigning, since there really aren't many times when the GE price is inaccurate and someone other than a bot tries to fix it. I would suggest a script that only has an update button. When clicked, the script checks the last updated date for the GE price. If it's more than an hour old, it checks the GE for the price and updates it automatically. This prevents the script from being used for incorrect edits, and still keeps the GE hits fairly low (it's not like the update button is going to be constantly clicked by users). There's not much potential for DOS-type abuse, since just viewing a GE page and holding F5 would be over 9000 times more effective at DOSing the servers, and the hits are coming from the client's IP anyways. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 02:14, July 7, 2010 (UTC) 
A number of the incorrect edits in the past day or so have been the result of potential bugs that I'm working on fixing. I think other incorrect edits might be the result of many people trying out the feature for the first time just to see if it works. I've also seen some instances that I've seen of prices being reverted because it does not exactly match what is shown on the GE site but was actually more accurate in reference to prices shown in-game.
That brings me to your second point, which I see having two problems. The first is that the main reason I think we continue to let regular users update pages is because the in-game prices update faster and have more numerical precision than the GE site. The other problem is a technical one because it's not possible for the script to access the GE site directly (see Wikipedia:Same origin policy). Either Jagex would need modify their setup to allow cross-site requests, or get around cross-domain restrictions by using a proxy page such that all requests as seen by Jagex will appear to come from the same IP. This winds up being not much different from a centralized wiki bot that can be manually activated to edit a page.
Thanks for the input though Smile I should have an update ready tomorrow to fix the form on the exchange pages as well as some bug fixes in page editing. --Quarenon  Talk 05:22, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

I have a nefarious idea that probably qualifies me as a sociopath. How about instead of stopping people from updating the GEMW with values that are too high/low, we just say that it was updated without actually changing anything. They'd giggle insanely and then leave happy, knowing that they trolled us good, but really, it was the vandal who was trolled!!! Please note that I am 100% serious about this suggestion. I would love to see it implemented. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 08:55, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - It seems to be misfunctioning when updated from the infobox, the last price doesn't update properly (see here and here).Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 14:20, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting those. Hopefully this problem will be addressed in the update I just made a few minutes ago. --Quarenon  Talk 22:07, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
This just happened, an update but no changes to the prices (the price and the last are different). Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 02:08, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
That particular edit appears to have been made using the pre-updated script, because I had removed the parentheses around the infobox/exchange indication in the edit summaries. Looking through the recent Exchange edits, most people are using the new version now. --Quarenon  Talk 21:30, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

A problem I'm noticing with the script is that when people find themselves unable to enter an obvious vandalism price, they will vandalize using a non-obvious number that falls within the 5% range. Its having a much unintended side effect of making gemw vandalism harder to detect. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 17:54, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is a problem. Small changes won't stick out on the Recent Changes and they can be difficult to verify against the grand exchange because of the rounding that occurs on the website, so sometimes you need to be checking within the game to see if something is correct. I think your previous idea of making out-of-range errors appear to be successful might actually help reduce this. Anyone else have thoughts about it? --Quarenon  Talk 21:31, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's vandalism, more people updating to the price that they bought it for, and not the mid price. ajr 21:35, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
Well, let's add something in there that asks them to update it to the mid price, not what they bought it for. ʞooɔ 21:38, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
If there were a policy stating "don't be naive" I'd quote it here. People love vandalising, and if you make it impossible to obviously vandalise, they'll vandalise non-obviously. We'll end up with a huge amount of intentionally wrong edits that we can't differentiate from the rounding errors or the honest mistakes. If making out of range edits appear successful is too devious for you, then I call for removing the range limits completely. At least then we'll be able to spot vandalism when it happens. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 21:43, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I've just thought of something. Instead of disabling the price limits altogether, we could also set it up so it allows the edit to occur, but then automatically reports it to the CVU. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 21:46, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not being naive, I'm using common sense and assuming good faith. Yes, some of it is vandalism. However, we can't be sure which is vandalism and which isn't, so assume good faith. That's what the policy is all about. ajr 21:47, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
I also agree this is a problem. What if we changed the script so that it allows any value, however if the value falls outside of the expected range, the edit summary will include a warning of such, for example (Updated GEMW data via script on the item infobox. (possible vandalism)). --Aburnett(Talk) 15:31, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
That would be great, awesome idea! ajr 15:32, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Can we add in there that you should update the mid price, not whatever price you bought it for? ʞooɔ 21:26, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

A note about using the market price has been added to the update form and should show up in the next few hours. --Quarenon  Talk 05:51, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

One more thing... (discussion cont.)

