Consumer Rights Wiki - User contributions [en]

Unlocking Technology Act of 2013

2026-03-08T23:50:40Z

Luigi2262: Grammar

{{StubNotice}}
{{IncidentCargo
|StartDate=2013-05-08
|Status=Resolved
|Type=Digital Ownership
|Description=This was a proposed law to restrict DMCA Section 1201 to only apply to copyright infringement, but it died in committee.
}}
The Unlocking Technology Act of 2013 was a proposed bipartisan law which would have modified Section 1201 of the DMCA to only restrict breaking digital locks for the sake of copyright infringement.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Couts |first=Andrew |date=2013-05-09 |title=Awesome new bill legalizes cell phone unlocking, 'fixes' the DMCA |url=https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/new-bill-legalizes-cell-phone-unlocking-fixes-the-dmca/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260213170359/https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/new-bill-legalizes-cell-phone-unlocking-fixes-the-dmca/|archive-date=2026-02-13|url-status=live |access-date=2026-02-24 |website=Digital Trends}}</ref> It died in committee.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |date=2013 |title=H.R. 1892 (113th): Unlocking Technology Act of 2013 |url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1892 |url-status=live |access-date=2016-02-24 |website=www.GovTrack.us}}</ref>

==Background==
The [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act|Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)]] Section 1201 was a law passed which was intended to prevent copyright infringement by making it illegal to break a digital lock (meaning bypass software restrictions put on a smart device). Companies have been making their devices smart partially to use this law to prevent people from modifying their products.

==The Unlocking Technology Act of 2013==

Representatives Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Thomas Massie (R-KY), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), and Jared Polis (D-CO) introduced this bill to allow people to break digital locks on devices they purchased as long as it was not intended for copyright infringement. If passed, this law would have allowed for jailbreaking, servicing vehicles, ripping CDs, and more. <ref>{{Cite web |last=Lee |first=Timothy |date=2013-05-09 |title=Members of Congress finally introduce serious DMCA reform |url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/members-of-congress-finally-introduce-serious-dmca-reform/ |url-status=live |access-date=2026-02-24 |website=Ars Technica}}</ref> The bill was assigned to the Ways and Means Committee on May 8, 2013. That committee had done nothing on the bill by December 18, 2013, so it was reassigned to the Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet subcommittee, which also did nothing with it.<ref name=":0" />

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:US legislation]]

Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard

2026-02-25T20:45:43Z

Luigi2262: /* stub notice bug */ Reply

<div style="margin: {{#ifeq:{{{navbox|<noinclude>yes</noinclude>}}}|yes|2px}} 0 0.5em; padding: 0.5em; {{{style|border: 1px solid #A0A5AD;}}} {{{backgroundstyle|background-color: var(--background-color-progressive-subtle, #eaf3ff); color: inherit;}}}">
<div style="padding: 0.25em 0; text-align: center; font-size: 120%; border-radius: 3px; font-weight: bold; {{{titlestyle|background-color: var(--background-color-content-added, #aad1ff); color: inherit;}}}">Welcome — post issues of interest to Moderators</div>
*Post '''appeals''' to article notice templates (e.g. Incomplete, Stub, etc.)
*Post requests for '''moderator action''' here (e.g. blocks)
*Just need a mod? Post here or ping a mod with a question.
*Post any information or news relevant to the moderation team here.
*To request an article to be created, do not post here, try [[Article suggestions]] instead.
*Do not report technical issues here, please use the [[Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Bugs|Bugs noticeboard]] instead.

<div style="padding: 0.25em 0; text-align: center; font-size: 150%; border-radius: 3px; font-weight: bold">[[Special:NewSection/Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard|Start a new section]]</div>
</div>
<br />
{{Archives}} 
==Open tasks==

*[[:Category:Articles with deletion requests]]
*[[:Category:Articles with merge requests]]
*[[:Category:Articles marked as irrelevant]]
*[[Special:NewPages]]

==stub notice bug==

I tried submitting my deletion req for [[FakePortal]] but get hit with "Stub notices can NOT be removed by users with normal privileges". Tried removing the unused infoboxes in [[WhatsApp]], [[GoGuardian]], [[Asus]] and [[Roblox]], and the same dice. w h y? [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 19:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

:I'll check this out now [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 18:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
::This seems to be a regular issue with the abuse filter [[Consumer_Rights_Wiki_talk:Bugs#How_do_you_edit_beginning_of_an_article_with_StubNotice?|which absolutely has been talked about before]]. It's very annoying and in my opinion we need some sort of edit request system or a new group given to users to bypass the filter, but for now I'll just check the abuse log and apply the edit manually myself. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 18:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
:The issue is when edits are made in-line with a stub notice, as (iirc) the filter checks for edits to the same line as the change [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 00:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
::the notice* [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 00:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
:::hey can this please be fixed? it's really damn annoying. removal of redundant infoboxes on [[Deep Cycle Systems]] and [[Allstate]] are triggering it [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 14:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
::::I can remove these now. It would be cool if a usergroup would dodge the filter. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 15:01, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::yeah, I wonder if we should create a 'superconfirmed' group or something, which doesn't have the banning powers of a mod but can edit article notices. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 00:19, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
::I had the same issue. Just noticed this section. [[User:Luigi2262|Luigi2262]] ([[User talk:Luigi2262|talk]]) 19:45, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Luigi2262|Luigi2262]] {{Done}} your edit! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 20:38, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
::::Thank you. [[User:Luigi2262|Luigi2262]] ([[User talk:Luigi2262|talk]]) 20:45, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

==Idea for a new section==

An "Important" / "Must-Reads" / "Starter Pack" / "Essential Reading" section showing the most important articles to view for someone new to the Consumer Rights scene, or just someone unknowing.

Furthermore, the ability to rate an article. Perhaps as a way to show which matters are trending, because of many people having said problem with said device/service. Could be a "Saved me!", "Worked", "Didn't work", where "Saved me!" can only be used maybe once a day, to show which issues a not just trending, but very crucial. These ratings could help place relevant articles at the top of a second section within "Important"/Whatever.

These two sections would give users a place to scroll and skim through, to see if there are any matters relevant for them, like a random product they own, that they didn't know had a Consumer Rights issue.

Additionally; the ability to give pledges to article writers/editors. I'm not fully sure how it would work at the moment, but it would give people a way to support editors that produce important relevant articles. Perhaps the site could take a small cut, which both contributes to funding the server costs or the "legal fund" that Rossman mentioned, but also gives people a bigger incentive to pledge to editors, knowing that some of it goes to supporting the website and its users. [[User:Sebandar|Sebandar]] ([[User talk:Sebandar|talk]]) 19:57, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

:I would appreciate a pane with "must-reads" on the main page that highlights the articles with the widest spread effects and only includes well-written articles. Putting some articles in the same industry, like articles on Apple and Google's app store restrictions, would be especially effective, because it's nearly guaranteed that one of these applies to the reader. If you want to make a draft of this somewhere I would be down to help work on it.
:I like the article rating idea. I don't know how difficult it would be to add interactive content like this to the wiki, but it sounds like a good way to receive feedback. The only official way to receive feedback currently is on the talk pages but those are all pretty dead. Some prioritization on pageviews or feedback would be nice.
:On pledges, Wikipedia actually has something like this, it has a [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Reward_board|reward board]] where users are offered barnstars or real money to improve articles, but it's not used very much. Most users seem to be offering up prizes only for the fun of doing so, not because it's particularly effective. If the content is relevant and/or interesting, someone probably is already working on it. I don't personally think this site needs an economy but if it were to be implemented, I think we should plug donations to FULU or other affiliated foundations on the main page and then have those foundations offer microgrants for editors. [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 16:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

==Form pages==

I made a change to [[Form:Company]] following Discord suggestion #181. I was going to add this to [[Form:Product]] and [[Form:ProductLine]] but these pages are protected.

