Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Previous discussions
	1 2 3 4 5 6

← Older edit

VisualWikitext

Latest revision as of 16:14, 18 March 2026

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

Open tasks

How will the CRW approach April Fool's day?

Latest comment: 5 March10 comments4 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

Appeal Request

Latest comment: 12 March2 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply

Who gets superconfirmed first?

Latest comment: 15 March5 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

add "Quasi-Wanted" Special page

Latest comment: 15 March1 comment1 person in discussion

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)Reply

Appeal request for Wikipedia article

Latest comment: 18 March2 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 *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 [[Consumer_Rights_Wiki_talk:Bugs|Bugs noticeboard]] instead.
+*Do not report technical issues here, please use the [[Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Bugs|Bugs noticeboard]] instead.
 <div style="padding: 0.25em 0; text-align: center; font-size: 150%; border-radius: 3px; font-weight: bold">[[Special:NewSection/Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard|Start a new section]]</div>
@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 *[[Special:NewPages]]
+==How will the CRW approach April Fool's day?==
-==Should CRW be indexed by search engines?==
+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). [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 19:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
-Hello, I am writing here as I found a setting in the visual editor if you click those three lines and then ‘advanced settings’, which asks if you want a page to be indexed by search engines. I am sure that this setting is set to default, which means no on all articles (unless this was covered before and i do not know about it). I think this setting could be useful sometimes, but not always, to make the wiki easier to find and not just “I watch Louis Rossman so I know about the CRW!” and also make others learn about this in general. You can probably make a discussion about this if this wasn’t talked about before. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 19:27, 23 August 2025 (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 [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
+:Honestly, I don't think we will be doing one this year. [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 07:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
+::Was there one last year? I don't think there was. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
+:::There definitely wasn't.  [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 08:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
+::::I've deleted the template. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 15:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
+::::::we could prob use the trollface as the wiki logo at least  [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 04:21, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
-:@[[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]], I did a search (on Google) for "Microsoft consumer rights wiki" and this wiki did come up in the 3rd-4th result. So I am pretty sure this wiki is indexed by search engines. I'll forward this to developers just in case. '''''[[User:JackFromWisconsin|📎 JackFromWisconsin]]''''' ([[User_talk:JackFromWisconsin|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/JackFromWisconsin|contribs]]) 02:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
-::@[[User:JackFromWisconsin|JackFromWisconsin]] I searched this on Ecosia and I got the same thing too. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 05:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
-:It appears that only our former wiki's domain, wiki.Rossmanngroup.com, is what is currently indexed on search engines. Tested this on DuckDuckGo. Query: "Nintendo Consumer Rights Wiki" [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 12:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
-::@[[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] good point. I originally thought it wasn’t indexed because when i went to a newer incident article and tried searching it up, I couldn’t see it come up. I thought the default setting defaulted incident articles to not indexed after i realised other articles were indexed. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 13:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
-==Remove eff digital fingerprint tool from consumer privacy tools.==
+==Appeal Request==
-These tools that supposedly tell you your fingerprint are unreliable and are reccomended against in the privacyguides.org forum. They are also not listed on privacyguides.org for this and many other reasons. I think we should try not to clutter the tools section and rely on strong resources  like privacyguides.org for their suggestions. [[User:Dentist5735|Dentist5735]] ([[User talk:Dentist5735|talk]]) 00:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
+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.
-:Also a link to the BBB? Seriously? https://money.cnn.com/2015/09/30/news/better-business-bureau/index.html [[User:Dentist5735|Dentist5735]] ([[User talk:Dentist5735|talk]]) 00:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
