Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to Moderators

• 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 Bugs noticeboard instead.

Start a new section

Previous discussions
1 2

Open tasks

• Category:Articles with deletion requests
• Category:Articles with merge requests
• Category:Articles marked as irrelevant
• Special:NewPages

Outdated wiki link

The following I copypasted from Template:ToneWarning’s talk page. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Due to the changes made since this template's creation in January 2025, I recommend updating the link used for "editorial guidelines". Clicking on it currently leads to the top of the Mission statement article since the original section label no longer exists. — Sojourna (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

More specifically, it should point to Consumer_Rights_Wiki:Editorial_guidelines instead of Mission statement. NOTAROBOT (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Place fightchatcontrol.eu in a prominent place on the homepage.

I wish to have https://fightchatcontrol.eu/ on the top of consumerrights.wiki. I understand that this is not a corporation thing. But privacy is something many of the people here strongly value and this is an important project for everyones rights. Dentist5735 (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Not a mod and so won’t implement it myself but there is a ‘consumer tools’ section if you scoll down very far that this would kinda fit in to. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Itron article has been flagged for questionable relevance.

I believe the Itron article has been mistakenly flagged for questionable relevance. I have added several Incidents to the page to further show Itron's systemic patterns of consumer privacy violations please see the below:

Itron's Smart meters allow them to collect, process, and store data without the end users' knowledge. (1980-Present)

NYSEG requires customers to switch to Itron Smart meters or face monthly charge (November 2022-Present)

CenterPoint Energy requires customers to switch to Itron Smart meters or face one-time and monthly service charges (Unknown-Present)

Southern California Edison requires customers to switch to Itron Smart meters or face monthly charge (Unknown-Present)

Smart meter (and smart grid solutions) usage by utility companies involves a lot of layers but these are what I find to be most concerning:

Lack of data privacy, utility companies can freely share customer data with third party smart meter companies (such as Itron) without customer knowledge.

Lack of freedom to choose whether or not you have a smart meter recording your electricity usage. This data can be used to infer all sorts of things from what kind of appliances you own to when you are home.

Itron's Data Processing Agreement is un-viewable (at least for me) and not easy to find either, and end users typically do not know they will have an Itron smart meter until after it is installed by their electric company.

Itron is not the only smart meter and smart grid solutions game in town but they are big and not end user friendly,.

Thank Mods! Privacywarrior (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Watch out for this person

I was sent an e-mail yesterday (Sept 28th) from a person by the name "PawPatroler" who has apparently been harassing other wikis with the same appeal message in an attempt to have their Wikipedia account unbanned. Hopefully this just remains a one-off. — Sojourna (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I got the email as well. Didn't know about the Wikipedia thing though. @Keith might wanna check this out Beanie Bo (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Appeal deletion of Medical equipment page

Medical equipment has some issues relating to manufacturer lockdown and repair which are important (right to repair is right to save lives) and which may be somewhat different from issues in other devices. This page appears to be the natural place to cover these issues.

There was a device page on medical ventilators, but it has been demoted to an incident page.

This deletion request is particularly confusing, because @Beanie Bo who proposed deletion, has what looks like some notes for an article covering right to repair of medical devices on their talk page.

Not every "new consumer" issue with medical equipment falls under right to repair. There are also right to own considerations. (Such as having access to and control of my personal information - the readouts from my Cpap/pacemaker/etc. Also privacy issues. Who controls the device. ...) There are medical supplies (e.g. continuous glucose monitor patches or insulin refills, and things like region locking, supplier lockin, etc.) So I would not favor just moving the page to be only medical right to repair.

I am confident that there is more than enough verifiable information and issues to make at least one article.

I think the page should be kept. Having some general pages that link things together is helpful. Especially when a wiki is so skeletal as this. The page can certainly use improvement. I think having the beginnings of a structure encourages growth.

There is, as always, this disincentive to do anything to improve the page when it has a deletion notice. (No sense working on something that going to be destroyed.) Drakeula (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe @Mr Pollo can give his take since he's generally the one who finalizes article deletion.

As for my opinion, the article is simply too vague to be useful. Creating incident articles would be significantly more effective to shed a light on bad consumer practice in the medical industry, instead of one article with a ton of empty headlines. The article was created 9 months ago at this point yet only has 2 paragraphs worth of information. I take that to mean there is little interest in working on articles in the medical industry, and it's clear most people would rather discuss tech companies. So "encouraging growth" is not relevant at all in this case.

The way to give fair weight to the issues in the medical industry is by creating more articles dedicated to the various incidents that have been reported on. A single master sheet makes it seem like CRW only cares about tech issues (of which there are hundreds of relevant articles) and only adds in a few things from other industries lumped into one page that people are unlikely to find in the middle of hundreds of tech articles.

Incident pages are not "less than" company or product pages. They're simply different types. I don't think it's fair to say the medical ventilators article was "demoted" when the change was simply to portray the issues more accurately. Once I've gone through and edited the article to be more extensive and accurately portray the issue at hand, I hope that your position might change on the matter. And thanks for bringing it up anyway even if we disagree. It is motivating me to get to that article more quickly (as soon as I finish some smaller changes on articles I'm working on currently). Beanie Bo (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I can see the importance of having a page that includes the medical equipment, though a category system can also achieve this in a better way. There can be a main category (ex: Category:Medical equipment), and subcategories for the machines (ex: Category:MRI, Category:Ventilators) that include a small description of why they are consumer rights problems with alongside the Medical equipment category to link it all together.

For example, this is what the source code of the Category:Ventilators could look like:

At the beginning of the Covid 19 pandemic, ventilators were suddenly in very high demand. Digital rights management and lack of right to repair made the equipment shortage worse, and probably increased mortality.

[[Category:Medical equipment]]

Let me know what you both think of this approach! Mr Pollo (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

@Beanie BoSorry if the term demoted offended. It was not intended to. I was thinking in terms of the tree structure for the articles, not in terms of possible emotional impact. Lots of leaf [incident] articles, smaller number of device articles which aggregate/lead to the incidents, but can cover things more broadly, beyond just an incident. With theme articles (or possibly a missing article type, like a navigation articles) above that. So an incident article is less than a product page in the sense of being less general (more specific), not less important or valuable. I always try to be courteous, but sometimes I don't think of possible interpretations. So, my apologies.

I added a bit more meat to the article, hoping it will make it clearer what it could become, or inspire links to other relevant articles that exist, or inspire people to cover more medtech. If this article is to be deleted, what is the plan? Where would content like I added to the article better be placed? Is there a better name this theme article could be placed under? (I started a thread to discuss this on the article's talk page.)

For example, if this page goes, and the ventilator page just covers the covid emergency, then where can we put information about ventilators beyond the initial Covid surge?

I have more response, but want to sleep on it. Drakeula (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I just realized why I used "demoted." The list of article types lists them numerically (product is Tier 2, incident is Tier 3). For Tier 2 it says "This tier of articles may well be the most useful to the casual reader. This is where someone who googles [insert thing here] consumer rights wiki will usually end up." Sure sounds like incident articles are "less than" product articles (as in less useful, less likely to be seen, a lower tier).

Just pointing out what seems to me a natural interpretation of the wiki policies. I am not trying to justify or defend my word choice. I still apologize if they caused offense. Drakeula (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)