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)