So, I am requesting an edit to those two pages to replace "(supported file types = PNG|JPG)" with "(supported file types = JPG, PNG, SVG)" to represent the fact that SVGs are allowed, and also to admin-protect [[Form:Company]] since that's an important page. [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 13:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

==“Summaries” of articles==

I'd like to propose an idea that I think would help people read articles in a rush. Add a box at the top of all long pages (e.g. [[YouTube]], or all that aren't stubs or marked as incomplete) that summarises the article (the incidents the company has been involved in, what it does, etc) in a couple of sentences. Let me know what you think. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 15:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

:What makes this different from a lead paragraph? Would you replace the lead paragraph entirely with this template or would it be a complementary resource with links to related company/product/theme articles? You could link to categories/other articles there. I think categories on wikis in general are overlooked by most readers and putting them at the top sounds interesting. [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 16:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

==InfoboxCompany to CargoCompany cleanup part 2==

The companies have all been moved over now, the only [https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Special:WhatLinksHere?target=Template%3AInfoboxCompany&namespace=&limit=50 places that InfoboxCompany exist in] are in some documentation out of main namespace and on these pages where they were placed on the same line as a notice:
[[AirAsia]], [[Deep Cycle Systems]], [[Allstate]], [[Happiest Baby]], [[Verisk Analytics, Inc.]], [[DAZN]], [[Federal Communications Commission]], [[Anova Culinary]], [[Sig Sauer]], [[RepairShopr]]

Converting InfoboxProductLine and finding more pages without infoboxes or cargo... sometime. [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 15:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

:Still need these removed if anyone has 5 minutes:
:[[AirAsia]], [[Allstate]], [[Happiest Baby]], [[Verisk Analytics, Inc.]], [[DAZN]], [[Federal Communications Commission]] [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 19:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
::{{Done}}. Sorry for taking so long. It'd be nice if there was a usergroup that could dodge all the edit filters. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 20:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

==Color scheme==

The main Sitenotice text is nearly the same color as the link inside of it, making it hard to distinguish where the link is if you haven't clicked the link yet. A larger contrast would be nice, since the notice is going to be up for another 25 days or so. https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&action=edit

This also applies to most of the main page, blue/muddy purple on blue doesn't look the best, but that's a larger undertaking. If the main page is up for redesign it would be nice to take the color contrast into consideration. [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 16:15, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

:I've simply made it black and white, although I don't think it is entirely fixed it. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
::Please can nobody amend the theme or any elements currently, I am restyling the website. [[User:JakeL|JakeL]] ([[User talk:JakeL|talk]]) 17:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Oh, sorry. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Looks great, and has nice contrast! [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 18:56, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
::::Thank you! Still somewhat of a work in progress, but definitely a significant improvement over the previous version. [[User:JakeL|JakeL]] ([[User talk:JakeL|talk]]) 18:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, I like it too! As an idea, make the borders rounded like the original one. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
::::::No worries, all done! [[User:JakeL|JakeL]] ([[User talk:JakeL|talk]]) 19:09, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Wow, this looks amazing now. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:30, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

==Template troubles==

So, a lot of the articles with [[Template:Incomplete]] and cargo templates that display a box (any but IncidentCargo) have big foreheads right now (see a list of articles with Incomplete [https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Incomplete&limit=100 here]). I did some testing, the Incomplete template itself doesn't have a trailing newline, and none of the cargos have a preceding newline. A <nowiki><p><br></nowiki><nowiki></p></nowiki> is being added by the parser when the two are put together, and only when they are not on the same line. I've also seen this in the wild with [[Template:SloppyAI]] and with [[Template:Welcome]] on new user talk pages. Welcome should be a simple edit fix since it's not combined with other templates, but it seems that anytime templates are combined, they must be put on the same line or they will introduce an unintended newline. You can see an instance of Incomplete and SloppyAI together causing problems on [[Samsung TVs]].

Many Wikipedia pages have several templates next to each other without this problem, for example see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025%E2%80%932026_Iranian_protests&oldid=1334922628 2025-2026 Iranian protests]. So the problem is solvable in MediaWiki, but I don't know how much work is required to do so. According to [[:Category:Todo]], over 700 articles have these banners, which is the majority of the wiki.

If other people think it's important too, I can work on this, but I don't know how to compare this wiki's configuration against stuff in the MediaWiki documentation. [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 13:35, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

:Oh yeah, some junk from my experimenting that we should delete once the problem is resolved: [[User:Bythmusters/templatetesting]], [[Qwerty]] [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 13:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
::Do you mean the top has more height than the rest of the box? I'm not entirely sure what you are talking about. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Also, the Wiki's main config can be seen at [[MediaWiki:Common.css]] and [[MediaWiki:Common.js]], where all the css and js that you see the moment you load a page is at. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:34, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
:::So, let's compare these two versions:
:::https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Bythmusters/templatetesting&oldid=35089
:::https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Bythmusters/templatetesting&oldid=35091
:::There is an additional newline between the bottom of the template and the beginning of the article text. The only difference in the source text is:
:::<nowiki>"{\{Incomplete}}{\{ProductLineCargo"</nowiki>
:::vs:
:::<nowiki>"{\{Incomplete}}</nowiki>
:::{\{ProductLineCargo"
:::In the second one, there's a newline to separate the templates, as it's more natural to read in the source editor this way. Wikipedia articles do not render this newline, but CRW does. That is my issue, it takes up a lot of space on the screen.
:::Thanks for the links, I read through the Common.css and Common.js of this wiki and Wikipedia but I didn't see anything relevant. I think it's in the parser, where the mediawiki text gets converted into html but I don't know enough about this stuff to be sure. [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 18:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
::::Ah, okay. Reread your previous post and now feel like an idiot for not understanding. I don't know how to fix that if it's the parser. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::Yeah idk it's probably not worth the trouble to fix. I like learning about mediawiki but not that much [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 15:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

==Feedback on changes to sidebar appearance and arrangement==

*I suggest renaming the "Tools" section for the web browser addon to something else to differentiate it from the wiki tools. I also recommend moving it to the way bottom, at least until it's ready for prime time, since it makes wiki editors have to scroll further to reach the wiki tools than previously.

*An option to hide the mini-list of recent changes and restore the single line "Recent Changes" for the original minimalist design.
**<strike>As an addendum: The font size of said mini-list is not consistent with the font size used both throughout the sidebar and the wiki itself, making it stand out like a sore thumb.</strike>

*An option to hide the community section for those of us that refuse to ever use [[Discord]]. I'd rather have a native choice available instead of resorting to a browser addon to remove it.

''(Note: Feedback is based on using Firefox v147.0.2 and the wiki skin "Vector legacy (2010)".)'' — [[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna|talk]]) 21:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

:I’ve mentioned already that Vector legacy (2010) hasn’t been worked on yet, as most users are on Vector 2022 where these changes have been applied. The examples you listed aren’t present on the current default skin. I’d appreciate your patience while I get round to updating the legacy variant. In the meantime, I’ve resolved the issue where discussion tabs and similar tabs were hidden. [[User:JakeL|JakeL]] ([[User talk:JakeL|talk]]) 22:51, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

::Respectfully, I find your response confusing. What I bring up here is a separate matter from [[Consumer_Rights_Wiki_talk:Bugs#Page_tabs_hidden|my bug report]], and I posted ''only'' after first waiting a couple days and checked the default skin before-hand. I've struck out the one line since apparently it wasn't intentional like I had thought (and it had affected both legacy and default skins for the record), but otherwise my general feedback is unchanged.

::I appreciate the work you do on the wiki and thank you for fixing the bugged page tabs. — [[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna|talk]]) 02:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
:::I understand that the feedback here is separate from the bug report, though I’m also a little confused: the default skin does not show the duplicated Tools section that the legacy version does, so I’m not sure how it would be confused with the wiki tools. It’s also already at the very bottom on the default skin. As for the other suggestions about hiding certain areas, I can look into those, but it won’t be a short-term fix. I appreciate the feedback and the kind words! [[User:JakeL|JakeL]] ([[User talk:JakeL|talk]]) 19:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

==What should this image be licensed under?==

This [[:Category:Suspected copyright violations|image I archived]] for Age Verification, I selected as "without permission" since I didn't see they licensed it under CC BY 4.0 at the time - yet the site rejected both IA and archive.today, which felt like they held the copyright. How should the content be tagged? (I

On another note, if you go to the [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563217303357 site of the reference] and click "View PDF", after solving a Cloudflare "are you human" it grants access to the full pdf which has "© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)." as the footer of the first page. I wonder if that's the better way to go about archiving this reference.

