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 3 4 5 6 7

Open tasks

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

add "Quasi-Wanted" Special page

There are Wikipedia articles linked from many different CRW articles. It'd be nice to see which topics are candidates for a dedicated article on CRW. I say "topics", just-in-case a future update adds support for non-WP "pseudo-internal" links (because WP links are shown as "internal" even though they aren't)

Apologies in advance if this is not a place for feature-requests Rudxain (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

so...

abt that superuser role? has it been rolled out yet? got hit in the face w a stub notice bug again lol SinexTitan (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

another thing. Phreeli has a valid entry in List of products and services with forced arbitration. still @User:Louis supported them w a dedicated video, in which he states "so this is a company we started" and claims to be an unpaid board member. so I ask, what the fuck? Louis said to give a fuck abt consumer rights but he is not your savior. the video was released on 2025.12.19 and the citation on the list was archived on 2026.01.13, so it can be argued that it could be a development after the video was published. I have not seen him mention Phreeli since then. so I cannot say if they're still affiliated but the video is still up w no follow up (afaik). as y'all are in contact w the man, can we get a comment or perhaps an apology video w a ukulele cameo? SinexTitan (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I discussed that here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_twkLJbc1c

if there's an MVNO that's open to allowing people to pay with crypto without providing a name and address, I am happy to push them in that direction & help move it along. forced arbitration sucks balls, but every carrier has forced arbitration..... so this becomes a question of, should i not help push along a carrier that allows people to sign up in a more anonymous way, because 1 thing isn't to my liking... ??? the answer to that is no.

framework doesn't release schematics... but after a long talk with the CEO, they'll allow you to get one if you contact them & sign an NDA. that's not what I want. but it is better than if I had not engaged at all.

if i started a phone company/MVNO, it'd have no forced arbitration AND allow people to sign up with anonymous crypto without providing their name.... but i'm not starting a phone company... i am too busy as it is.

phreeli belongs in that list of products & services with forced arbitration because they have forced arbitration. Louis (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

as mentioned in my previous comment I didn't know of that video. thank you. even tho its been a week, I still haven't found the time to watch it. perhaps many of the points I've highlighted have already been discussed in said video.

regardless, I agree that the existence of a more private MVNO's a blessing to see in a sea full of scammers. but I still would've liked to see them not go the same route as traditional operators regarding forced arbitration. everybody's "threat" model is diff so I can understand your stance. I'm a fairly regular watcher of the channel but somehow I missed the video. and based on the view discrepancy (378k vs 41k), many others have too. the follow up video includes the announcement in its description but the title and thumbnail do not reflect it being a follow up. I would like to see this rectified.

now on Framework, I did not know an NDA had to be signed in order to get the schematics. I checked the article and it does not mention that. based on my 5 min search I found this but it does not mention an NDA, just to reach out to support. could you please provide sources? I'd like to append this to the article. I don't consider it egregious but for a person looking for them, they should know.

I'd like to highlight a conflict here. in the video you state "so this company we started" and in this SEC filing you're cited as a Director. I'd like to mention that I'm not American nor have any idea wtf this shit is, but I have a borderline idea on what SEC filings are. could you please explain to me what this means? ofc you yourself did not start the company but you are still listed as a director of the company.

an article on Phreeli does not exist and the arbitration list can be hard to find. so I will be creating one. SinexTitan (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Superconfirmed has been rolled out, see Consumer Rights Wiki:Moderator applications, BUT you need your email. I think this stuff should be done onwiki but whatever, I got mod without using email lol. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I went on a hiatus again lol so apologies for the slow response.

