Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard

Previous discussions
1 2 3 4 5

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

I tried submitting my deletion req for FakePortal but get hit with "Stub notices can NOT be removed by users with normal privileges". Tried removing the unused infoboxes in WhatsApp, GoGuardian, Asus and Roblox, and the same dice. w h y? SinexTitan (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'll check this out now AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

This seems to be a regular issue with the abuse filter which absolutely has been talked about before. It's very annoying and in my opinion we need some sort of edit request system or a new group given to users to bypass the filter, but for now I'll just check the abuse log and apply the edit manually myself. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

The issue is when edits are made in-line with a stub notice, as (iirc) the filter checks for edits to the same line as the change Keith (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

the notice* Keith (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

hey can this please be fixed? it's really damn annoying. removal of redundant infoboxes on Deep Cycle Systems and Allstate are triggering it SinexTitan (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I can remove these now. It would be cool if a usergroup would dodge the filter. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

yeah, I wonder if we should create a 'superconfirmed' group or something, which doesn't have the banning powers of a mod but can edit article notices. Keith (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

An "Important" / "Must-Reads" / "Starter Pack" / "Essential Reading" section showing the most important articles to view for someone new to the Consumer Rights scene, or just someone unknowing.

Furthermore, the ability to rate an article. Perhaps as a way to show which matters are trending, because of many people having said problem with said device/service. Could be a "Saved me!", "Worked", "Didn't work", where "Saved me!" can only be used maybe once a day, to show which issues a not just trending, but very crucial. These ratings could help place relevant articles at the top of a second section within "Important"/Whatever.

These two sections would give users a place to scroll and skim through, to see if there are any matters relevant for them, like a random product they own, that they didn't know had a Consumer Rights issue.

Additionally; the ability to give pledges to article writers/editors. I'm not fully sure how it would work at the moment, but it would give people a way to support editors that produce important relevant articles. Perhaps the site could take a small cut, which both contributes to funding the server costs or the "legal fund" that Rossman mentioned, but also gives people a bigger incentive to pledge to editors, knowing that some of it goes to supporting the website and its users. Sebandar (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I would appreciate a pane with "must-reads" on the main page that highlights the articles with the widest spread effects and only includes well-written articles. Putting some articles in the same industry, like articles on Apple and Google's app store restrictions, would be especially effective, because it's nearly guaranteed that one of these applies to the reader. If you want to make a draft of this somewhere I would be down to help work on it.

I like the article rating idea. I don't know how difficult it would be to add interactive content like this to the wiki, but it sounds like a good way to receive feedback. The only official way to receive feedback currently is on the talk pages but those are all pretty dead. Some prioritization on pageviews or feedback would be nice.

On pledges, Wikipedia actually has something like this, it has a reward board where users are offered barnstars or real money to improve articles, but it's not used very much. Most users seem to be offering up prizes only for the fun of doing so, not because it's particularly effective. If the content is relevant and/or interesting, someone probably is already working on it. I don't personally think this site needs an economy but if it were to be implemented, I think we should plug donations to FULU or other affiliated foundations on the main page and then have those foundations offer microgrants for editors. Bythmusters (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I made a change to Form:Company following Discord suggestion #181. I was going to add this to Form:Product and Form:ProductLine but these pages are protected.

So, I am requesting an edit to those two pages to replace "(supported file types = PNG|JPG)" with "(supported file types = JPG, PNG, SVG)" to represent the fact that SVGs are allowed, and also to admin-protect Form:Company since that's an important page. Bythmusters (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to propose an idea that I think would help people read articles in a rush. Add a box at the top of all long pages (e.g. YouTube, or all that aren't stubs or marked as incomplete) that summarises the article (the incidents the company has been involved in, what it does, etc) in a couple of sentences. Let me know what you think. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

What makes this different from a lead paragraph? Would you replace the lead paragraph entirely with this template or would it be a complementary resource with links to related company/product/theme articles? You could link to categories/other articles there. I think categories on wikis in general are overlooked by most readers and putting them at the top sounds interesting. Bythmusters (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