Probably could have worded this better, thanks for your time. [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 02:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

:I've deleted it while we figure out copyright status of this. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
::It seems to exist on the IA [https://web.archive.org/web/20190203021620/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563217303357 here]. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:37, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Unfortunately that snapshot only has the Abstract. I'm not the one that added the particular source, but it (may) be sufficient enough to add as an archive link for that particular source (talking about the [[Age Verification]] article in case anyone's confused), so I've gone and done so. Thanks for your input. [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 04:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
::This can be safely undeleted. The copyright symbol is sometimes used for partial copyright (which Creative Commons is). A more suitable symbol would have been the "(cc)" (creative commons) symbol, but it is not a dedicated unicode character like "©". The document itself says it is Creative Commons, not "all rights reserved", so I see no reason not to undelete it. [[User:JodyBruchonFan|JodyBruchonFan]] ([[User talk:JodyBruchonFan|talk]]) 22:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

==Appeal Request==

On the article regarding [[Restaurant Brands International caught training AI models using customer voices|Restaurant Brand International]], I think that the source credibility issue lacks merit and should be removed, as I don't see how it could be lacking in source credibility due to (in my opinion) additional evidence backup with images and detail breakthrough of the event that would classify it as being trustworthy? Would like some thoughts and comments around this, very confused. [[User:SquidthePlummer|SquidthePlummer]] ([[User talk:SquidthePlummer|talk]]) 23:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

:Mr Pollo often does tagging like that, pinging @[[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] for thoughts here. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 18:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
::Also, incomplete is often simply used for a short article, although it doesnt specify it in the notice. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 18:02, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
:Hello, I added the incomplete template to that article for two main reasons: aspects such as the Background section can be expanded into a paragraph and a "consumer response" section as seen [[Template:IncidentPreload|here]] would greatly benefit the article. So far it is a good article, but it can be better with my suggestions. [[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] ([[User talk:Mr Pollo|talk]]) 20:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
::Now i see. I think that's fair and i agree! Thank you for clearing some things up, will definitely work on it as soon as I get the chance! [[User:SquidthePlummer|SquidthePlummer]] ([[User talk:SquidthePlummer|talk]]) 20:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Of course, thank you as well for your contributions! [[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] ([[User talk:Mr Pollo|talk]]) 21:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
::::No problem! it should be good now when you have the time to check, please let me know of any addition problems~@[[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] [[User:SquidthePlummer|SquidthePlummer]] ([[User talk:SquidthePlummer|talk]]) 23:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::forgot to add that regarding your previous comment on if you rule and welcome really happened, yes and I can confirm with screenshots or whatever necessary for whatever link you couldn't access. [[User:SquidthePlummer|SquidthePlummer]] ([[User talk:SquidthePlummer|talk]]) 00:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::I've removed the notice! [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 00:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::The article looks good, didn’t notice any new problems. Nice work! [[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] ([[User talk:Mr Pollo|talk]]) 14:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

==Archive.today weaponising PCs into causing DDoS attacks==

Hello, I just wanted to bring up the fact that Archive.today has recently decided to DDoS a random blog using people visiting their site (without them even realising) because they disliked a page on it. This doesn't exactly make me very happy with using the service for archiving links if they willingly do things like that. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 15:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

:That is concerning, afaik it's basically just run by one person so that's always a risk factor. Internet archive still has the issue of being pretty compliant when faced with DMCA takedowns, but at least it's a bit more of an institution...
:Do you think we should pull it as a recommended archive site over this? does result in a bit of a single-point-of-failure with IA. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 15:17, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
::Maybe wait it out for a little while, see what Wikipedia does, and then copy them? from the looks of it there's a lot of discussion going on about it over there. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 15:25, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
:::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archive.is_RFC_5 [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 15:26, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
::::Seems like a good plan. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 15:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::It's been closed as deprecate archive.today. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 08:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::As the saying goes, "This is informative, and unfortunate".
::::::My main concern with IA is its aging maintainers (which I can no longer verify on the site), but this does seem to be a more pressing issue. Will look into re-archiving pages I've done in the past. [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 09:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::This seems extremely far fetched, but I'd like if the FULU Foundation themselves could make an archiving service. This sounds ridiculous but just putting it out there in case it is possible. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 10:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Pulled it from the recommended archiving lists, @[[User:Keith|Keith]] you can change it back if you disagree. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 10:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC) <sub>Edit: Was a bit hasty of me, I've reinstated it with a warning. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 12:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)</sub>
::::::::we have considered self-hosting an archivebox instance or similar, with the ability to create archive pages locked behind a confirmed wiki account. Cost wise (including the time cost of setup and maintenance), it's feasible but not ideal, so i wouldn't count on it happening unless things really go to shit with the big archivers. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 01:35, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::OK, actually looking through and reading the reasons given for the consensus view, I'd be happy to adopt it, and will un-undo your edits and just take it off, leaving an explanation.
:::::::::the fact that the maintainer has been credibly alleged to have altered the content of sites hosted there is the biggest concern for me, as having a reliable record is kind of the whole point.
:::::::::going to @[[User:Banana|Banana]] here to see this discussion since he's been working on an archive bot for citations. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 01:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::I've created [[Special:AbuseFilter/14]] for links. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 15:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I agree with this. but being a US org wouldn't they also be mandated to honor the DMCA? and hence have the same issues as IA? idk much abt the hosting aspect of it but many shadow sites exist that do not at all honor the DMCA. [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 16:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::From what I've seen they've done malicious things like making seperate web crawlers that do the same thing to make it harder to block it and also not honoring the DMCA which from my understanding has gotten them into legal issues. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:20, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
:thanks for letting us know! will definetly be using alternative means of archiving for now on! [[User:SquidthePlummer|SquidthePlummer]] ([[User talk:SquidthePlummer|talk]]) 02:43, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

==banning Discord from citations==

[[OpenAI#cite_ref-5]] is a Discord link. As a non user of Discord I cannot see what has been cited. people should not be required to create an account to view the source of a claim. [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 16:11, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

:Agreed. Ive removed it. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:26, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

==[[special:AbuseFilter/14]]==

Hi, can someone with good knowledge of the abuse filter code fix or tell me how to fix this? [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 21:06, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

:I've fixed this and it's now working [[User:JakeL|JakeL]] ([[User talk:JakeL|talk]]) 03:08, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 06:13, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

==Is Bloatware still a stub?==

[[Bloatware|This article]] seems less of a stub compared to [[Ad block]] [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 23:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

:Unsure on this one. I don't think any mods passed by it and tagged that one, so I've tagged Ad block now. I'm leaning to de-stub it but I'm still not entirely sure. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

==Potential website bug==

I made my new page (unlocking technology act of 2013) on mobile, where I could not use the shortcut to make proper references according to Rossmann's guide video, so I had just included links to the sources used instead. I got back here on a computer and attempted to fix them, but I ran into a problem. I had previously added a stub notice to my article. While I did not attempt to remove the stub notice in my edits while fixing the references, I still got the message that I could not remove the notice, and it would not accept my edit. I cannot fix the article as things are. [[User:Luigi2262|Luigi2262]] ([[User talk:Luigi2262|talk]]) 03:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard

2026-02-25T19:45:22Z

Luigi2262: /* stub notice bug */ Reply

<div style="margin: {{#ifeq:{{{navbox|<noinclude>yes</noinclude>}}}|yes|2px}} 0 0.5em; padding: 0.5em; {{{style|border: 1px solid #A0A5AD;}}} {{{backgroundstyle|background-color: var(--background-color-progressive-subtle, #eaf3ff); color: inherit;}}}">
<div style="padding: 0.25em 0; text-align: center; font-size: 120%; border-radius: 3px; font-weight: bold; {{{titlestyle|background-color: var(--background-color-content-added, #aad1ff); color: inherit;}}}">Welcome — post issues of interest to Moderators</div>
*Post '''appeals''' to article notice templates (e.g. Incomplete, Stub, etc.)
*Post requests for '''moderator action''' here (e.g. blocks)
*Just need a mod? Post here or ping a mod with a question.
*Post any information or news relevant to the moderation team here.
*To request an article to be created, do not post here, try [[Article suggestions]] instead.
*Do not report technical issues here, please use the [[Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Bugs|Bugs noticeboard]] instead.

