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

Open tasks

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

How will the CRW approach April Fool's day?

Hi, April Fool's day is next month and I don't want to initiate a discussion too late, so how would we approach it? My idea is 1) no jokes in articles, no exceptions and 2) clearly mark all jokes when they occur (I've made Template:April fools for this purpose). AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

If my science textbook in school gave me a QR code that ends up rickrolling me I think I'll spend longer than 1 day being distracted about it... lol

In my opinion they should be contained within user pages and other types of pages the common person never visits, like having it as an extra link under Wiki policy or something. It would be really bad if someone in power happens to see it the one day they get told to visit a page on the wiki. Just my two cents... but then again I'm pretty biased against the day anyway Raster (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't even think we should have it under a link on Wiki policy, just silently add it with thr correct template the correct people internally will see it via recent changes. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 07:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think we will be doing one this year. JamesTDG (talk) 07:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Was there one last year? I don't think there was. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

There definitely wasn't. JamesTDG (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I've deleted the template. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Might be worth undeleting it... Louis came up with an idea for an April Fools, based on that Norwegian enshittification video from the other day. Basic concept is to enshittify the wiki (maybe just the main page, and with an off button, of course) for a day. I fully agree with no jokes in articles - that's just a pain to keep track of and undo, and could damage credibility if done without good taste. Keith (talk) 10:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I have had my ideas, but I'll keep them secret for now. I'll undelete it. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

we could prob use the trollface as the wiki logo at least JamesTDG (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Appeal Request

Hello! The article Advertising overload is marked as incomplete and as relying on AI/LLMs. I believe I've addressed the original intent of both of these, though the bottom section (Advertising overload#Notable Examples) is still a stub. I think the AI status notice should be removed, and the Incomplete notice should be replaced with a Stub notice.

Cheers! Scholar Silas (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done including completely removing both notices, not marking it as a stub. The article overall is very long, and if a section is all to complain about on a very long article, then it's definitely not a stub. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Who gets superconfirmed first?

Hello, starting this discussion since the new superconfirmed usergroup has been added and we need to figure out who to give it to first. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Just tested it on User:AnotherConsumerRightsAlt; why can't it undelete pages? AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I shall fix! JakeL (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Also @JakeL is semiprotection mow allowing superconfirmed users only as well as admins and not just normal confirmed users? AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, autoconfirmed users no longer have the semiprotected permission. This was an intentional change requested by Keith JakeL (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

Appeal request for Wikipedia article

I've been testing out the browser plugin for the last few days and noticed it popped up on Wikipedia. After reading Wikipedia#cite note-15 I wanted to challenge whether this article belongs on Consumer Rights Wiki, as I don't think it fits with the Mission statement or Consumer Rights Wiki:Inclusion guidelines at time of writing.

Aside from mentioning that Wikipedia is big and influential (not necessarily a bad thing), there are two incidents listed. The first one relates to individual editors. The only citation for this mentions "Wikipedia has taken action against what it described as the “co-ordinated group” of fraudsters by blocking 381 accounts.".

The second one is similar, it refers to behaviour of editors - the first citation mentions "Wikipedias in all languages, including English, are open to edits by any volunteers", and also mentions that "one of the ... admins at Scots Wikipedia, has called for native speakers to contribute as the community seeks to save the project.".

In both cases I think this is a reasonable response from Wikipedia, they stepped in to address the issues by blocking abusive users, acknowledged the inaccuracies and called for people to help fix them. Wikipedia is free, it's hosted by a non-profit organisation and the editors are not working for Wikipedia, they are independent users of the platform. I don't think it's fair to blame them for user-generated content, and in my opinion it hurts the cause when we include articles like this alongside articles highlighting genuinely abusive business practices. DiffChar (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

When this came up, I was very concerned but decided to leave it alone. Considering someone else thinks the exact same way as me, i think it's honestly a good idea atp for me to add a deletion request template (which anyone can do, by the way!) and refer back here. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

After looking it over myself, I agree - it's not relevant as it stands. — Sojourna (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd concur as well. Keith (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Deleted. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Can't Edit

I'm trying to edit this Dairy Queen article, however after adding the stub notice it won't allow me to edit anymore. @AnotherConsumerRightsPerson SquidthePlummer (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Easy mistake to make. Next time, put it at the start of the article and leave a space. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 20:43, 23 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 think Internet Archive has excluded anything from Bambu Lab

I was on the Bambu Lab Authorization Control System page and I noticed that a lot of the archive links didn't work so I think Internet Archive has excluded anything from Bambu Lab.

Do I need to move all the archive links to Ghost Archive? Andrew V (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

It's the other way around; Bambu Lab has specifically decided to block the IA. And yeah, you can certainly use Ghost Archive. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

So should I switch all the archive links from IA to Ghost Archive Andrew V (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I'll get started Andrew V (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Can confirm. I made a list of companies covered on this wiki that excluded themselves from the IA here. Mr Pollo (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for making that article Andrew V (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Of course! Mr Pollo (talk) 19:10, 9 April 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)

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)

JS ToneWarning appeal

(this article) With the most recent edits (from other people, and myself) I think that notice can be finally removed. Cleanup should stay, as it's not done.

I could remove the notice myself, but I'm asking here, just-in-case Rudxain (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Appeal request for YNAB article

Hey CRW!

Today, after learning that YouNeedABudget had added forced arbitration to their ToS, I contributed my first original wiki article. I'd not completed each section, so it was naturally marked as a stub, but I believe I've satisfied the requirements for each required section, now, and that it is outside stub territory.

I tried to provide as many references as I could, while keeping things as relevant as I could, but as I said, this is my first article, so please let me know if there's anything else I can contribute to improve the article in any way.

The one thing I think could be better is providing the actual email sent by YNAB as its own file as a better reference, but because I am no longer personally a user of YNAB, I don't have a copy to provide, myself. I reached out to some users from the subreddit threads linked within the article to ask for some anonymized copy if at all possible, and if I get something back, I can provide that then (or, if someone else has their own copy, all the power to them to contribute it). Failing this, though, I hope that the links to the related discussion about the email's existence meets the standard of verifiability. Jameson Ismad (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done — Sojourna (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2026 (UTC)