+Cheers! [[User:Scholar Silas|Scholar Silas]] ([[User talk:Scholar Silas|talk]]) 05:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
-:@[[User:Dentist5735|Dentist5735]] I agree with this -- less clutter is best. I'll wait for others to chime in before making a change however. '''''[[User:JackFromWisconsin|📎 JackFromWisconsin]]''''' ([[User_talk:JackFromWisconsin|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/JackFromWisconsin|contribs]]) 14:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
-::Happy to remove the link to the digital fingerprinting tool as I'd tend to agree that it's handled better elsewhere. I think BBB is still probably worth linking because, while a bit crap at times, it's still a major avenue for reporting consumer issues. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 12:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
-==Make CRW: Redirects for pages starting with Consumer Rights Wiki:==
+:{{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. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
-Hello. This time I am here as I hate having to write Consumer Rights Wiki: every time I need a page in that section of the wiki. Can we please have redirects to these pages where instead of Consumer Rights Wiki: we can type CRW: sort of like how Wikipedia pages have Wikipedia: and WP: for redirects? Thanks. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 11:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
+==Who gets superconfirmed first?==
-:I can forward that to the developers. Also, you can do Project: as kind of a shortcut already. '''''[[User:JackFromWisconsin|📎 JackFromWisconsin]]''''' ([[User_talk:JackFromWisconsin|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/JackFromWisconsin|contribs]]) 13:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
+Hello, starting this discussion since the new superconfirmed usergroup has been added and we need to figure out who to give it to first. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 22:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
-::From what I can tell, it's something that needs to be done on the bakend, so have passed it onto the backend folks. thanks! [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 13:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
-:::You can do name space redirects, but it’s generally easier for the tech side of people to do it. It’s kind of Janky to do it just through a manual redirect so if we’re gonna do it, it’s better for you to pass it to the tech folks. [[User:Atsumari|Atsumari]] ([[User talk:Atsumari|talk]]) 18:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
-==Deletion request eRUC NZ 24/7 GPS car surveillance==
+:Just tested it on [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsAlt]]; why can't it undelete pages? [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 22:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
+::I shall fix! [[User:JakeL|JakeL]] ([[User talk:JakeL|talk]]) 00:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
+:::Also @[[User:JakeL|JakeL]] is semiprotection mow allowing superconfirmed users only as well as admins and not just normal confirmed users? [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk: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 [[User:JakeL|JakeL]] ([[User talk:JakeL|talk]]) 16:11, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
-Hey guys, this is a serious issue. If the format or section is wrong I'm open to input on what to change or where to repost. Please don't just tear it down and bury this. It's a big deal much worse than most consumer issues.
+==add "Quasi-Wanted" Special page==
-[[NZ eRUC all-cars 24/7 GPS Surveillance proposal|https://consumerrights.wiki/NZ_eRUC_all-cars_24/7_GPS_Surveillance_proposal]] [[User:FredNZ|FredNZ]] ([[User talk:FredNZ|talk]]) 09:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
+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)
-:Hi @[[User:FredNZ|FredNZ]], read through the [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Style guide|style guide]] and the [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Article types#Incidents|guide on incident pages]]. If you have any more questions that those pages don't answer, please ask. Thanks for making this article and helping to improve it. '''''[[User:JackFromWisconsin|📎 JackFromWisconsin]]''''' ([[User_talk:JackFromWisconsin|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/JackFromWisconsin|contribs]]) 13:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
+Apologies in advance if this is not a place for feature-requests [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 06:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
-==DCS is an unnecessary disambiguation page==
+==Appeal request for Wikipedia article==
-At [[DCS (disambiguation)]] there is a link to dCS audio ,which doesn’t have an article about it, and Deep Cycle Systems. This means it is useless and isn’t needed. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
+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.
-:If you wanted to create some of those other pages, even if it’s just basic information, you can do so that way the disambiguation page serves more of a purpose. If you feel we need to remove the page please let us know and we can look into that and tag it properly so that people know to create articles for the pages under it or it will be deleted. [[User:Atsumari|Atsumari]] ([[User talk:Atsumari|talk]]) 18:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
