Forum:Semi-protect Exchange namespace

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Semi-protect Exchange namespace
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 29 April 2011 by Thebrains222.
Related: Forum:Semiprotect the Update namespace

I am aware of a previously rejected proposal suggesting exactly what I am ([1]). Nevertheless, I propose that we semi-protect the Exchange namespace given the following:

The Exchange namespace suffers quite a bit of vandalism compared to many other pages, and for some reason it seems much harder to catch than vandalism to mainstream pages. Because of this, vandal edits often go un-reverted for hours. Additionally, users who do not know how to update the price (even though there is a very simple script that would do it for them) often edit the page and add the exchange price before the template. This causes many drop tables and calculators to malfunction as exchange pages templates are transcluded into a wide variety of articles. While I am aware that we do have an abuse filter designed to block many unproductive edits to this namespace, it seems that the filter is unable to detect garbage alchemy, store, and last prices effectively. While altering the filter to fix this problem may be possible, it would still not address the entire issue.

This brings me to my second point.

It seems that there are certain items that are traded in high volumes that have a considerable "buy price" and "sell price" fluctuation. Due to this, it seems that many contributors who are most likely trying to help out end up updating exchange prices (often with non-guide prices) repeatedly. The end result is an exchange page with a superfluous amount of price changes that are either completely irrelevant, incorrect, or sometimes blatant vandalism. (An example of this would be the nature rune exchange page.) I do not believe that there is a way to restrict the number of times users may edit an article within a given amount of time, so the only thing that can really be done is to restrict the updating of prices to auto-confirmed users.

While it is true that there are a vast number of constructive, sometimes necessary, IP edits to exchange pages, we possess bots that are fully capable of updating exchange page prices rather quickly. With these adept bots which are completely proficient in accomplishing the task and willing users who regularly update the exchange prices, we can retain correct, up-to-date prices while vastly minimizing the amount of vandalism and generally incorrect and unconstructive edits to these pages.

In a nutshell, there's a lot of vandalism and unproductive edits to these pages that we seem unable to catch. We can deal with this by protecting the namespace and letting the bots do the majority of the work, which they already do.


Support - As nominator. Suppa chuppa Talk 11:22, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Our countervandalism in Exchange is just awful. The bots easily handle price updating, which in all honesty should not need much input from anyone besides them. ʞooɔ 11:27, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support - But if there is a way to modify the abusefilter much more strictly, so only changes within 10% range, and only current and previous price/date are allowed to be edited by IPs and other areas are blocked by the abusefilter, I would oppose protecting it. This is because although bots can handle it perfectly, maybe IPs want to have the correct price in the calculator they are checking, so simply update the price. That should stay available if possible. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:31, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Strong support - We have a myriad of bad edits to the Exchange namespace (not all of it vandalism), but it is much more than we need (and seems to be more than we can handle). Our bots are advanced enough that it is exceedingly rare to see something go unupdated for over three or four days or so. Given the fact that prices rarely change at the +/- 5% maximum, this really isn't much of a problem.

Ajrabbitz has complained about this for a long time; he comments that we can protect the namespace so that only bots can edit it, and we'd still be fine, and he's probably right. The manual updating of exchange prices is obsolete and redundant, and is now more of a hindrance than a help.

On a related note, if this passes we'll need some changes to the Infobox. I think someone good at coding (id est not me) should go and change the infobox so that we no longer need to add a market price parameter, since it's always either gemw or Not sold. Just have the gemw appear if the Exchange page for the item exists, and say Not sold otherwise. --LiquidTalk 11:31, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support - A necessary step, I believe. Most anonymous users are fairly inexperienced and unaccustomed to our Exchange: namespace, so can not even make a valuable contibution to the Exchange: namespace. Most anon's make great contibutionsn to our mainspace only. The bot's and experienced users can handle this. Let's not let the "where anyone can edit" philosophy heed progress and common sense. That isn't a policy; just something we like to say. We need to look at Exchange: pages like code; not everyone knows how to edit it, and not everyone needs to edit it. Let's fix this issue. Chicken7 >talk 11:40, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per above. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 16:38, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I never saw the Exchange namespace as one that needed to be openly edit-able, especially since bots do pretty much all of the updating. Even if we had no bots and were forced to update the namespace manually, it would be pointless to allow all users to edit it, as there would be too much work to handle and too many poor edits to maintain.  Tien  17:55, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support I think I may have proposed this once myself. I think when I did, the bots were not what they are now. 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 18:53, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Normally I would support proposals that cut down on the amount of countervandalism we have to do, but I believe that this one goes too far. Ever since the introduction of the easy-updating script to Exchange: pages (wherein you enter the new value and it takes care of properly updating the page for you), I've seen dozens, perhaps hundreds, of legitimate price updates made by anonymous users. Yes, the namespace gets a lot of vandalism, just like every other namespace on the wiki. Have there been any attempts to step up countervandalism work? I would suggest trying that before imposing a technical solution with the side effect of locking out all those well-intentioned anonymous users.