Request closure - The proposal has been implemented. Redirect all issues somewhere else, let's swamp Quarenon's talk instead. 222 talk 06:47, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Nope, still one last issue do discuss here, that being what to do with out-of-range price updates. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 06:55, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
Oh ok then. 222 talk 06:59, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - It might be possible to make it so that it marks (categorises???) whenever 2 people add different prices (that can't be put down to rounding) on the same day. The inconsistencies would then be placed on a list like wanted pages or double redirects are. Then when people do the normal daily maintenance edits, they can compare the prices themselves with gedb/in-game. For this to work however the number of people that update gemw pages would have to increase. Plus there might be other unforseen side effects. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 05:27, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

I still say the absolute easiest thing to do is to either just let them vandalise as usual and revert it like we've been doing quite successfully for over a year now, or don't update it but make it look successful so the vandal just leaves. But the current system is untenable since it just forces vandals to do sneakier vandalism. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 04:34, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely, I proposed this above. --Aburnett(Talk) 23:33, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about the increased number of edits this may cause, but I'll go ahead and try this and see how the CVU handles it. Edits that fail to pass the price check will be allowed but there will be an indication of possible vandalism in the edit summary. --Quarenon  Talk 22:02, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
(possible vandalism) will now appear next to edits that fail the price range test. Changes may take a few hours or more to take effect due to server and client-side caching. --Quarenon  Talk 23:07, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Agree - It works well, but does it have a revert vandalism "undo price" button? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeffwang16 (talk contribs) on 04:18, July 13, 2010 (UTC).

No, just use the normal undo/rollback links in the page history or recent changes. Making an undo button too visible will probably just cause more trouble. --Quarenon  Talk 22:05, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
I just saw it in action and it seems to be working well. Anyone else care to comment? --Aburnett(Talk) 04:38, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Sounds awesome. --LiquidTalk 02:29, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Great idea. 222 talk 00:33, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I'm liking this more and more. Fruit.Smoothie 07:21, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The script is full of win, but the vandalism isn't. Would it be possible (technically I'm sure it is, but with consensus? You decide!) to impose a time limit between edits with the script. Say, any given exchange page cannot be updated for 12 hours after its last edit (via the script, obviously using the normal edit button would be unlimited). Something like that would cut down on the multiple-vandalising-edits-in-a-short-period-by-many-IPs-thing that I've seen happen, which is a pain to fix (have to go into history etc). Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 23:35, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

I support, per my comments below, although I suggested putting up a warning message instead, allowing you to cancel or continue with the change anyway. I'm not sure if a warning message will be effective against vandals (perhaps the additional click is good enough?), but by stopping any recent edits altogether, things like undo/rollbacks will prevent the page from being legitimately updated for the duration of the "block" period. --Quarenon  Talk 01:56, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Problems I'm experiencing

  1. If the price is the same as the last update-it will break the script.
  2. If the last price and the price are the same (and you are trying to update with a new price)-it will break the script.

Anyway to fix either of those? HaloTalk 21:10, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