+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.".
-::@[[User:Atsumari|Atsumari]] I think looking at it there’s a high chance there’ll eventually be one for it in the future. I was just asking if it is relevant but from your post i think it’s fine for it to stay. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 18:17, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
-==Inclusion guidelines==
+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.".
-It appears the Inclusion Guidelines article hasn't been updated since May. Since this is a major FAQ for a lot of contributors, as well as important guidelines for what this wiki does (and doesn't) cover, it seems pretty crucial to update this article. It would also help greatly to add it to the Create a Page, How To Help, and other contributor articles. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 12:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
+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. [[User:DiffChar|DiffChar]] ([[User talk:DiffChar|talk]]) 23:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
-:I will certainly make sure to get the other stuff members in on this, It is rather concerning that we haven't updated it for hot minute... [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 12:52, 28 August 2025 (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. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
-==Protect Template:Main Page/Featured==
-[[Template:Main Page/Featured]] should be protected to allow only administrators. Autoconfirmed/confirmed users being able to edit this seems like a recipe for disaster, especially as only admins need to edit it. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 14:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
-:Thanks for letting us know. Should now be fixed. '''''[[User:JackFromWisconsin|📎 JackFromWisconsin]]''''' ([[User_talk:JackFromWisconsin|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/JackFromWisconsin|contribs]]) 14:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
-==Appeal to Piefed Page Deletion==
-Someone has marked the Piefed Page for deletion. What are some improvements that could be made to the article to potentially prevent this outcome?
-[[Piefed]] [[User:Fierce|Fierce]] ([[User talk:Fierce|talk]]) 05:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
-:The easier to deal with issue mentioned in the deletion notice surrounds the fact that the article is quite short, and is not in a standard format for a product article. This is fairly manageable, as it just needs to be reformatted into something more similar to other product articles on the wiki.
-:The second issue is trickier: piefed's relevance to consumer protection, and general notability, needs to be justified. This is, I suspect, the main reason why it's being considered for deletion, as the other issue would only really justify a stub notice. We do not intend to have a page for every open source solution out there, and generally the only ones which have a page are very large and relevant ones like GrapheneOS (and even then there's some debate as to whether they fit on the Wiki). I'm not sure that Piefed has really has any notable consumer-related incidents to speak of, and for the page to stay I think you'd need to clearly lay out a case (ideally on its talk page, feel free to reply here or ping me if you do this) for the page's notability. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 10:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
-=="Despite"==
-It seems the word "despite" may be interpreted as inflammatory language. It's much easier to avoid it in the text/body of an article, but with an incident article, how can it be described when the incident in question is blatantly contradictory? i.e. "GoPro advertises waterproof cameras despite design flaw."
-My intent is to title the incident as specific and concise as possible, which, something like "GoPro camera waterproof issue" does not do. Same with "Signal data collection" which I had re-titled to "Signal's data collection despite privacy-focused advertising." [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 18:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
-:Having a look at the article mentioned, I think that it would be an appropriate title if fully supported in the text (the whole article is a bit dubious as it appears to be original research in the sense that the submitting user has drawn inferences from the product spec and warranty language, and there's no evidence of it being picked up by any media outlets or discussed by anyone other than the submitting user. There's also no evidence of an actual design flaw existing - we don't know that the camera is not fine down to 10m, only that the warranty does not fully cover it.)
-:Answering the main topic though, if we assume that the article text did fully support the title, I think such a title would be fine. It's certainly a substantial improvement upon where it was before, and like you I can't think of another good way of wording it which is not needlessly unclear or wordy. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 09:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
-==dark mode on a template's broken==
-[[Template:Quote_box]] been a while since it's been broken on dark mode and I reported it on it's discussion page but it's still yet to be fixed on dark mode. In my experiences the problem's rampant on both mobile and desktop. The background of the template stays white but as it's dark mode the text turns white. Which makes the text invisible. [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 18:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