I did email Keith on the matter b4 the rollout and recently did I get knighted. thank you mods SinexTitan (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm unable to move this discussion to the archive, due to word filter. Tracerneo (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Archive everything

is there a way the checking process for refs be automated? it is user maintained and isn't always accurate. perhaps all refs could be checked if they have the archive-url= filled? SinexTitan (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Featured articles on main page have light grey title on White background .. even on dark mode

This isnt great for readability.

my setup for reference :

dark mode on CRW, Firefox. Linux Mint XFCE. Plankton (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

wait i just went back and now they are black titles... i dont know what happened. mightve been a one time bug on my part ??? Plankton (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

OK i figured it out... this is weird :

it only happnes when i am LOGGED OUT of my account.

to reiterate :

when a user is logged out. the featured articles on the main page appear with light grey titles on white background ; which isnt great for readability ... especially for new users' first impression of the website.

Once i am logged into my account, the titles now appear black with good contrast.

I dont know why this is the case but it is consistent across my testing Plankton (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@JakeL this was an issue that I had before that I asked om your talkpage to fix, now it's happening again? AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 05:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to throw in a curveball. logged in and I still got the issue. SinexTitan (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@JakeL pinging again AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Flagged this for Keith since it’s been awhile hopefully Jake sees it. - Atsumari (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion

I feel we could be more clearer when it come to our date standards on the wiki, as right now I feel its lacking in clarity and causes confusion for newcomers on what the actual date format is most commonly accepted and preferred (as of right now being something like a date format of 20 Jan 2004 if that makes sense). Currently, when going onto the citation tab to add a source, it reads "Example: Format as YYYY-MM-DD (2020-12-30) or DD Mon YYYY (30 Dec 2025)".

Additionally, I also think the product section (referring to the This is a list of the company's product lines with articles on this wiki. Example product line one (release date): Short summary of the product's incidents.) could also be more specified and informative on what users are supposed to fill out, along with specifying what to do when there's no incidents relating to any of their product, as right now it's kinda up to the users to determine what it means.

I also want to ask if you can add more sections to the parent company on the CompanyCargo template(being adding one company that's own by several other companies instead of one as of current) as I'm currently working on Denny's article and _{as far as I know} there are 3 private companies that own Denny's as of the moment.

I don't mean to come off in a bad way where it's disrespectful, I meant to only state my opinion on the matter. SquidthePlummer (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Agree, we don't really have a specific date standard here AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 05:38, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I have been using the DMY format since the majority of the world generally uses that. The hope for the wiki is to be an international source for consumers around the world (not just Americans), and I believe DMY to be in line with that goal. I further believe it would be better to have a consistent experience, which is why I have used the DMY format even for American companies and incidents. (Though clearly Rossmann disagreed with that, as he recently "corrected" the dates on an Amazon article from an older edit of mine.)

As for the citations, I abbreviate the months because early on using more than three characters for the month resulted in the citation template being unhappy. It appears to have since been fixed, but old habits die hard. Not sure why the wiki template data outputs strictly numbers and that's a topic that will eventually have to be decided on in conjunction with this.

Apologies for not speaking up sooner; I wanted mull over the matter first. — Sojourna (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Editing templates, protected pages, deleting irrelevant articles

How can I request additional permissions? I would like to add a location field to Template:CompanyCargo, edit pages like Template:Main_Page/Consumer_Tools, and remove pages like Varusteleka (that as far as I'm aware has not been involved in any consumer rights violations) or Fruitbat Factory (that I think has a page only due to its DLC-oriented business model). Tracerneo (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@Keith I'm honestly tempted to make a buncha things autoconfirmed-protectee but i

I'd rather not w/o your approval AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

At the moment it's limited to Superconfirmed and above. Given the quality of @Tracerneo's contributions, I'd be happy to give them Superconfirmed. Keith (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Cargo templates are still fully protected, so I cannot edit them. Please see Special:ProtectedPages, it may be reasonable to change most of these (especially templates) to semi-protected. Tracerneo (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Cargo tables are a bit more sensitive, as external tools which use the data will rely on a consistent schema. breakages here wouldn't just affect articles on the wiki, it could also break any external tooling that uses the cargo data. on that basis cargo tables are something I'd be fairly reluctant to un-protect Keith (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I see. I got an idea, I may be able to wrap the cargo template in a different template. Template:IncidentCargo may be the easiest, as it doesn't render anything. Tracerneo (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Regarding edit access to the consumer tools page or any template used on the front page, additional inclusions like consumer tools are generally confirmed by staff to prevent the potential for promoting a service or product that doesn’t align with our goals.