<div style="padding: 0.25em 0; text-align: center; font-size: 150%; border-radius: 3px; font-weight: bold">[[Special:NewSection/Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard|Start a new section]]</div>
</div>
<br />
{{Archives}} 
==Open tasks==

*[[:Category:Articles with deletion requests]]
*[[:Category:Articles with merge requests]]
*[[:Category:Articles marked as irrelevant]]
*[[Special:NewPages]]

==stub notice bug==

I tried submitting my deletion req for [[FakePortal]] but get hit with "Stub notices can NOT be removed by users with normal privileges". Tried removing the unused infoboxes in [[WhatsApp]], [[GoGuardian]], [[Asus]] and [[Roblox]], and the same dice. w h y? [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 19:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

:I'll check this out now [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 18:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
::This seems to be a regular issue with the abuse filter [[Consumer_Rights_Wiki_talk:Bugs#How_do_you_edit_beginning_of_an_article_with_StubNotice?|which absolutely has been talked about before]]. It's very annoying and in my opinion we need some sort of edit request system or a new group given to users to bypass the filter, but for now I'll just check the abuse log and apply the edit manually myself. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 18:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
:The issue is when edits are made in-line with a stub notice, as (iirc) the filter checks for edits to the same line as the change [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 00:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
::the notice* [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 00:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
:::hey can this please be fixed? it's really damn annoying. removal of redundant infoboxes on [[Deep Cycle Systems]] and [[Allstate]] are triggering it [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 14:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
::::I can remove these now. It would be cool if a usergroup would dodge the filter. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 15:01, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::yeah, I wonder if we should create a 'superconfirmed' group or something, which doesn't have the banning powers of a mod but can edit article notices. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 00:19, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
::I had the same issue. Just noticed this section. [[User:Luigi2262|Luigi2262]] ([[User talk:Luigi2262|talk]]) 19:45, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

==Idea for a new section==

An "Important" / "Must-Reads" / "Starter Pack" / "Essential Reading" section showing the most important articles to view for someone new to the Consumer Rights scene, or just someone unknowing.

Furthermore, the ability to rate an article. Perhaps as a way to show which matters are trending, because of many people having said problem with said device/service. Could be a "Saved me!", "Worked", "Didn't work", where "Saved me!" can only be used maybe once a day, to show which issues a not just trending, but very crucial. These ratings could help place relevant articles at the top of a second section within "Important"/Whatever.

These two sections would give users a place to scroll and skim through, to see if there are any matters relevant for them, like a random product they own, that they didn't know had a Consumer Rights issue.

Additionally; the ability to give pledges to article writers/editors. I'm not fully sure how it would work at the moment, but it would give people a way to support editors that produce important relevant articles. Perhaps the site could take a small cut, which both contributes to funding the server costs or the "legal fund" that Rossman mentioned, but also gives people a bigger incentive to pledge to editors, knowing that some of it goes to supporting the website and its users. [[User:Sebandar|Sebandar]] ([[User talk:Sebandar|talk]]) 19:57, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

:I would appreciate a pane with "must-reads" on the main page that highlights the articles with the widest spread effects and only includes well-written articles. Putting some articles in the same industry, like articles on Apple and Google's app store restrictions, would be especially effective, because it's nearly guaranteed that one of these applies to the reader. If you want to make a draft of this somewhere I would be down to help work on it.
:I like the article rating idea. I don't know how difficult it would be to add interactive content like this to the wiki, but it sounds like a good way to receive feedback. The only official way to receive feedback currently is on the talk pages but those are all pretty dead. Some prioritization on pageviews or feedback would be nice.
:On pledges, Wikipedia actually has something like this, it has a [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Reward_board|reward board]] where users are offered barnstars or real money to improve articles, but it's not used very much. Most users seem to be offering up prizes only for the fun of doing so, not because it's particularly effective. If the content is relevant and/or interesting, someone probably is already working on it. I don't personally think this site needs an economy but if it were to be implemented, I think we should plug donations to FULU or other affiliated foundations on the main page and then have those foundations offer microgrants for editors. [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 16:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

==Form pages==

I made a change to [[Form:Company]] following Discord suggestion #181. I was going to add this to [[Form:Product]] and [[Form:ProductLine]] but these pages are protected.

So, I am requesting an edit to those two pages to replace "(supported file types = PNG|JPG)" with "(supported file types = JPG, PNG, SVG)" to represent the fact that SVGs are allowed, and also to admin-protect [[Form:Company]] since that's an important page. [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 13:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

==“Summaries” of articles==

I'd like to propose an idea that I think would help people read articles in a rush. Add a box at the top of all long pages (e.g. [[YouTube]], or all that aren't stubs or marked as incomplete) that summarises the article (the incidents the company has been involved in, what it does, etc) in a couple of sentences. Let me know what you think. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 15:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

:What makes this different from a lead paragraph? Would you replace the lead paragraph entirely with this template or would it be a complementary resource with links to related company/product/theme articles? You could link to categories/other articles there. I think categories on wikis in general are overlooked by most readers and putting them at the top sounds interesting. [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 16:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

==InfoboxCompany to CargoCompany cleanup part 2==

The companies have all been moved over now, the only [https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Special:WhatLinksHere?target=Template%3AInfoboxCompany&namespace=&limit=50 places that InfoboxCompany exist in] are in some documentation out of main namespace and on these pages where they were placed on the same line as a notice:
[[AirAsia]], [[Deep Cycle Systems]], [[Allstate]], [[Happiest Baby]], [[Verisk Analytics, Inc.]], [[DAZN]], [[Federal Communications Commission]], [[Anova Culinary]], [[Sig Sauer]], [[RepairShopr]]

Converting InfoboxProductLine and finding more pages without infoboxes or cargo... sometime. [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 15:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

:Still need these removed if anyone has 5 minutes:
:[[AirAsia]], [[Allstate]], [[Happiest Baby]], [[Verisk Analytics, Inc.]], [[DAZN]], [[Federal Communications Commission]] [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 19:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
::{{Done}}. Sorry for taking so long. It'd be nice if there was a usergroup that could dodge all the edit filters. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 20:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

==Color scheme==

The main Sitenotice text is nearly the same color as the link inside of it, making it hard to distinguish where the link is if you haven't clicked the link yet. A larger contrast would be nice, since the notice is going to be up for another 25 days or so. https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&action=edit

This also applies to most of the main page, blue/muddy purple on blue doesn't look the best, but that's a larger undertaking. If the main page is up for redesign it would be nice to take the color contrast into consideration. [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 16:15, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

:I've simply made it black and white, although I don't think it is entirely fixed it. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
::Please can nobody amend the theme or any elements currently, I am restyling the website. [[User:JakeL|JakeL]] ([[User talk:JakeL|talk]]) 17:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Oh, sorry. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Looks great, and has nice contrast! [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 18:56, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
::::Thank you! Still somewhat of a work in progress, but definitely a significant improvement over the previous version. [[User:JakeL|JakeL]] ([[User talk:JakeL|talk]]) 18:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, I like it too! As an idea, make the borders rounded like the original one. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
::::::No worries, all done! [[User:JakeL|JakeL]] ([[User talk:JakeL|talk]]) 19:09, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Wow, this looks amazing now. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:30, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

==Template troubles==

So, a lot of the articles with [[Template:Incomplete]] and cargo templates that display a box (any but IncidentCargo) have big foreheads right now (see a list of articles with Incomplete [https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Incomplete&limit=100 here]). I did some testing, the Incomplete template itself doesn't have a trailing newline, and none of the cargos have a preceding newline. A <nowiki><p><br></nowiki><nowiki></p></nowiki> is being added by the parser when the two are put together, and only when they are not on the same line. I've also seen this in the wild with [[Template:SloppyAI]] and with [[Template:Welcome]] on new user talk pages. Welcome should be a simple edit fix since it's not combined with other templates, but it seems that anytime templates are combined, they must be put on the same line or they will introduce an unintended newline. You can see an instance of Incomplete and SloppyAI together causing problems on [[Samsung TVs]].

Many Wikipedia pages have several templates next to each other without this problem, for example see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025%E2%80%932026_Iranian_protests&oldid=1334922628 2025-2026 Iranian protests]. So the problem is solvable in MediaWiki, but I don't know how much work is required to do so. According to [[:Category:Todo]], over 700 articles have these banners, which is the majority of the wiki.