The companies have all been moved over now, the only places that InfoboxCompany exist in are in some documentation out of main namespace and on these pages where they were placed on the same line as a notice: AirAsia, Deep Cycle Systems, Allstate, Happiest Baby, Verisk Analytics, Inc., DAZN, Federal Communications Commission, Anova Culinary, Sig Sauer, RepairShopr

Converting InfoboxProductLine and finding more pages without infoboxes or cargo... sometime. Bythmusters (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Still need these removed if anyone has 5 minutes:

AirAsia, Allstate, Happiest Baby, Verisk Analytics, Inc., DAZN, Federal Communications Commission Bythmusters (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Done. Sorry for taking so long. It'd be nice if there was a usergroup that could dodge all the edit filters. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

The main Sitenotice text is nearly the same color as the link inside of it, making it hard to distinguish where the link is if you haven't clicked the link yet. A larger contrast would be nice, since the notice is going to be up for another 25 days or so. https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&action=edit

This also applies to most of the main page, blue/muddy purple on blue doesn't look the best, but that's a larger undertaking. If the main page is up for redesign it would be nice to take the color contrast into consideration. Bythmusters (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've simply made it black and white, although I don't think it is entirely fixed it. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please can nobody amend the theme or any elements currently, I am restyling the website. JakeL (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Oh, sorry. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Looks great, and has nice contrast! Bythmusters (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Still somewhat of a work in progress, but definitely a significant improvement over the previous version. JakeL (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I like it too! As an idea, make the borders rounded like the original one. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 07:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

No worries, all done! JakeL (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wow, this looks amazing now. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

So, a lot of the articles with Template:Incomplete and cargo templates that display a box (any but IncidentCargo) have big foreheads right now (see a list of articles with Incomplete here). I did some testing, the Incomplete template itself doesn't have a trailing newline, and none of the cargos have a preceding newline. A <p><br></p> is being added by the parser when the two are put together, and only when they are not on the same line. I've also seen this in the wild with Template:SloppyAI and with Template:Welcome on new user talk pages. Welcome should be a simple edit fix since it's not combined with other templates, but it seems that anytime templates are combined, they must be put on the same line or they will introduce an unintended newline. You can see an instance of Incomplete and SloppyAI together causing problems on Samsung TVs.

Many Wikipedia pages have several templates next to each other without this problem, for example see 2025-2026 Iranian protests. So the problem is solvable in MediaWiki, but I don't know how much work is required to do so. According to Category:Todo, over 700 articles have these banners, which is the majority of the wiki.

If other people think it's important too, I can work on this, but I don't know how to compare this wiki's configuration against stuff in the MediaWiki documentation. Bythmusters (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Oh yeah, some junk from my experimenting that we should delete once the problem is resolved: User:Bythmusters/templatetesting, Qwerty Bythmusters (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean the top has more height than the rest of the box? I'm not entirely sure what you are talking about. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also, the Wiki's main config can be seen at MediaWiki:Common.css and MediaWiki:Common.js, where all the css and js that you see the moment you load a page is at. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

So, let's compare these two versions:

https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Bythmusters/templatetesting&oldid=35089

https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Bythmusters/templatetesting&oldid=35091

There is an additional newline between the bottom of the template and the beginning of the article text. The only difference in the source text is:

"{\{Incomplete}}{\{ProductLineCargo"

vs:

"{\{Incomplete}}

{\{ProductLineCargo"

In the second one, there's a newline to separate the templates, as it's more natural to read in the source editor this way. Wikipedia articles do not render this newline, but CRW does. That is my issue, it takes up a lot of space on the screen.