Also while we have you here, creating country articles like Poland isn’t within our scope, as a country category can contain the necessary information such as their incidents and laws while linking back to the country's Wikipedia page. For that, having categories such as Category:Canadian incidents and Category:Canadian legislation in the Canada category would be best practice. Let me know if you have any questions! Mr Pollo (talk) 13:05, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

There are countries that have many consumer rights organizations and governmental bodies, or complicated laws, that do not warrant one article or do not make sense individually. Without such pages there is no discoverability for these convoluted topics.

Consider a Polish developer making changes to open source software, to make it interoperable with device that recently got locked down. The device manufacturer subsequently threatens them with legal action, citing DMCA. How can you find out, that DMCA does not apply outside of the US, the international treaty that DMCA implements is implemented with exceptions in his jurisdiction that make the reverse engineering for interoperability permissible, and that recently SLAPP suits and legal intimidation has been largely outlawed? Tracerneo (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Also there's Category:Organizations, Category:Regulatory agencies and public support bodies, and Template:CompanyCargo has a suggested "Government" value in the Type field. Countries/jurisdictions fall under the Themes scope in my opinion.

Categories (and non-Main namespaces) lack discoverability (they are not searched by default). Tracerneo (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Tend to agree. I do wonder though whether the page titles should be just the name of the of the country or be something like 'Government of x', or 'Consumer protection in x', but that's a minor issue, and ultimately the content of the pages is good. I've created Consumer_Rights_Wiki_talk:RfC:_Page_protection for people to discuss the situation on the wiki regarding permission levels. Keith (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Excerpt

I have brought Template:Excerpt (and associated modules) from Wikipedia. Documentation: wikipedia:Template:Excerpt

You can see it in use in the Bambu Lab article (see also Category:Articles with excerpts). The main benefit is the reduced duplication, where excerpted incidents can be included in company articles.

Can you help me start a project, to convert more articles to use this template? Tracerneo (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@Keith AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Grabbing Keith for you since it’s been a couple hours. - Atsumari (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, would be happy to! I assume the scope of it is 'any page in which another page is described in brief should use an excerpt of the other page, rather than a custom summary'? Keith (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Currently it's a either verbatim copy of the Incident page lead section or a custom summary. The verbatim copy results in some users updating one but not the other, and then they diverge in content, sometimes missing important facts in all relevant places. Custom summary may sometimes be preferable.

The incident articles themselves should also be written in a way that the lead section is a summary of the incident with up to date status.

Ideally we should make people aware of the feature, so new articles and summaries are written with using excerpts in mind. Tracerneo (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Itch.io#De-indexing of adult games from campaign pressure (2025) is an example of page that is better off with custom summary.

Adobe has many incidents that could be converted into excerpts.

European Union#Stop Destroying Videogames (ECI) excerpts smaller parts of SKG (2nd argument (section), paragraphs= and hat=no in use). Tracerneo (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Fake DMCA takedown

This page was edited with "DMCA takedown" as reason by a user that was just created: https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Model_F_Labs&action=history If you see the nature of the edits, it seems rather likely this was done in an attempt to remove critique. NonPassivatedMOSFET (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

It looks like this was reversed. If there still seems to be issues with it, I can have Keith look into this as DMCA related issues are legal matters, and outside of the scope of normal support from the mods and folks like me. So just let us know and if this reappears or if there’s anything that happens to the article, please update us here and I’ll get Keith to look at it.- Atsumari (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Page resurrection request

Last year there was an argument on whether some community toxicity cases and management issues at the Wikipedia platform fall within the scope of this wiki or not.