By the way, the bots are not perfect. On expensive items, the bots do not report exact prices; rather, a price such as 49,415,958 will be 'simplified' to 49,400,000. This is good enough for informal personal use, but for the mainspace, I don't think we should be 'settling' for any price except the exact price of the item, in the interests of providing the most accurate information possible. Can the bots be adjusted to report accurate prices? If so, they really ought to be, even if this proposal fails, because they often update the prices on expensive items, but unfortunately, do so inaccurately.

I supported protecting the Update: space because that namespace got very few, if any, legitimate edits from unregistered users. On the other hand, it cannot be argued that the Exchange: space does not benefit from anonymous edits. I see this as another step towards completely locking down the whole site, the prospect of which I do not like. Please find another way to deal with the vandalism problem. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 19:09, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is not technically possible. To get the exact prices for an item that is priced at 49,415,958 for example, would require logging into the game, and that would constitute botting. Also, data cannot be taken off the in-game GE window, as such data does not "exist" in numbers that can be easily fetched, unlike the GEDB. 222 talk 22:51, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
As I said in my post, we've got to look at the Exchange namespace like code; it provides figures for the mainspace. If users want to know the price of an item, they're going to type in the item in the search bar and come up with the mainspace article; there, the price and graphs can be seen. Anonymous users really have no business editing the exchange namespace, as bots already do a good job. We're not "locking down the whole site"; we're only semi-locking down namespaces that do not require edits by users, especially those who have little to no experience. By the way, although the large number rounding issue is not a preferred outcome, it is not a disastrous issue. If someone is buying a 50 million dollar item, 15 thousand may not mean too much; plus, they're only likely to be buying 1 item, preventing a case where the 15 thousands could build up to a larger number. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 01:09, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
Why? Why does the Exchange: space not require edits made by unregistered users? As I said earlier, we get a lot of IPs correctly updating prices thanks to the update script. I've not yet seen a justification for keeping these IPs from providing the most accurate information possible- which is, and always should be, this wiki's number one objective. This proposal will harm the wiki because it goes directly against a precedent set by the years during which this site has been operational: to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I see that phrase thrown around sometimes as an excuse for not protecting some obscure or comparatively unimportant article or classification of articles, but the Exchange: space is most certainly significant enough to this project that it counts in the spirit of the phrase. If we semi-protect this, what next? Lock uploading images to established users because of all the personal images, which the sysops just can't keep up with? Restrict page creation for the same reasons? Semiprotect all userpages to prevent userspace vandalism?
We have a vandalism problem. I get it. Conceive and apply solutions that allow us to continue to allow unregistered contributions, which are one very good reason why this wiki's overall quality is so high. How many of you got started on the site by making unregistered edits, being able to fix factually incorrect, poorly phrased, or outdated information? When you think about it, how great is it that we have an up-to-date price guide on every tradeable item in the game, which anyone can update if the price is old or incorrect? I think it is one of the greatest reasons to use the wiki over other sites, and I also think this proposal to lock unregistered users from updating prices will undermine the overall quality of our Exchange: space. This proposal will harm the wiki, and I stand very strongly against it. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 02:55, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
"Expensive items" are apparently anything 1 million coins or higher for these bots. Many items fall under that category, and rounding to the nearest hundred thousand coins is far too broad, especially for items closer to that 1 million mark. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 03:08, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
As I see it, you're using very far examples and analogies of this semi-protection and other so-called "future" protections. As I said, the Exchange: namespace usually doesn't require edits from IPs or users for that matter. You didn't correctly refute that point; only stated "we get a lot of IPs correctly updating prices". Again, as expected, the philosophy/phrase of this wiki has been brought up and used as an excuse. The way you phrased it actually supports our side of the argument. "to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit". The key word is encyclopedia. As stated before, the Exchange: namespace is like code, that provides figures to the actual content articles. IPs can freely edit these content articles, with their information or input; we'll never change that. The examples of future scenarios are pretty farfetched. Personal images are caused by misunderstanding rules, not going against them purposely. Page creation is necessary as it is usually IPs who create new update pages seconds after they are released. And userpage vandalism is fairly rare, and only ever really occurs through targeted attacks at certain individuals.
I started editing wikis as an anonymous. But I was editing content, as you stated when saying "being able to fix factually incorrect, poorly phrased, or outdated information". This is how most IPs will start, making small spelling/grammar changes then content changes. Then they usually register and get used to templates and coding. In my opinion, if we do semi-protect the namespace, it won't actually have a detrimental effect on their "free-to-edit" views of the wiki; they'll understand that these pages provide figures for other articles, and can be taken advantage of easily. I don't see any harm; only progress. Chicken7 >talk 05:37, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, first of all, the idea that the Exchange: space doesn't need edits from IPs or users is asinine. The bots cannot be counted on to single-handedly provide us with completely accurate prices for all items in the game, as I have said before- for anything with a price of 1 million coins or higher, the price is rounded to the nearest hundred thousand coins. At a glance, it looks like this also occurs on cheaper items; this edit and others like it show a rounding to the nearest hundred coins. The bots are good, but solely relying on them results in less precise prices for expensive items. Therefore, we need actual people who will accurately update prices, and the more people are able to do that, the more accurate our prices will be.
Second, I disagree with the idea that the Exchange: space is merely to be considered as code that supports the mainspace. There is content on Exchange: pages, most notably the items' prices, which editors must be able to change in order to keep them up to date. This gives users, both registered and not, a very good reason to edit Exchange: pages. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 23:21, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I personally make sure BrainBot runs an update ASAP after a GE Update is detected (That may or may not be 10 hours afterwards, as I am sometimes not around and do not keep my computer switched on at night). Per all. 222 talk 22:52, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer Sentra's idea if it is possible. 222 talk 03:11, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - BrainBot will lose technical support. 222 talk 06:20, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Support - The bots, brainbot at least, updates all exchange pages after every update so there is no need for anyone one else to update the pages as well. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 00:17, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that BrainBot will cease to receive any updates and/or support after this change goes through. If I cannot run live tests then I will not waste my time with trial and error. If you want to kill BrainBot, then that's fine by me. ~Aeri 03:09, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - Per Andorin and Aeri, but support my proposal if technically possible. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 05:48, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Is there a way to remove the edit button from the page so people have to use the script, or if needed add ?action=edit to the end of the url, which most ip's wouldn't know how to do. This would remove all the problems of people editing and then using the script and incorrectly editing it. Also if I remember correctly it doesn't allow edits over a certain percentage off the previous price. If this was possible it would probably be better than protecting the entire namespace. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 02:41, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