-:I do see what you mean when I access it on mobile as I live in dark mode. It becomes a white box. I’ll wait for other staff to confirm this, but I believe we need to pass this on to the infrastructure team so a tech can look at it. This might also just be a situation where it’s a known bug with the software, but we will cross the bridge if we get to it. - [[User:Atsumari|Atsumari]] ([[User talk:Atsumari|talk]]) 18:19, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
-==Remove the Help: redirects==
-There are some help: redirects to articles that were previously moved, like [[Help:Electron]]. Can we finally remove these? [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 08:52, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
-:Sure. Deleted the two redirects to mainspace articles. '''''[[User:JackFromWisconsin|📎 JackFromWisconsin]]''''' ([[User_talk:JackFromWisconsin|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/JackFromWisconsin|contribs]]) 16:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
-==Sandbox is underutilised==
-The sandbox for this doesn’t show up anywhere on the interface and is never used. We either utilise it and put it on the interface or do nothing and it just sits there. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:18, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
-==Fixed the Sengled article page==
-I overhauled the article [[Sengled]] a few days ago. Please remove the Sloppy AI tag and change the Incomplete tag to StubNotice (as I believe it still needs more work, but I lack the familiarity to follow through on it). — [[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]] ([[User talk:Sojourna|talk]]) 22:59, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
-:@[[User:Sojourna|Sojourna]], Thanks for fixing that article. I'm keeping incomplete over stub since it's long enough to be useful, but just not complete. '''''[[User:JackFromWisconsin|📎 JackFromWisconsin]]''''' ([[User_talk:JackFromWisconsin|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/JackFromWisconsin|contribs]]) 23:09, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
-==Protect Category:Wiki Root==
-I think [[:Category:Wiki root]] and other major categories should be fully protected as confirmed/autoconfirmed users can still move it. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 08:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
-:Thank you for posting this. If you find other categories that need to be protected, please let us know. I just went ahead and locked the main page for that category. - [[User:Atsumari|Atsumari]] ([[User talk:Atsumari|talk]]) 02:33, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
-==Appeal Artificial intelligence deletion==
-Somebody proposed deletion of the article for the reason: "Does not pertain directly to consumer rights or violations."
-Further, in the discussion it was noted that the article is wordy.
-I agree that the article needs significant revision.  It has more detail than needed on some areas (e.g. web scraping), and totally misses other important areas.
-I think it might be easier to improve the existing article, rather than having to start one from scratch.
-I see AI more as a theme/background article.  AI is so pervasive now, and affects people in so many ways, that I think it makes sense to have at least one article on it.
-Things that I think such an article should cover include:
-Data centers - environmental impacts, community impacts, energy demand and subsidy by electricity and water rate payers, and how many of these agreements are made in secret, even in nominally democratic/open governmental systems.  In the US data centers are often located in marginalized communities, where people are not as organized to protect their community .  (This is not exclusively an AI thing might be worth a separate article about data centers in general, covering crypto mining operations, etc.)
-Control of information - Use of LLM in place of search is decimating independent information sources (taking away advertising revenue, taking away views).
-Inaccuracy and inappropriate use of LLM.  "Hallucinations"  People not understanding what an LLM is and assuming they are more capable than they are.  LLM make a poor substitute for human written product reviews.  (Inaccurate, praises whatever the user wants - even products that don't exist.)
-Intellectual property - piracy in training data (using stolen data), use of output.
-Privacy and security - data poisoning, ease of subverting guardrails, gathering data for training, revealing prompts, law enforcement review of chatbot prompts and outputs, etc.
-Concerns about possible effects on users - AI psychosis, etc.
-Labor concerns - conditions of labelers/piece workers.
-Liability - LLM are often inaccurate, what happens when the AI harms people (libel, suicide, etc.)
-In short, I think there is a lot about LLMs and AI that is important for consumers.  I hope the above gives some sense of why.  However, I only just started here, and will be careful to read the policies and examples in more detail before editing articles.
-I have sources for a bunch of this, will be adding them to the article talk page as time permits.  Thank you. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 18:33, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
