Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard
Add topicLatest comment: 06:27 by AnotherConsumerRightsPerson in topic Re: Question regarding what can be added to a page.
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.
| Previous discussions
|
|---|
Open tasks
[edit source]- Category:Articles with deletion requests
- Category:Articles with merge requests
- Category:Articles marked as irrelevant
- Special:NewPages
Archive everything
[edit source]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)
- Bots existed on Wikipedia that automatically archived links, but for complicated/opaque reasons didn't sustain operation. Probably a big project. Is that what you mean? Weirdly, Wikipedia insists on archive-date, even though generally it's in the archive-url.
- On a somewhat related note - @Sojourna, the link you added [1] doesn't really work. Maybe use a better archiving service? .is or ghostarchive? .is usually does a better job than .org with such content and the archives are not prone to become unavailable (i.e. hidden by robots.txt changes). CrookKilla (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- From what I recall, Ghost Archive and Megalodon did not fare as well when I attempted to archive MegaLag's YouTube Community post; both were not displaying the second image in said post. And Archive.today is blacklisted on CRW owing to its owner's actions early this year that brought its credibility into doubt.
- The capture I used from Internet Archive loads rather slowly, but it does display all the important parts. — Sojourna (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- Projects:Archive_everything#Archival_services is incredibly one-sided. I disagree with the blacklisting. Reasons:
- There was no significant archive tampering. The way what did occur is described on the pages linked to from there calls into question the reliability of the narrator/narrative found on those pages.
- By contrast, we KNOW archive.org is likely to take down content essentially upon request by the archived site. For defensible reasons, but ones that make it markedly less useful for a Consumer Rights Wiki that is typically documenting bad behavior the actor typically wishes to hide!
Recent examples noted: https://x.com/archiveis/status/2014729926847373506 , https://x.com/archiveis/status/2013987834022043841
- By contrast, we KNOW archive.org is likely to take down content essentially upon request by the archived site. For defensible reasons, but ones that make it markedly less useful for a Consumer Rights Wiki that is typically documenting bad behavior the actor typically wishes to hide!
- "bizarre internet argument" is an inappropriate way to describe getting upset because someone ( Jani Patokallio ) was trying to doxx their staff, which I *think* is what was happening.
- Doxxing isn't okay, we agree?
- Rampant self-censorship to avoid all controversy bad, we agree?
- It's claimed "there's also a very real risk that they just take the site down" - claim lacks evidence.
- Probably many more; there's plenty I haven't read on the topic. I could be wrong, but I have looked well below the surface, and I use the site regularly. I'm a fan of IA, but... well, archive.is usually works better.
- They state, "among our users who are particularly wary of the FBI, there are also less frequently mentioned groups, such as environmental activists or right-to-repair advocates." src
- There was no significant archive tampering. The way what did occur is described on the pages linked to from there calls into question the reliability of the narrator/narrative found on those pages.
- Its page notes: "In early 2023, a team of researchers at the University of Amsterdam identified archive.today as the most-used open-access archiving service among fact-checking organisations."
- I would like to know what others who haven't assumed Wikipedia made the right decision think. It's notable how much discussion it's engendered - 5 RFCs on the topic... clearly there's lots of disagreement.
- - CrookKilla (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- Projects:Archive_everything#Archival_services is incredibly one-sided. I disagree with the blacklisting. Reasons:
Terms of Service info to share...
[edit source]Talk:Terms_of_service#Terms_of_Service_info_to_share... Feedback, anyone? CrookKilla (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
Re: Question regarding what can be added to a page.
[edit source]Heyo,
I occasionally edit stuff on the Honda company page regarding data breaches and their data collection.
Is there any restrictions to adding links that can allow users to request control? Specifically I was interested in adding this link somewhere: https://www.honda.com/privacy/disconnect-remote-vehicle-access which allows users to disable remote features on their car, allow users to retain some more privacy controls over their vehicles from Honda.
Best, Em Emlynet (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Just go for it, although I'm honestly not sure if it's allowed. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2026 (UTC)