If other people think it's important too, I can work on this, but I don't know how to compare this wiki's configuration against stuff in the MediaWiki documentation. [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 13:35, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

:Oh yeah, some junk from my experimenting that we should delete once the problem is resolved: [[User:Bythmusters/templatetesting]], [[Qwerty]] [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 13:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
::Do you mean the top has more height than the rest of the box? I'm not entirely sure what you are talking about. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Also, the Wiki's main config can be seen at [[MediaWiki:Common.css]] and [[MediaWiki:Common.js]], where all the css and js that you see the moment you load a page is at. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:34, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
:::So, let's compare these two versions:
:::https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Bythmusters/templatetesting&oldid=35089
:::https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Bythmusters/templatetesting&oldid=35091
:::There is an additional newline between the bottom of the template and the beginning of the article text. The only difference in the source text is:
:::<nowiki>"{\{Incomplete}}{\{ProductLineCargo"</nowiki>
:::vs:
:::<nowiki>"{\{Incomplete}}</nowiki>
:::{\{ProductLineCargo"
:::In the second one, there's a newline to separate the templates, as it's more natural to read in the source editor this way. Wikipedia articles do not render this newline, but CRW does. That is my issue, it takes up a lot of space on the screen.
:::Thanks for the links, I read through the Common.css and Common.js of this wiki and Wikipedia but I didn't see anything relevant. I think it's in the parser, where the mediawiki text gets converted into html but I don't know enough about this stuff to be sure. [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 18:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
::::Ah, okay. Reread your previous post and now feel like an idiot for not understanding. I don't know how to fix that if it's the parser. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::Yeah idk it's probably not worth the trouble to fix. I like learning about mediawiki but not that much [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 15:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

==Feedback on changes to sidebar appearance and arrangement==

*I suggest renaming the "Tools" section for the web browser addon to something else to differentiate it from the wiki tools. I also recommend moving it to the way bottom, at least until it's ready for prime time, since it makes wiki editors have to scroll further to reach the wiki tools than previously.

*An option to hide the mini-list of recent changes and restore the single line "Recent Changes" for the original minimalist design.
**<strike>As an addendum: The font size of said mini-list is not consistent with the font size used both throughout the sidebar and the wiki itself, making it stand out like a sore thumb.</strike>

*An option to hide the community section for those of us that refuse to ever use [[Discord]]. I'd rather have a native choice available instead of resorting to a browser addon to remove it.

''(Note: Feedback is based on using Firefox v147.0.2 and the wiki skin "Vector legacy (2010)".)'' — [[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna|talk]]) 21:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

:I’ve mentioned already that Vector legacy (2010) hasn’t been worked on yet, as most users are on Vector 2022 where these changes have been applied. The examples you listed aren’t present on the current default skin. I’d appreciate your patience while I get round to updating the legacy variant. In the meantime, I’ve resolved the issue where discussion tabs and similar tabs were hidden. [[User:JakeL|JakeL]] ([[User talk:JakeL|talk]]) 22:51, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

::Respectfully, I find your response confusing. What I bring up here is a separate matter from [[Consumer_Rights_Wiki_talk:Bugs#Page_tabs_hidden|my bug report]], and I posted ''only'' after first waiting a couple days and checked the default skin before-hand. I've struck out the one line since apparently it wasn't intentional like I had thought (and it had affected both legacy and default skins for the record), but otherwise my general feedback is unchanged.

::I appreciate the work you do on the wiki and thank you for fixing the bugged page tabs. — [[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna|talk]]) 02:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
:::I understand that the feedback here is separate from the bug report, though I’m also a little confused: the default skin does not show the duplicated Tools section that the legacy version does, so I’m not sure how it would be confused with the wiki tools. It’s also already at the very bottom on the default skin. As for the other suggestions about hiding certain areas, I can look into those, but it won’t be a short-term fix. I appreciate the feedback and the kind words! [[User:JakeL|JakeL]] ([[User talk:JakeL|talk]]) 19:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

==What should this image be licensed under?==

This [[:Category:Suspected copyright violations|image I archived]] for Age Verification, I selected as "without permission" since I didn't see they licensed it under CC BY 4.0 at the time - yet the site rejected both IA and archive.today, which felt like they held the copyright. How should the content be tagged? (I

On another note, if you go to the [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563217303357 site of the reference] and click "View PDF", after solving a Cloudflare "are you human" it grants access to the full pdf which has "© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)." as the footer of the first page. I wonder if that's the better way to go about archiving this reference.

Probably could have worded this better, thanks for your time. [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 02:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

:I've deleted it while we figure out copyright status of this. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
::It seems to exist on the IA [https://web.archive.org/web/20190203021620/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563217303357 here]. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:37, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Unfortunately that snapshot only has the Abstract. I'm not the one that added the particular source, but it (may) be sufficient enough to add as an archive link for that particular source (talking about the [[Age Verification]] article in case anyone's confused), so I've gone and done so. Thanks for your input. [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 04:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
::This can be safely undeleted. The copyright symbol is sometimes used for partial copyright (which Creative Commons is). A more suitable symbol would have been the "(cc)" (creative commons) symbol, but it is not a dedicated unicode character like "©". The document itself says it is Creative Commons, not "all rights reserved", so I see no reason not to undelete it. [[User:JodyBruchonFan|JodyBruchonFan]] ([[User talk:JodyBruchonFan|talk]]) 22:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

==Appeal Request==

On the article regarding [[Restaurant Brands International caught training AI models using customer voices|Restaurant Brand International]], I think that the source credibility issue lacks merit and should be removed, as I don't see how it could be lacking in source credibility due to (in my opinion) additional evidence backup with images and detail breakthrough of the event that would classify it as being trustworthy? Would like some thoughts and comments around this, very confused. [[User:SquidthePlummer|SquidthePlummer]] ([[User talk:SquidthePlummer|talk]]) 23:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

:Mr Pollo often does tagging like that, pinging @[[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] for thoughts here. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 18:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
::Also, incomplete is often simply used for a short article, although it doesnt specify it in the notice. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 18:02, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
:Hello, I added the incomplete template to that article for two main reasons: aspects such as the Background section can be expanded into a paragraph and a "consumer response" section as seen [[Template:IncidentPreload|here]] would greatly benefit the article. So far it is a good article, but it can be better with my suggestions. [[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] ([[User talk:Mr Pollo|talk]]) 20:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
::Now i see. I think that's fair and i agree! Thank you for clearing some things up, will definitely work on it as soon as I get the chance! [[User:SquidthePlummer|SquidthePlummer]] ([[User talk:SquidthePlummer|talk]]) 20:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Of course, thank you as well for your contributions! [[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] ([[User talk:Mr Pollo|talk]]) 21:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
::::No problem! it should be good now when you have the time to check, please let me know of any addition problems~@[[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] [[User:SquidthePlummer|SquidthePlummer]] ([[User talk:SquidthePlummer|talk]]) 23:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::forgot to add that regarding your previous comment on if you rule and welcome really happened, yes and I can confirm with screenshots or whatever necessary for whatever link you couldn't access. [[User:SquidthePlummer|SquidthePlummer]] ([[User talk:SquidthePlummer|talk]]) 00:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::I've removed the notice! [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 00:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::The article looks good, didn’t notice any new problems. Nice work! [[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] ([[User talk:Mr Pollo|talk]]) 14:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

==Archive.today weaponising PCs into causing DDoS attacks==

Hello, I just wanted to bring up the fact that Archive.today has recently decided to DDoS a random blog using people visiting their site (without them even realising) because they disliked a page on it. This doesn't exactly make me very happy with using the service for archiving links if they willingly do things like that. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 15:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

:That is concerning, afaik it's basically just run by one person so that's always a risk factor. Internet archive still has the issue of being pretty compliant when faced with DMCA takedowns, but at least it's a bit more of an institution...
:Do you think we should pull it as a recommended archive site over this? does result in a bit of a single-point-of-failure with IA. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 15:17, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
::Maybe wait it out for a little while, see what Wikipedia does, and then copy them? from the looks of it there's a lot of discussion going on about it over there. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 15:25, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
:::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archive.is_RFC_5 [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 15:26, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
::::Seems like a good plan. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 15:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::It's been closed as deprecate archive.today. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 08:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::As the saying goes, "This is informative, and unfortunate".
::::::My main concern with IA is its aging maintainers (which I can no longer verify on the site), but this does seem to be a more pressing issue. Will look into re-archiving pages I've done in the past. [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 09:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::This seems extremely far fetched, but I'd like if the FULU Foundation themselves could make an archiving service. This sounds ridiculous but just putting it out there in case it is possible. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 10:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Pulled it from the recommended archiving lists, @[[User:Keith|Keith]] you can change it back if you disagree. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 10:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC) <sub>Edit: Was a bit hasty of me, I've reinstated it with a warning. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 12:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)</sub>
::::::::we have considered self-hosting an archivebox instance or similar, with the ability to create archive pages locked behind a confirmed wiki account. Cost wise (including the time cost of setup and maintenance), it's feasible but not ideal, so i wouldn't count on it happening unless things really go to shit with the big archivers. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 01:35, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::OK, actually looking through and reading the reasons given for the consensus view, I'd be happy to adopt it, and will un-undo your edits and just take it off, leaving an explanation.
:::::::::the fact that the maintainer has been credibly alleged to have altered the content of sites hosted there is the biggest concern for me, as having a reliable record is kind of the whole point.
:::::::::going to @[[User:Banana|Banana]] here to see this discussion since he's been working on an archive bot for citations. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 01:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::I've created [[Special:AbuseFilter/14]] for links. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 15:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I agree with this. but being a US org wouldn't they also be mandated to honor the DMCA? and hence have the same issues as IA? idk much abt the hosting aspect of it but many shadow sites exist that do not at all honor the DMCA. [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 16:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::From what I've seen they've done malicious things like making seperate web crawlers that do the same thing to make it harder to block it and also not honoring the DMCA which from my understanding has gotten them into legal issues. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:20, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
:thanks for letting us know! will definetly be using alternative means of archiving for now on! [[User:SquidthePlummer|SquidthePlummer]] ([[User talk:SquidthePlummer|talk]]) 02:43, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