I think this is acceptable. While unregistered users might have reasons to edit the Exchange: space for reasons besides price updates, the largest one is countervandalism, which our userbase can handle. If this is technically possible, I will support it over the current proposal. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 03:12, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
That was my original idea, but y'all shot it down. ʞooɔ 19:49, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Entirely possible. The code is:
.ns_115 #control_edit {display: none;}

Ajraddatz 20:17, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Add that already i'd say. As this is mostly about IPs, registered users could still add .ns_115 #control_edit {display:inline-block !important;}(the original style attached to edit buttons) to be able to edit the namespace more easily. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 10:51, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Andorin, support Sentra's suggestion if it's possible. --Iiii I I I 03:09, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - It really isn't hard to check the vandalism, and there are just as many positive edits to that namespace as there is vandalism. Ajraddatz 03:13, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Changed to support of sentra's idea. Ajraddatz 20:20, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Semi-protection. We have a large number of good updates from IP's and new users. In fact, I remember one of the first things I did here was update an exchange price. It's a good way to encourage new contributors and also keep our prices up to date. I've even had to remove semi-protection to allow new users to update our prices. I Support Sentra's idea however, that would hopefully cut down on some of the vandalism. We also might be able to cook up a better filter using RS:ABUSE to cut down on incorrect updates. --Aburnett(Talk) 21:31, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - There will always be bad apples. Don't let that ruin it for everyone else. Besides, any exchange vandalism is reverted fairly quickly. Andrew talk 23:45, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

I support Sentra's idea, though. Andrew talk 23:46, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
The sad fact of the matter is that a large portion of Exchange vandalism remains for hours before it is reverted. Suppa chuppa Talk 07:16, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I'm uneasy about the concept of not allowing certain users to edit parts of the wiki. Personally, it's the precedent that worries me, and that's obviously what Andorin was pointing at in his comments. If we allow the restriction of editing freedom for some users in some way, what will be next? Don't we consistently reference past consensus in future discussions? What kind of repercussions might the decision to begin restricting editing freedom have?