-:Thanks for the heads up. Issue has been addressed in the Discussion page of the article. The notice has been removed [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 21:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
-:I'd caution here that I think quite a few of the practices listed probably wouldn't be within scope.
-:Certainly the following:
-:- Labour concerns
-:- Intellectual property
-:- Control of information/search blocking
-:- Environmental/social impact of data centres
-:Feel like they're out-of-scope as they concern relationships not relevant to the wiki, between businesses and other businesses/creatives, businesses and their employees/workers, as well as between businesses and the wider environment. To prevent scope creep, we want to keep the wiki focused on the consumer-rights issues.
-:And these ones feel like 'edge cases' for relevancy - I'd appreciate some wider input:
-:- Possible effects and harm on users from improper function (I'd argue that in a lot of cases there's not much to be done on this front, but I think if insufficient steps are taken to warn and safeguard users, then they could be mentioned. Certainly things like character.ai and similar do feel very exploitative, but I'm not sure I'd bundle the normal assistants under the same umbrella there)
-:- Liability (I'd say this can be relevant, but the emphasis should be placed on situations where people create systems using AI that take decisions that really shouldn't be left to AI, and harm consumers that way. This is always going to be a fuzzy line, and I'd expect extensive discussion over it - it feels analogous to the question of 'at what point does someone getting injured by their own chainsaw go from being manufacturer negligence, to user error?')
-:More broadly, I think that 'AI' probably isn't the best title for an article, as it's such a wide field. AI technically includes almost anything done by a computer. If we go by dictionary definitions, the computer opponents in old strategy games would count as 'AI'. LLMs, Generative image/video models, and traditional ML stuff like image recognition are all distinct enough, and are related to different issues, that it feels like they'd be better separated into their own articles, rather than bundled.
-:I'll also put this on the discussion page of the article, and probably best to move further conversation there [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 09:54, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
-::Very fair argument. I was worried that the original article would need to be completely scrapped and redone to be even remotely relevant, but didn't wanna be heavy-handed with it. But it sounds like that's still what might be needed. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 13:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
-==Louis Rossman and other channels video directory==
-Hello, the [[Louis Rossmann - Video Directory]] article and [[Other Channels - Video Directory]] do seem completely irrelevant now but nothing has been said about this from what I can see, so I just want to double check that it is completely unused, and maybe show it is unused as there's nothing on it saying it's unused. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 08:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
-:Thanks for bringing this up. I do believe that the staff team were actually discussing this, but I don’t recall. I think you need to wait for Keith or someone more informed on this. I just wanted to make sure that you knew staff saw this. - [[User:Atsumari|Atsumari]] ([[User talk:Atsumari|talk]]) 08:49, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
-::I'm pretty sure they were phased out a while ago anyway by the [[Article suggestions]] page, but just wanted to check. Thanks! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 08:54, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
-:::IMO I think it could be fine to have them and similar pages (I was thinking of adding one for PIRG's historical consumer-relevant reports, as they seem like a decent collection), but if it's obvious from their edit log that they're not being used, then individual pages could be scrapped. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 09:58, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
-==Please whitelist Creative Commons==
-Have pinged JodyBruchonFan here, who put this on the main page talk page, where i copy pasted this from.
-I don't know where to ask for this (not Discord for reasons below). Could you please whitelist creativecommons.org? It is clearly not spam.
-I quit using Discord the second they demanded my phone number. See also:
-*https://cadence.moe/blog/2020-06-06-why-you-shouldnt-trust-discord
-*https://wowana.me/blog/guess-im-done-with-discord.xht
-[[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 14:32, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
-:That's fair enough - we're aiming to gradually move all of the moderation infrastructure onto the wiki from the discord (with this page being the start of that process) so we do want to make not using the discord fully viable.
-:In what context were you having issues with creativecommons? Were you trying to put a link on your user page? If that's the case, then it should work for you now, as I've confirmed you (which also means no more captchas). I'll make a note to whitelist the site though, as it's certainly worth doing.
-:@[[User:JodyBruchonFan|JodyBruchonFan]] [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 10:02, 8 September 2025 (UTC)