Thanks for the links, I read through the Common.css and Common.js of this wiki and Wikipedia but I didn't see anything relevant. I think it's in the parser, where the mediawiki text gets converted into html but I don't know enough about this stuff to be sure. Bythmusters (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ah, okay. Reread your previous post and now feel like an idiot for not understanding. I don't know how to fix that if it's the parser. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 07:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yeah idk it's probably not worth the trouble to fix. I like learning about mediawiki but not that much Bythmusters (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

• I suggest renaming the "Tools" section for the web browser addon to something else to differentiate it from the wiki tools. I also recommend moving it to the way bottom, at least until it's ready for prime time, since it makes wiki editors have to scroll further to reach the wiki tools than previously.

• An option to hide the mini-list of recent changes and restore the single line "Recent Changes" for the original minimalist design.
  • As an addendum: The font size of said mini-list is not consistent with the font size used both throughout the sidebar and the wiki itself, making it stand out like a sore thumb.

• An option to hide the community section for those of us that refuse to ever use Discord. I'd rather have a native choice available instead of resorting to a browser addon to remove it.

(Note: Feedback is based on using Firefox v147.0.2 and the wiki skin "Vector legacy (2010)".) — Sojourna (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I’ve mentioned already that Vector legacy (2010) hasn’t been worked on yet, as most users are on Vector 2022 where these changes have been applied. The examples you listed aren’t present on the current default skin. I’d appreciate your patience while I get round to updating the legacy variant. In the meantime, I’ve resolved the issue where discussion tabs and similar tabs were hidden. JakeL (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Respectfully, I find your response confusing. What I bring up here is a separate matter from my bug report, and I posted only after first waiting a couple days and checked the default skin before-hand. I've struck out the one line since apparently it wasn't intentional like I had thought (and it had affected both legacy and default skins for the record), but otherwise my general feedback is unchanged.

I appreciate the work you do on the wiki and thank you for fixing the bugged page tabs. — Sojourna (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I understand that the feedback here is separate from the bug report, though I’m also a little confused: the default skin does not show the duplicated Tools section that the legacy version does, so I’m not sure how it would be confused with the wiki tools. It’s also already at the very bottom on the default skin. As for the other suggestions about hiding certain areas, I can look into those, but it won’t be a short-term fix. I appreciate the feedback and the kind words! JakeL (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

This image I archived for Age Verification, I selected as "without permission" since I didn't see they licensed it under CC BY 4.0 at the time - yet the site rejected both IA and archive.today, which felt like they held the copyright. How should the content be tagged? (I

On another note, if you go to the site of the reference and click "View PDF", after solving a Cloudflare "are you human" it grants access to the full pdf which has "© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)." as the footer of the first page. I wonder if that's the better way to go about archiving this reference.

Probably could have worded this better, thanks for your time. Raster (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've deleted it while we figure out copyright status of this. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

It seems to exist on the IA here. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately that snapshot only has the Abstract. I'm not the one that added the particular source, but it (may) be sufficient enough to add as an archive link for that particular source (talking about the Age Verification article in case anyone's confused), so I've gone and done so. Thanks for your input. Raster (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

This can be safely undeleted. The copyright symbol is sometimes used for partial copyright (which Creative Commons is). A more suitable symbol would have been the "(cc)" (creative commons) symbol, but it is not a dedicated unicode character like "©". The document itself says it is Creative Commons, not "all rights reserved", so I see no reason not to undelete it. JodyBruchonFan (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

On the article regarding Restaurant Brand International, I think that the source credibility issue lacks merit and should be removed, as I don't see how it could be lacking in source credibility due to (in my opinion) additional evidence backup with images and detail breakthrough of the event that would classify it as being trustworthy? Would like some thoughts and comments around this, very confused. SquidthePlummer (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Mr Pollo often does tagging like that, pinging @Mr Pollo for thoughts here. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also, incomplete is often simply used for a short article, although it doesnt specify it in the notice. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I added the incomplete template to that article for two main reasons: aspects such as the Background section can be expanded into a paragraph and a "consumer response" section as seen here would greatly benefit the article. So far it is a good article, but it can be better with my suggestions. Mr Pollo (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Now i see. I think that's fair and i agree! Thank you for clearing some things up, will definitely work on it as soon as I get the chance! SquidthePlummer (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Of course, thank you as well for your contributions! Mr Pollo (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