==banning Discord from citations==

[[OpenAI#cite_ref-5]] is a Discord link. As a non user of Discord I cannot see what has been cited. people should not be required to create an account to view the source of a claim. [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 16:11, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

:Agreed. Ive removed it. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:26, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

==[[special:AbuseFilter/14]]==

Hi, can someone with good knowledge of the abuse filter code fix or tell me how to fix this? [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 21:06, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

:I've fixed this and it's now working [[User:JakeL|JakeL]] ([[User talk:JakeL|talk]]) 03:08, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 06:13, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

==Is Bloatware still a stub?==

[[Bloatware|This article]] seems less of a stub compared to [[Ad block]] [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 23:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

:Unsure on this one. I don't think any mods passed by it and tagged that one, so I've tagged Ad block now. I'm leaning to de-stub it but I'm still not entirely sure. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

==Potential website bug==

I made my new page (unlocking technology act of 2013) on mobile, where I could not use the shortcut to make proper references according to Rossmann's guide video, so I had just included links to the sources used instead. I got back here on a computer and attempted to fix them, but I ran into a problem. I had previously added a stub notice to my article. While I did not attempt to remove the stub notice in my edits while fixing the references, I still got the message that I could not remove the notice, and it would not accept my edit. I cannot fix the article as things are. [[User:Luigi2262|Luigi2262]] ([[User talk:Luigi2262|talk]]) 03:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard

2026-02-25T03:28:39Z

Luigi2262: /* Potential website bug */ new section

<div style="margin: {{#ifeq:{{{navbox|<noinclude>yes</noinclude>}}}|yes|2px}} 0 0.5em; padding: 0.5em; {{{style|border: 1px solid #A0A5AD;}}} {{{backgroundstyle|background-color: var(--background-color-progressive-subtle, #eaf3ff); color: inherit;}}}">
<div style="padding: 0.25em 0; text-align: center; font-size: 120%; border-radius: 3px; font-weight: bold; {{{titlestyle|background-color: var(--background-color-content-added, #aad1ff); color: inherit;}}}">Welcome — post issues of interest to Moderators</div>
*Post '''appeals''' to article notice templates (e.g. Incomplete, Stub, etc.)
*Post requests for '''moderator action''' here (e.g. blocks)
*Just need a mod? Post here or ping a mod with a question.
*Post any information or news relevant to the moderation team here.
*To request an article to be created, do not post here, try [[Article suggestions]] instead.
*Do not report technical issues here, please use the [[Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Bugs|Bugs noticeboard]] instead.

<div style="padding: 0.25em 0; text-align: center; font-size: 150%; border-radius: 3px; font-weight: bold">[[Special:NewSection/Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard|Start a new section]]</div>
</div>
<br />
{{Archives}} 
==Open tasks==

*[[:Category:Articles with deletion requests]]
*[[:Category:Articles with merge requests]]
*[[:Category:Articles marked as irrelevant]]
*[[Special:NewPages]]

==stub notice bug==

I tried submitting my deletion req for [[FakePortal]] but get hit with "Stub notices can NOT be removed by users with normal privileges". Tried removing the unused infoboxes in [[WhatsApp]], [[GoGuardian]], [[Asus]] and [[Roblox]], and the same dice. w h y? [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 19:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

:I'll check this out now [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 18:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
::This seems to be a regular issue with the abuse filter [[Consumer_Rights_Wiki_talk:Bugs#How_do_you_edit_beginning_of_an_article_with_StubNotice?|which absolutely has been talked about before]]. It's very annoying and in my opinion we need some sort of edit request system or a new group given to users to bypass the filter, but for now I'll just check the abuse log and apply the edit manually myself. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 18:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
:The issue is when edits are made in-line with a stub notice, as (iirc) the filter checks for edits to the same line as the change [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 00:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
::the notice* [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 00:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
:::hey can this please be fixed? it's really damn annoying. removal of redundant infoboxes on [[Deep Cycle Systems]] and [[Allstate]] are triggering it [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 14:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
::::I can remove these now. It would be cool if a usergroup would dodge the filter. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 15:01, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::yeah, I wonder if we should create a 'superconfirmed' group or something, which doesn't have the banning powers of a mod but can edit article notices. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 00:19, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

==Idea for a new section==

An "Important" / "Must-Reads" / "Starter Pack" / "Essential Reading" section showing the most important articles to view for someone new to the Consumer Rights scene, or just someone unknowing.

Furthermore, the ability to rate an article. Perhaps as a way to show which matters are trending, because of many people having said problem with said device/service. Could be a "Saved me!", "Worked", "Didn't work", where "Saved me!" can only be used maybe once a day, to show which issues a not just trending, but very crucial. These ratings could help place relevant articles at the top of a second section within "Important"/Whatever.

These two sections would give users a place to scroll and skim through, to see if there are any matters relevant for them, like a random product they own, that they didn't know had a Consumer Rights issue.

Additionally; the ability to give pledges to article writers/editors. I'm not fully sure how it would work at the moment, but it would give people a way to support editors that produce important relevant articles. Perhaps the site could take a small cut, which both contributes to funding the server costs or the "legal fund" that Rossman mentioned, but also gives people a bigger incentive to pledge to editors, knowing that some of it goes to supporting the website and its users. [[User:Sebandar|Sebandar]] ([[User talk:Sebandar|talk]]) 19:57, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

:I would appreciate a pane with "must-reads" on the main page that highlights the articles with the widest spread effects and only includes well-written articles. Putting some articles in the same industry, like articles on Apple and Google's app store restrictions, would be especially effective, because it's nearly guaranteed that one of these applies to the reader. If you want to make a draft of this somewhere I would be down to help work on it.
:I like the article rating idea. I don't know how difficult it would be to add interactive content like this to the wiki, but it sounds like a good way to receive feedback. The only official way to receive feedback currently is on the talk pages but those are all pretty dead. Some prioritization on pageviews or feedback would be nice.
:On pledges, Wikipedia actually has something like this, it has a [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Reward_board|reward board]] where users are offered barnstars or real money to improve articles, but it's not used very much. Most users seem to be offering up prizes only for the fun of doing so, not because it's particularly effective. If the content is relevant and/or interesting, someone probably is already working on it. I don't personally think this site needs an economy but if it were to be implemented, I think we should plug donations to FULU or other affiliated foundations on the main page and then have those foundations offer microgrants for editors. [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 16:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

==Form pages==

I made a change to [[Form:Company]] following Discord suggestion #181. I was going to add this to [[Form:Product]] and [[Form:ProductLine]] but these pages are protected.