  1. Bug not reproducible.
  2. Bug not reproducible.
Sorry, I'm seeing no evidence of these bugs. Any possibility something else caused it to fail? I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 00:38, July 22, 2010 (UTC) 
Hmm...that's odd. I will try to to reproduce them are report more details. HaloTalk 01:49, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
So, where is says "New Price:[box here] [Update]". If I put the new price and it is the same as the old price, it tells me: "The new price is the same as the current price." HaloTalk 01:52, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
  1. I believe that's the intended action. Essentially, "it's not a bug, it's a feature!" However, it might be best if the script updates the item anyways, so that a stable item like the ever-8gpthey're at 15 now? willow logs will continue to be treated as a "current" price, if people continue to update it.
  2. I see no evidence of any change in behaviour if the last price and the current price are the same. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 04:21, July 22, 2010 (UTC) 
  1. This was indeed an intended validation check. I can remove that, although one of the original reasons I put that in is to prevent people from making same-price updates in a short time frame, which can nullify the usefulness of having the LastDate and LastPrice fields. Perhaps there should be a warning message if the last change was recent?
  2. I can confirm that an "An error occurred while modifying the page content." message appears in this case, and I'm working on that.
I ask that future bug reports be as descriptive as possible, preferably following a template similar to this one. It helps expedite the fixing process and ensures that I can replicate the exact errors/conditions that were experienced when the problem happened. Thanks! Smile --Quarenon  Talk 23:00, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
Can you clarify what conditions are necessary to cause error #2? On Google Chrome (Win7) I see no change in behaviour when Price and LastPrice are the same. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 00:04, July 23, 2010 (UTC) 
I did it by:
  • Going to Exchange:Test
  • Make sure the current price and last price are the same (as of this revision both were at 1.6m)
  • Try to update the item to a new, different price.
  • An alert box comes up with "An error occurred while modifying the page content.", click OK and the edit is canceled.
I was able to do this in Chrome 5.0, Firefox 3.6.3, and Firefox 4.0 beta 1. --Quarenon  Talk 18:35, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
Very odd. Results by browser:
  • Chrome 5.0
    • Logged in: No error
    • Logged out: Error confirmed
  • Firefox 3.6.6
    • Logged in: Script failed to load
    • Logged out: Error confirmed
  • Firefox 4.0 beta 1
    • Logged in: Script failed to load
    • Logged out: Error confirmed
  • Internet Explorer 8
    • Logged in: Script failed to load
    • Logged out: Error confirmed
  • Opera 10.60
    • Logged in: Script failed to load
    • Logged out: Error confirmed
I would attribute the script load errors to custom Javascript that functions only on Chrome, as that's the only browser I tend to test personal scripts on. However, what I find intriguing is how that same personal Javascript manages to fix the script in Chrome. I'll need to look into it further. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 06:15, July 24, 2010 (UTC) 
While testing further with 1,600,000 in both price and lastprice, I tried to update with 1.5m and was told that "the new price is the same as the current price". When I updated to 1.6m, it set lastprice to 1,500,000, suggesting that it was caching the web queries from earlier requests (something which I suggest you disable with cache: false). It is possible that this was the cause of the above anomaly. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 06:22, July 24, 2010 (UTC) 
The failure to reproduce this bug properly is because you made previous edits to the page (with or without using the script), and the script is disregarding all your previous consecutive edits as being good-faith mistakes. When logged out, this doesn't apply, but when logged-in with Chrome, the script isn't considering any of your edits to Exchange:Test that were supposed to make the price and last price the same. I plan to take that "feature" out and fix this editing bug sometime today. Lol --Quarenon  Talk 17:36, July 24, 2010 (UTC)
(reset tabs) I should probably point out Firefox 3.6.8 says there is an error when using it from exchange page.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 23:32, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

These two issues should be fixed now. As always, it may take a few hours before the changes take effect. --Quarenon  Talk 01:50, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

As some people predicted, it's getting out of hand. I think we need to find another solution. maybe Psycho's idea of pretending to apply (but not applying) updates that appear to be vandalism. --Aburnett(Talk) 03:49, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Orly? Give it some time and users will see it as an uninteresting feature and go on to vandalise something else. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 03:57, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
That incorrect edit that I fixed would have been caught by such a filter anyway Lol Anyway, I agree. The sheer number of incorrect edits is astounding. I wake up every morning, go to [1] this page], and search for all the unresolved vandalism. There's a lot of it that we're not catching, and that's a problem. Ajr's idea of having a bot go to an exchange page every time it's edited and seeing if it's correct is seeming more and more feasible. ʞooɔ 04:00, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

FFFFFFUUUU - "(possible vandalism)" set me off to start rollbacking. Guys start doing your job and watch the Changes im slightly sick of it (Haha you guys are doing a great job but Me and Cook and a few others seem to only rollback/undo) Twig Talk 772kZGs.png 04:00, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

[2] me too]! Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 04:02, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
I do too when I'm available (It's school so I'm busy). And yes it starting to irritate a bit. At least the IRC tells us, possible vandalism 222 talk 06:14, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Note - Implemented Psycho's idea. Please allow for a few hours before the updated script kicks in. I also want to throw out another idea, if there ever becomes a problem with people catching on to the "fake" success messages. The script could keep a global counter of the number of times the fake message gets shown--if the counter exceeds a certain low value (say 5 or so), then the script can take some action, like disabling itself or offering up a warning to the user. The point is to stop users from brute-forcing submissions using the script until they can get it to submit small but incorrect changes (the same problem we noticed before). I should be able to get this counter to slowly decrement with time, that way you won't be affected if you happen to make a mistake every once in awhile. Lastly, this idea will probably rely on cookies, so clearing them would reset this counter. --Quarenon  Talk 04:09, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how far other people are willing to take this deception, but if I were the only guy in charge of this, I'd make the message for vandals say "changes may take a few minutes to be visible". I doubt any vandal would wait around a few minutes to see if his fake price had been submitted, and if he did, he'd probably assume that he'd already been caught and the edit had been reverted. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 04:32, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Notice of Intent - As the proposal has been implemented and discussion has died down, I plan to close this in three days if nobody has any more complaints. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 11:47, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Closed Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 02:04, August 9, 2010 (UTC)