I do understand the argument about vandalism, which is the only supporting reason I personally hold valid. Drop tables and other pages with transclusion suffer from the inaccuracies that result, but I still question the proposed action. Because figures are as "encyclopedic" as - if not synonymous with facts, and figures are certainly just as much "content" as any written page, I also question the idea that exchange pages should be treated as code on the argument of precedent, and I dislike the idea that not everybody needs to edit a certain part of the wiki.

We certainly don't require edits from IP users in any of Andorin's examples. I'd say we don't at all require IP edits in the most explicit sense. Registered users could write every article, take every picture, and update every price, but that isn't what we are. Maybe "that everyone can edit" isn't a policy, but we would be stepping away from the fundamental beliefs of a wiki if we started restricting editing freedoms, and whether the IP editors care is irrelevant, and assuming that only registered users do in fact care is presumptuous. We are a wiki. Let's keep it that way, maintaining that for whatever reason a precedent involving the restriction of editing freedom will not be accepted. Leftiness 03:14, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - It seems that there are mixed feelings about placing protection over the entire namespace, but Sentra's idea of limiting IPs to only using the script seems favorable to everyone. I have absolutely no objection to this; I just wish for something to be done that could combat the rising amount of vandalism and the declining amount of anti-vandals. Basically, should my original proposal fail, and should Sentra's proposal receive consensus, I hope that the closing administrator's decision will reflect upon this. Suppa chuppa Talk 07:16, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - just because some does it doesn't mean all does it. --Cakemix 19:33, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

Notice of intent - Being one of the main proponents of the semi-protection, I thought I'd comment and say that I don't mind if "Sentra's idea" is passed over the original. So far, no one has voiced opposition at this; I will wait a few days, so if you do have a problem with hiding the edit link on all exchange pages (but still allow editing through the script), speak now or forever hold your peace. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 10:10, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

And mind that this should not affect logged-in users who do not like this change; just add .ns_115 #control_edit {display:inline-block !important;} to your wikia.css file. Just for people who didn't read it above. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:31, March 3, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Just wanted to mention an idea I had while chatting with Suppa about this. The idea is to have a counter-vandalism tool (possibly a JavaScript gadget) that would make it significantly easier to spot vandalism that's being done to Exchange pages. It would be a RecentChanges-like page with rows representing individual Exchange page edits, and columns breaking down the changes made to the prices. There might also be a way to include the GEDB price from the RuneScape site in the table. It would look something like this (red rows indicate suspicious edits that were automatically identified by the tool):

Time User Page Current Rev Previous Rev GEDB Price Links
Price Last Price Last
19:17, March 3, 2011 (UTC) User:Quarenon Exchange:Bones 10000 134 134 136 134 undo rollback
19:17, March 3, 2011 (UTC) User:Quarenon Exchange:Soda ash 470 465 465 460 470 undo rollback
View last x edits from the last y days.

It may be a way to keep things as-is (no protection) and combat the vandalism much faster. --Quarenon 16:59, March 3, 2011 (UTC) JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 22:27, March 3, 2011 (UTC)
Epic, thanks so much, Quarenon. Suppa chuppa Talk 22:39, March 3, 2011 (UTC)
What about making Current Rev first? --Iiii I I I 00:17, March 4, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it makes more sense that way. I flipped them around in my example. --Quarenon 02:07, March 4, 2011 (UTC)
One question though, would it show 2 edits to the same Exchange: page as 2 different entries, or just one, or would it only show the last? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 03:05, March 4, 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking originally to have a separate entry per edit regardless of the page, although I could see the usefulness of removing duplicate entries for the same page so this could be a selectable option. --Quarenon 07:26, March 4, 2011 (UTC)
We could even make a php extension for that - little JS would be required, and that would allow us to have a special page dedicated to it. Also, why not replace the (cur) and (diff) links with (undo) and [rollback] - that page would pretty much show whether or not it was vandalism. Ajraddatz 03:29, March 4, 2011 (UTC)
An extension would look nice and probably be the most efficient, but one problem with this is the long delay of getting code fixes and updates done through Wikia. There's also some technical hurdles associated with getting a live GEDB price that doesn't slow down the loading of this page. --Quarenon 07:26, March 4, 2011 (UTC)
What about edits changing the alch values and other fields? Suppa chuppa Talk 03:32, March 4, 2011 (UTC)
The other exchange fields can be just as easily added, I just didn't want to make the example above look too busy Lol --Quarenon 07:26, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I have a concept script for people to try out. If you want to use it, add this line to your JavaScript file:


After doing that, visit User:Quarenon/Scripts/Exchange_Watch. You should see the placeholder text get replaced by a table that looks like this:

There are still a few things to be done, such as:

  • Autorefreshing the table
  • Identifying suspicious rows, such as when the current and prev revisions differ by too much
  • Putting in a GEDB price there, I got some helpful info from User:Catcrewser about pulling in the data so this ought to be doable

--Quarenon 09:41, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I've made several updates to the script; clear your browser cache if you don't see the update. The page looks like this now:

Clicking the GEDB price check link will pull the data for the item off the Grand Exchange and put it in the table, but I will probably change it so all the items in the table are checked in the Grand Exchange automatically. --Quarenon 06:39, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I suggest we add Q's script to the common.js file (as soon as it's 100% complete) and create RuneScape:Exchange Watch (RS:EW). JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:36, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if adding it to the global JS is really necessary, just because only a very small percentage of our readers will ever use this tool. We can just add it to the list of gadgets in Special:Preferences to make it easy to install. --Quarenon  Talk 07:29, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

Comment/Idea - With the ability to check GEDB prices now and to further reduce GEMW vandalism, we should change the GEMW update script to have a button to collect price from the GEDB and if a custom price is entered, it must be within the GEDB's price rounding. To reduce load on Jagex and Wikia, maybe it should limit updating based on the Grand Exchange update times. In other words, lets add the ability to update from GEDB to the GEMW update script. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 18:21, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

If that's possible, why not make that the only possible thing to do for IPs? A button to update the price. That would be a lot easier and userfriendly for the good faith IPs, and it would be near-impossible(only by url-"manipulating") to vandalise the pages(if we remove the edit button). What else do IPs want to do with regular editing anyway? I think that if we change the inputbox to a submit button, and remove the regular edit button, we would have stopped 99.9% of the vandalism in the Exchange: namespace. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 00:59, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
Would there not be an issue in that case of the price not updating immediately - leading to repeated submissions and reduced usefulness for Mr IP. --Henneyj 07:18, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
We could fix that by adding a button to purge the page in the infobox. If that doesn't show the latest version, the price was indeed not updated, so pressing the button again would not cause repeated submissions. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 07:50, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
*bump* Would that be possible? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 21:56, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
I think that would be possible, when it updates my proposed idea would have it validate and only update if the price had changed using the latest revision. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 01:26, March 14, 2011 (UTC)
Considering that it uses JS anyways, the JS can be modified to purge the page after updating. Also, it might be nice if it showed the progress of the update through a pop up box :3 Ajraddatz 03:15, March 14, 2011 (UTC)
Yay! Could we have the script added as soon as it's complete, and then have the regular edit button removed? (*cheers for the possibility of a lot less vandalism*) Oh and the fact people won't be able to edit the prices if they have JS disabled shouldn't matter as I'd not like to risk vandalism for those people. Also I herd it is entirely useless to disable it, so we should maybe make a RuneScape:JavaScript page explaining how to enable it on the most used browsers, and explaination that we try to respect people who disable JS as much as possible, but we can't do it in this case because of vandalism. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 08:15, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

So is the idea now to have the script present only an "Update" button with no way to manually enter in a price? I'm somewhat opposed this idea only because it prevents people from being able to easily update with a more accurate price using the script. Maybe for logged-in users it can also have a manual price box. Also, I'm opposed to blanketly removing the edit button; if it really must be removed, use scripting or some other method that hides it only for IP's so that registered users don't have to bother with figuring out how to un-hide it. --Quarenon  Talk 07:12, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of the proposal was the the edit button would be removed, leaving only the script which would take the price as an input and update the price using the script, as is done now. However, I do agree with your qualms that it would be a hassle for registered users attempting to fix incorrect gemw edits. Suppa chuppa Talk 16:36, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, it would indeed be good to have an input box for registered users, and then only a submit button for IPs, removing their editbutton but not registered users's editbutton (like Q said). Does anyone have any comments on this? If not, we could as well add the script for it asap. Imo the month this thread lasted so far is enough, as it is about a problem that happens very often, and the sooner it's fixed, the better. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 23:42, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Request closure - Discussion has mostly ended, and there's no consensus for the original proposal, but how about the other proposals? 222 talk 05:17, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

The idea Quarenon suggested seems to cover almost all concerns by users in this thread, so I think it would be good to ask Q to implement that suggestion. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:09, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Semi-protect Exchange namespace. Request complete. The reason given was: complete

Made it official. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 05:19, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus for the original proposal. However, there is consensus for Sentra's suggestion. IP's will be restricted to updating the GEMW using only the script, if I can wake up one of our coders. 222 talk 06:49, April 29, 2011 (UTC)