So, I am requesting an edit to those two pages to replace "(supported file types = PNG|JPG)" with "(supported file types = JPG, PNG, SVG)" to represent the fact that SVGs are allowed, and also to admin-protect [[Form:Company]] since that's an important page. [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 13:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

==“Summaries” of articles==

I'd like to propose an idea that I think would help people read articles in a rush. Add a box at the top of all long pages (e.g. [[YouTube]], or all that aren't stubs or marked as incomplete) that summarises the article (the incidents the company has been involved in, what it does, etc) in a couple of sentences. Let me know what you think. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 15:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

:What makes this different from a lead paragraph? Would you replace the lead paragraph entirely with this template or would it be a complementary resource with links to related company/product/theme articles? You could link to categories/other articles there. I think categories on wikis in general are overlooked by most readers and putting them at the top sounds interesting. [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 16:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

==InfoboxCompany to CargoCompany cleanup part 2==

The companies have all been moved over now, the only [https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Special:WhatLinksHere?target=Template%3AInfoboxCompany&namespace=&limit=50 places that InfoboxCompany exist in] are in some documentation out of main namespace and on these pages where they were placed on the same line as a notice:
[[AirAsia]], [[Deep Cycle Systems]], [[Allstate]], [[Happiest Baby]], [[Verisk Analytics, Inc.]], [[DAZN]], [[Federal Communications Commission]], [[Anova Culinary]], [[Sig Sauer]], [[RepairShopr]]

Converting InfoboxProductLine and finding more pages without infoboxes or cargo... sometime. [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 15:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

:Still need these removed if anyone has 5 minutes:
:[[AirAsia]], [[Allstate]], [[Happiest Baby]], [[Verisk Analytics, Inc.]], [[DAZN]], [[Federal Communications Commission]] [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 19:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
::{{Done}}. Sorry for taking so long. It'd be nice if there was a usergroup that could dodge all the edit filters. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 20:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

==Color scheme==

The main Sitenotice text is nearly the same color as the link inside of it, making it hard to distinguish where the link is if you haven't clicked the link yet. A larger contrast would be nice, since the notice is going to be up for another 25 days or so. https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&action=edit

This also applies to most of the main page, blue/muddy purple on blue doesn't look the best, but that's a larger undertaking. If the main page is up for redesign it would be nice to take the color contrast into consideration. [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 16:15, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

:I've simply made it black and white, although I don't think it is entirely fixed it. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
::Please can nobody amend the theme or any elements currently, I am restyling the website. [[User:JakeL|JakeL]] ([[User talk:JakeL|talk]]) 17:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Oh, sorry. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Looks great, and has nice contrast! [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 18:56, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
::::Thank you! Still somewhat of a work in progress, but definitely a significant improvement over the previous version. [[User:JakeL|JakeL]] ([[User talk:JakeL|talk]]) 18:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, I like it too! As an idea, make the borders rounded like the original one. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
::::::No worries, all done! [[User:JakeL|JakeL]] ([[User talk:JakeL|talk]]) 19:09, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Wow, this looks amazing now. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:30, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

==Template troubles==

So, a lot of the articles with [[Template:Incomplete]] and cargo templates that display a box (any but IncidentCargo) have big foreheads right now (see a list of articles with Incomplete [https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Incomplete&limit=100 here]). I did some testing, the Incomplete template itself doesn't have a trailing newline, and none of the cargos have a preceding newline. A <nowiki><p><br></nowiki><nowiki></p></nowiki> is being added by the parser when the two are put together, and only when they are not on the same line. I've also seen this in the wild with [[Template:SloppyAI]] and with [[Template:Welcome]] on new user talk pages. Welcome should be a simple edit fix since it's not combined with other templates, but it seems that anytime templates are combined, they must be put on the same line or they will introduce an unintended newline. You can see an instance of Incomplete and SloppyAI together causing problems on [[Samsung TVs]].

Many Wikipedia pages have several templates next to each other without this problem, for example see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025%E2%80%932026_Iranian_protests&oldid=1334922628 2025-2026 Iranian protests]. So the problem is solvable in MediaWiki, but I don't know how much work is required to do so. According to [[:Category:Todo]], over 700 articles have these banners, which is the majority of the wiki.

If other people think it's important too, I can work on this, but I don't know how to compare this wiki's configuration against stuff in the MediaWiki documentation. [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 13:35, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

:Oh yeah, some junk from my experimenting that we should delete once the problem is resolved: [[User:Bythmusters/templatetesting]], [[Qwerty]] [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 13:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
::Do you mean the top has more height than the rest of the box? I'm not entirely sure what you are talking about. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Also, the Wiki's main config can be seen at [[MediaWiki:Common.css]] and [[MediaWiki:Common.js]], where all the css and js that you see the moment you load a page is at. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:34, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
:::So, let's compare these two versions:
:::https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Bythmusters/templatetesting&oldid=35089
:::https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Bythmusters/templatetesting&oldid=35091
:::There is an additional newline between the bottom of the template and the beginning of the article text. The only difference in the source text is:
:::<nowiki>"{\{Incomplete}}{\{ProductLineCargo"</nowiki>
:::vs:
:::<nowiki>"{\{Incomplete}}</nowiki>
:::{\{ProductLineCargo"
:::In the second one, there's a newline to separate the templates, as it's more natural to read in the source editor this way. Wikipedia articles do not render this newline, but CRW does. That is my issue, it takes up a lot of space on the screen.
:::Thanks for the links, I read through the Common.css and Common.js of this wiki and Wikipedia but I didn't see anything relevant. I think it's in the parser, where the mediawiki text gets converted into html but I don't know enough about this stuff to be sure. [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 18:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
::::Ah, okay. Reread your previous post and now feel like an idiot for not understanding. I don't know how to fix that if it's the parser. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::Yeah idk it's probably not worth the trouble to fix. I like learning about mediawiki but not that much [[User:Bythmusters|Bythmusters]] ([[User talk:Bythmusters|talk]]) 15:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

==Feedback on changes to sidebar appearance and arrangement==

*I suggest renaming the "Tools" section for the web browser addon to something else to differentiate it from the wiki tools. I also recommend moving it to the way bottom, at least until it's ready for prime time, since it makes wiki editors have to scroll further to reach the wiki tools than previously.

*An option to hide the mini-list of recent changes and restore the single line "Recent Changes" for the original minimalist design.
**<strike>As an addendum: The font size of said mini-list is not consistent with the font size used both throughout the sidebar and the wiki itself, making it stand out like a sore thumb.</strike>

*An option to hide the community section for those of us that refuse to ever use [[Discord]]. I'd rather have a native choice available instead of resorting to a browser addon to remove it.

''(Note: Feedback is based on using Firefox v147.0.2 and the wiki skin "Vector legacy (2010)".)'' — [[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna|talk]]) 21:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

:I’ve mentioned already that Vector legacy (2010) hasn’t been worked on yet, as most users are on Vector 2022 where these changes have been applied. The examples you listed aren’t present on the current default skin. I’d appreciate your patience while I get round to updating the legacy variant. In the meantime, I’ve resolved the issue where discussion tabs and similar tabs were hidden. [[User:JakeL|JakeL]] ([[User talk:JakeL|talk]]) 22:51, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

::Respectfully, I find your response confusing. What I bring up here is a separate matter from [[Consumer_Rights_Wiki_talk:Bugs#Page_tabs_hidden|my bug report]], and I posted ''only'' after first waiting a couple days and checked the default skin before-hand. I've struck out the one line since apparently it wasn't intentional like I had thought (and it had affected both legacy and default skins for the record), but otherwise my general feedback is unchanged.

::I appreciate the work you do on the wiki and thank you for fixing the bugged page tabs. — [[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna|talk]]) 02:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
:::I understand that the feedback here is separate from the bug report, though I’m also a little confused: the default skin does not show the duplicated Tools section that the legacy version does, so I’m not sure how it would be confused with the wiki tools. It’s also already at the very bottom on the default skin. As for the other suggestions about hiding certain areas, I can look into those, but it won’t be a short-term fix. I appreciate the feedback and the kind words! [[User:JakeL|JakeL]] ([[User talk:JakeL|talk]]) 19:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

==What should this image be licensed under?==

This [[:Category:Suspected copyright violations|image I archived]] for Age Verification, I selected as "without permission" since I didn't see they licensed it under CC BY 4.0 at the time - yet the site rejected both IA and archive.today, which felt like they held the copyright. How should the content be tagged? (I

On another note, if you go to the [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563217303357 site of the reference] and click "View PDF", after solving a Cloudflare "are you human" it grants access to the full pdf which has "© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)." as the footer of the first page. I wonder if that's the better way to go about archiving this reference.