Recently there's some developments that can finally settle the case and which will fall within this wiki's scope this time around, as editors on Wikipedia are threatening a worker's strike after the WMF disbands the entire Community Tech team. Relevant links:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:COMMTECHGATE

• https://medium.com/@jakeorlowitz/wikipedia-is-doing-the-capitalist-thing-56a393232943

• https://medium.com/@jakeorlowitz/wikipedia-runs-on-people-it-shouldnt-run-over-people-48823f4238bb

• https://www.theverge.com/report/939442/wikipedia-editors-protest-wikimedia-layoffs-strike

• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/hundreds-of-wikipedia-editors-are-threatening-to-go-on-strike-and-the-reason-is-these-engineers/articleshow/131394771.cms

• https://www.pcmag.com/news/wikipedia-editors-could-strike-following-layoffs

The page Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia Foundation are theredore requested to be resurrected. In hindsight I feel that the fussy attitude by Beanie Bo against the inclusion of Wikipedia issues into the wiki scope looks ridiculous in the first place. 52.220.157.15 22:35, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

After reading through the links you provided, I do not see how the labor issue, although concerning, is relevant from a consumer rights perspective. — Sojourna (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

The disbanding of Community Tech team at Wikipedia will make it easier for WMF and so on to initiate changes that are deemed "unpopular", which will harm the interests of consumers/readers in the long term. Not to mention many volunteer editors are at the same time, readers. As one had pointed out, you can and should look at this the archives of Community Wishlist to see how the team had contributed to the well-being of the encyclopedia over time. Dark mode is just one of the features that if I can remember, was requested that way.15.181.161.29 11:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't really think that the ongoing dispute falls into the Wiki's scope, and will outline my reasoning below:

Changes to the internal governance of an organization, or labour disputes in general, are not relevant to the wiki - there needs to be some direct, specific, and notable impact on consumers.

We also do not cover generic product quality issues, despite any impact they may have on consumers, unless there is some aggravating factor such as safety, an attempt to cover up the quality issue by the company, or it being a willful degradation in quality of a product that users had already paid for. If a company makes a bad product, that is a skill issue, rather than a consumer rights issue, unless consumers were promised and paid for a substantially different product to the one they received.

Therefore, if a labour dispute or similar threatened to reduce the quality of a company's product, it would not be relevant to the wiki. E.g. if the company behind a game (that had not come out yet and which had not accepted pre-orders) decided to scrap their entire art team and replace it with AI slop, kicking off a labour dispute with product quality implications, then that would not be a consumer rights issue to be covered on the wiki. If, however, a company had sold pre-orders or a season pass for a DLC that was upcoming, then they sacked everyone who was meant to deliver that content, then that product quality issue would become a wiki-relevant issue once it becomes clear in reporting that the promised and paid-for content was not going to be delivered.

The only Wikipedia-related controversy I'm aware of that I could imagine being actually relevant to the wiki would be the long-standing controversies around whether or not the various Wikipedia donation banners were misleading as to the effect donations would have on Wikipedia's maintenance. While it being donations to charity puts a bit of a spin on it, misleading advertising is 100% relevant to the wiki, and there's definitely been enough debate and discussion and coverage on that topic over the years to meet notability and sourcing criteria. Even then, it's probably open to some debate. Would a charity that accepts donations and then the person running the charity embezzles the money and runs off, be a consumer rights issue? idk.

Ultimately, since the Wikipedia platform is delivered freely and is also not 'paid for' through user data, it makes a lot of arguments for consumer rights relevancy more difficult. If they decided to shut the whole thing down tomorrow, it would be a great loss for humanity, but I'm still not sure whether it would be wiki-relevant. Keith (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. If that page were to be resurrected, it will be pretty much a single-topic page focusing on the Wikipedia misleading donation and financial cancer issues, right? Perhaps for clarification there should be an external link section to a page on SourceWatch or so on that documents Wikipedia-related issues, along with a small note clarifying that most of the information on there can't be included here due to guideline restrictions, but the external link to the page containing the info is included just as courtesy for readers.15.181.161.29 12:16, 3 June 2026 (UTC)