Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard/Archive 7

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)

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)

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)

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)

deletion request

Seeing as how the terms are bog standard, I see no reason for this page to exist. You do not own any of the code on your machine, unless you wrote it yourself. Even open source licenses are the same.

I couldn't figure out to make a deletion request either. wouldn't let me save the template, but I could have been doing it wrong. Instructions aren't so clear...

Bandai Namco EULA Mandle Rex (talk) 09:27, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

The problem with the deletion request was probably that you were trying to put it on the same line as the incomplete notice (which is protected)

I'll add it on for you just now Keith (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Deleted! AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 05:07, 4 May 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)