Probably could have worded this better, thanks for your time. [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 02:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

:I've deleted it while we figure out copyright status of this. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
::It seems to exist on the IA [https://web.archive.org/web/20190203021620/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563217303357 here]. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:37, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Unfortunately that snapshot only has the Abstract. I'm not the one that added the particular source, but it (may) be sufficient enough to add as an archive link for that particular source (talking about the [[Age Verification]] article in case anyone's confused), so I've gone and done so. Thanks for your input. [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 04:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
::This can be safely undeleted. The copyright symbol is sometimes used for partial copyright (which Creative Commons is). A more suitable symbol would have been the "(cc)" (creative commons) symbol, but it is not a dedicated unicode character like "©". The document itself says it is Creative Commons, not "all rights reserved", so I see no reason not to undelete it. [[User:JodyBruchonFan|JodyBruchonFan]] ([[User talk:JodyBruchonFan|talk]]) 22:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

==Appeal Request==

On the article regarding [[Restaurant Brands International caught training AI models using customer voices|Restaurant Brand International]], I think that the source credibility issue lacks merit and should be removed, as I don't see how it could be lacking in source credibility due to (in my opinion) additional evidence backup with images and detail breakthrough of the event that would classify it as being trustworthy? Would like some thoughts and comments around this, very confused. [[User:SquidthePlummer|SquidthePlummer]] ([[User talk:SquidthePlummer|talk]]) 23:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

:Mr Pollo often does tagging like that, pinging @[[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] for thoughts here. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 18:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
::Also, incomplete is often simply used for a short article, although it doesnt specify it in the notice. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 18:02, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
:Hello, I added the incomplete template to that article for two main reasons: aspects such as the Background section can be expanded into a paragraph and a "consumer response" section as seen [[Template:IncidentPreload|here]] would greatly benefit the article. So far it is a good article, but it can be better with my suggestions. [[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] ([[User talk:Mr Pollo|talk]]) 20:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
::Now i see. I think that's fair and i agree! Thank you for clearing some things up, will definitely work on it as soon as I get the chance! [[User:SquidthePlummer|SquidthePlummer]] ([[User talk:SquidthePlummer|talk]]) 20:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Of course, thank you as well for your contributions! [[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] ([[User talk:Mr Pollo|talk]]) 21:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
::::No problem! it should be good now when you have the time to check, please let me know of any addition problems~@[[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] [[User:SquidthePlummer|SquidthePlummer]] ([[User talk:SquidthePlummer|talk]]) 23:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::forgot to add that regarding your previous comment on if you rule and welcome really happened, yes and I can confirm with screenshots or whatever necessary for whatever link you couldn't access. [[User:SquidthePlummer|SquidthePlummer]] ([[User talk:SquidthePlummer|talk]]) 00:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::I've removed the notice! [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 00:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::The article looks good, didn’t notice any new problems. Nice work! [[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] ([[User talk:Mr Pollo|talk]]) 14:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

==Archive.today weaponising PCs into causing DDoS attacks==

Hello, I just wanted to bring up the fact that Archive.today has recently decided to DDoS a random blog using people visiting their site (without them even realising) because they disliked a page on it. This doesn't exactly make me very happy with using the service for archiving links if they willingly do things like that. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 15:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

:That is concerning, afaik it's basically just run by one person so that's always a risk factor. Internet archive still has the issue of being pretty compliant when faced with DMCA takedowns, but at least it's a bit more of an institution...
:Do you think we should pull it as a recommended archive site over this? does result in a bit of a single-point-of-failure with IA. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 15:17, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
::Maybe wait it out for a little while, see what Wikipedia does, and then copy them? from the looks of it there's a lot of discussion going on about it over there. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 15:25, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
:::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archive.is_RFC_5 [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 15:26, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
::::Seems like a good plan. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 15:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::It's been closed as deprecate archive.today. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 08:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::As the saying goes, "This is informative, and unfortunate".
::::::My main concern with IA is its aging maintainers (which I can no longer verify on the site), but this does seem to be a more pressing issue. Will look into re-archiving pages I've done in the past. [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 09:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::This seems extremely far fetched, but I'd like if the FULU Foundation themselves could make an archiving service. This sounds ridiculous but just putting it out there in case it is possible. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 10:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Pulled it from the recommended archiving lists, @[[User:Keith|Keith]] you can change it back if you disagree. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 10:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC) <sub>Edit: Was a bit hasty of me, I've reinstated it with a warning. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 12:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)</sub>
::::::::we have considered self-hosting an archivebox instance or similar, with the ability to create archive pages locked behind a confirmed wiki account. Cost wise (including the time cost of setup and maintenance), it's feasible but not ideal, so i wouldn't count on it happening unless things really go to shit with the big archivers. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 01:35, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::OK, actually looking through and reading the reasons given for the consensus view, I'd be happy to adopt it, and will un-undo your edits and just take it off, leaving an explanation.
:::::::::the fact that the maintainer has been credibly alleged to have altered the content of sites hosted there is the biggest concern for me, as having a reliable record is kind of the whole point.
:::::::::going to @[[User:Banana|Banana]] here to see this discussion since he's been working on an archive bot for citations. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 01:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::I've created [[Special:AbuseFilter/14]] for links. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 15:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I agree with this. but being a US org wouldn't they also be mandated to honor the DMCA? and hence have the same issues as IA? idk much abt the hosting aspect of it but many shadow sites exist that do not at all honor the DMCA. [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 16:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::From what I've seen they've done malicious things like making seperate web crawlers that do the same thing to make it harder to block it and also not honoring the DMCA which from my understanding has gotten them into legal issues. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:20, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
:thanks for letting us know! will definetly be using alternative means of archiving for now on! [[User:SquidthePlummer|SquidthePlummer]] ([[User talk:SquidthePlummer|talk]]) 02:43, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

==banning Discord from citations==

[[OpenAI#cite_ref-5]] is a Discord link. As a non user of Discord I cannot see what has been cited. people should not be required to create an account to view the source of a claim. [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 16:11, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

:Agreed. Ive removed it. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:26, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

==[[special:AbuseFilter/14]]==

Hi, can someone with good knowledge of the abuse filter code fix or tell me how to fix this? [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 21:06, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

:I've fixed this and it's now working [[User:JakeL|JakeL]] ([[User talk:JakeL|talk]]) 03:08, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

==Is Bloatware still a stub?==

[[Bloatware|This article]] seems less of a stub compared to [[Ad block]] [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 23:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

:Unsure on this one. I don't think any mods passed by it and tagged that one, so I've tagged Ad block now. I'm leaning to de-stub it but I'm still not entirely sure. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

== Potential website bug ==

I made my new page (unlocking technology act of 2013) on mobile, where I could not use the shortcut to make proper references according to Rossmann's guide video, so I had just included links to the sources used instead. I got back here on a computer and attempted to fix them, but I ran into a problem. I had previously added a stub notice to my article. While I did not attempt to remove the stub notice in my edits while fixing the references, I still got the message that I could not remove the notice, and it would not accept my edit. I cannot fix the article as things are. [[User:Luigi2262|Luigi2262]] ([[User talk:Luigi2262|talk]]) 03:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Unlocking Technology Act of 2013

2026-02-25T02:55:11Z

Luigi2262: Added a summary about the bill. Note: please fix the citations.

{{IncidentCargo
|StartDate=2013-05-08
|Status=Resolved
|Type=Digital Ownership
|Description=This was a proposed law to restrict DMCA Section 1201 to only apply to copyright infringement, but it died in committee.
}}

{{StubNotice}}The Unlocking Technology Act of 2013 was a proposed bipartisan law which would have modified Section 1201 of the DMCA to only restrict breaking digital locks for the sake of copyright infringement.[https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/new-bill-legalizes-cell-phone-unlocking-fixes-the-dmca/] It died in committee.[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1892]

==Background==
The [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act|Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)]] Section 1201 was a law passed which was intended to prevent copyright infringement by making it illegal to break a digital lock (meaning bypass software restrictions put on a smart device). Companies have been making their devices smart partially to use this law to prevent people from modifying their products.

==The Unlocking Technology Act of 2013==

Representatives Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Thomas Massie (R-KY), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), and Jared Polis (D-CO) introduced this bill to allow people to break digital locks on devices they purchased as long as it was not intended for copyright infringement. If passed, this law would have allowed for jailbreaking, servicing vehicles, ripping CDs, and more. [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/members-of-congress-finally-introduce-serious-dmca-reform/] The law was assigned to the Ways and Means Committee on May 8, 2013. That committee had done nothing on the bill by December 18, 2013, so it was reassigned to the, Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet subcommittee, which also did nothing with it.[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1892/summary]

==References==
{{reflist}}

Unlocking Technology Act of 2013

2026-02-25T02:18:45Z

Luigi2262: Adding the page on the Unlocking Technology Act of 2013

{{IncidentCargo
|StartDate=2013-05-08
|Status=Resolved
|Type=Digital Ownership
|Description=This was a proposed law to restrict DMCA Section 1201 to only apply to copyright infringement, but it died in committee.
}}
{{Ph-I-Int}}
==Background==
{{Ph-I-B}}

==[Incident]==
{{Ph-I-I}}

===[Company]'s response===
{{Ph-I-ComR}}

==Lawsuit==
{{Ph-I-L}}

==Consumer response==
{{Ph-I-ConR}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Ph-I-C}}