No problem! it should be good now when you have the time to check, please let me know of any addition problems~@Mr Pollo SquidthePlummer (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

forgot to add that regarding your previous comment on if you rule and welcome really happened, yes and I can confirm with screenshots or whatever necessary for whatever link you couldn't access. SquidthePlummer (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the notice! Keith (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

The article looks good, didn’t notice any new problems. Nice work! Mr Pollo (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I just wanted to bring up the fact that Archive.today has recently decided to DDoS a random blog using people visiting their site (without them even realising) because they disliked a page on it. This doesn't exactly make me very happy with using the service for archiving links if they willingly do things like that. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

That is concerning, afaik it's basically just run by one person so that's always a risk factor. Internet archive still has the issue of being pretty compliant when faced with DMCA takedowns, but at least it's a bit more of an institution...

Do you think we should pull it as a recommended archive site over this? does result in a bit of a single-point-of-failure with IA. Keith (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Maybe wait it out for a little while, see what Wikipedia does, and then copy them? from the looks of it there's a lot of discussion going on about it over there. Keith (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archive.is_RFC_5 Keith (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Seems like a good plan. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's been closed as deprecate archive.today. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

As the saying goes, "This is informative, and unfortunate".

My main concern with IA is its aging maintainers (which I can no longer verify on the site), but this does seem to be a more pressing issue. Will look into re-archiving pages I've done in the past. Raster (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

This seems extremely far fetched, but I'd like if the FULU Foundation themselves could make an archiving service. This sounds ridiculous but just putting it out there in case it is possible. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Pulled it from the recommended archiving lists, @Keith you can change it back if you disagree. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC) _{Edit: Was a bit hasty of me, I've reinstated it with a warning. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)}Reply

we have considered self-hosting an archivebox instance or similar, with the ability to create archive pages locked behind a confirmed wiki account. Cost wise (including the time cost of setup and maintenance), it's feasible but not ideal, so i wouldn't count on it happening unless things really go to shit with the big archivers. Keith (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

OK, actually looking through and reading the reasons given for the consensus view, I'd be happy to adopt it, and will un-undo your edits and just take it off, leaving an explanation.

the fact that the maintainer has been credibly alleged to have altered the content of sites hosted there is the biggest concern for me, as having a reliable record is kind of the whole point.

going to @Banana here to see this discussion since he's been working on an archive bot for citations. Keith (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've created Special:AbuseFilter/14 for links. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree with this. but being a US org wouldn't they also be mandated to honor the DMCA? and hence have the same issues as IA? idk much abt the hosting aspect of it but many shadow sites exist that do not at all honor the DMCA. SinexTitan (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

From what I've seen they've done malicious things like making seperate web crawlers that do the same thing to make it harder to block it and also not honoring the DMCA which from my understanding has gotten them into legal issues. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

thanks for letting us know! will definetly be using alternative means of archiving for now on! SquidthePlummer (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

OpenAI#cite_ref-5 is a Discord link. As a non user of Discord I cannot see what has been cited. people should not be required to create an account to view the source of a claim. SinexTitan (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. Ive removed it. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, can someone with good knowledge of the abuse filter code fix or tell me how to fix this? AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've fixed this and it's now working JakeL (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

This article seems less of a stub compared to Ad block Rudxain (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Unsure on this one. I don't think any mods passed by it and tagged that one, so I've tagged Ad block now. I'm leaning to de-stub it but I'm still not entirely sure. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I made my new page (unlocking technology act of 2013) on mobile, where I could not use the shortcut to make proper references according to Rossmann's guide video, so I had just included links to the sources used instead. I got back here on a computer and attempted to fix them, but I ran into a problem. I had previously added a stub notice to my article. While I did not attempt to remove the stub notice in my edits while fixing the references, I still got the message that I could not remove the notice, and it would not accept my edit. I cannot fix the article as things are. Luigi2262 (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)Reply