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 7 8

Open tasks

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

Archive everything

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
• "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

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)

@CrookKilla, from what I've seen, the 'doxxing' only ended up going as far as saying the owner is Russian, which isn't any info at all considering that the owner refuses to let content get removed, including some that can doxx people themselves.

Archive.today is definitely the best, and while it can be taken down at any time due to only having ONE owner, that is very unlikely, and for all we know the IA could suddenly shutdown.

I agree that there wasn't much archive tampering, but since this site is owned ny pne person, they can do what they want with the archives and can very easily tamper more.

Also, we don't want to be directing our users to a site that DDOSes a blogger's website.

(Noting that I'm the one who told this issue to Keith) AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for being the first to engage. From what I've seen, the doxxing involved disclosing what were believed to be the full names of people behind the site. A GDPR complaint was filed.

What does "including some that can doxx people themselves" mean? Garbled? ("ny pne" too.)

Who says Brewster Kale would have a harder time tampering with the archives? I understand the DDoS is disabled (and prior to that, fetches were modified to be so limited as to be merely symbolic.)

"Archive.today is definitely the best" - for archives that have the persistence required for a Consumer Rights Wiki? Possibly. Certainly better than IA's. CrookKilla (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Terms of Service info to share...

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.

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)

Templates and Bots

Hope we can import better templates and get some bots working. Any plans for this?

e.g. {{Archives }} is not going to scale and doesn't support search. CrookKilla (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

We had a bot that ran for a while before (Bananabot) but it hasn't been run since February, and I'm sure if anyone wants to make a bot it'd get approved!

Templates could definitely be improved, especially if we give more of them Lua support. Sadly, since I don't think any of us know Lua, we're currently relying on Wikipedia for our few Lua modules. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Userify JS article

I guess this is an appeal to the deletion notice on this article

I propose to move it to my space (even without redirects), please. To preserve revisions/history, and to have it as a sort of "archive" so that it can be easily restored in the future Rudxain (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done. (User:Rudxain/JavaScript) AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Better Logo instructions

I want to replace the text "Upload an image of the company's logo" that appears when making a new company page, e.g. at https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Special:FormEdit/Company/Instacart&preload=Template%3ACompanyPreload should say something like

Upload an image of the company's logo or, if it already has a logo on Wikipedia / Wikimedia Commons, you can just provide the name of the logo file, thanks to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/InstantCommons.

Longer instructions: For a company, do they have a wikipedia page? e.g. for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instacart, we can mouse over the logo and see "Instacart_logo_and_wordmark.svg" at the end of the URL. We can just paste that ("Instacart_logo_and_wordmark.svg") into the field on the page.

Speaking of the form, why ask for a description and not use it? It's put into the Description= field, but the contents of that field are not displayed on the page. Is this a bug in {{CompanyCargo }} or intentional? CrookKilla (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Request for neutral review of a userspace draft (COI disclosed): Sony India BRAVIA warranty denial and legal notice

Requesting neutral review of a userspace draft before any move to mainspace: User:Laxmimerit/Sony India remote warranty denial and legal notice to BRAVIA owner.

COI Disclosure: I am the consumer in the dispute the draft describes, so under the conflict of interest policy I am not moving it myself.

Why I think it meets the inclusion guideline: the subject is a practice, not a single service complaint. Sony India decided warranty eligibility from technician photographs reviewed remotely on WhatsApp, with no test or written report, and then served a legal notice threatening a ₹5 crore claim on the consumer for publishing the correspondence while a statutory consumer complaint was pending. As of 3 September 2026 the story has been reported by six outlets (Times Now, News18, Digit, LatestLY, Sportskeeda, Gizbot), all cited in the draft, and other owners have described the same photo-based "external damage" findings in the Reddit thread cited.

The draft uses plain-text reference addresses because the abuse filter blocks external links in userspace. If an editor moves it, I will supply the same references as Cite web templates with url= parameters, or convert them on request. Happy to make any changes asked for on the draft's talk page. Laxmimerit (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Laxmimerit!

I've taken a look at the article, and I think it looks good! there are a sufficient number of external sources to meet notability and merit a movement to mainspace, so I'm happy to make the move. Keith (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

i've also confirmed your account, so you shouldn't have any trouble with user pages in future. Keith (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much Laxmimerit (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Appeal: Incomplete on Sony BRAVIA pre-Android Linux TVs (2011-2012) — citations replaced with manufacturer documents and Internet Archive snapshots

Requesting review of the {{Incomplete }} notice on Sony BRAVIA pre-Android Linux TVs (2011-2012), following a rewrite of its sourcing.

COI disclosure: I own two of the televisions described and I maintain the research repository the article previously cited. Because of that I am not removing the notice myself, and I have deliberately demoted my own repository to a methodology reference only — it is cited once, for how to reproduce a check, and never as the evidence for a claim.

Why the notice was fair. The notice asks for verifiable, credible evidence and names forum posts and personal blogs as what to avoid. As published, the article's three citations were my own GitHub repository, a GitHub discussion I opened, and a Serviio forum thread. That is precisely the pattern the notice describes, and it was a correct call.

What has changed. Every load-bearing claim is now cited to one of three source types:

• The manufacturer's own documents, at manufacturer URLs. Sony's application catalogs are still served today, and they are the evidence: the European catalog for this chassis generation offers eight applications, the Brazilian catalog offers two. The Sony-supplied manifest for one withheld application carries localized names in thirty languages including Portuguese; the Sony-supplied dictionary for another covers thirty-one languages with the Portuguese entries complete, down to "Rio de Janeiro" appearing in its timezone city list. Sony's own Source Code Distribution Service states the GPL obligation in Sony's words.
• Internet Archive snapshots of Sony's own pages. A October 2014 snapshot of Sony's source-code service lists this television generation by model number, including both sets I own; a July 2015 snapshot of the corresponding download page lists the twenty-three source packages that were offered. Those download links return HTTP 404 on Sony's live server today, while the same service currently lists 798 other KDL-series models.
• Independent third-party review. The technical finding behind the 3D incident was submitted to the HandBrake project, which reviewed it and merged a patch implementing the fix. That is an independent project accepting the diagnosis on its merits, which seemed a better citation than my own write-up of it.

One incident is still weakly sourced, and the article says so. The January 2022 firmware-removal incident rests on owner observation. I searched the Internet Archive for snapshots of Sony support pages for these models and found none. Rather than leave that implicit I have marked it inline in the article. If the preference is to remove that incident until it can be independently sourced, I will do that on request — I would rather the article be shorter and fully sourced than complete and partly unsupported.

On archived links. I saw the "Archive everything" discussion above. The Sony URLs cited live were not previously in the Wayback Machine, so I have submitted them and added archive-url= alongside each. This matters beyond citation quality: the article's strongest evidence currently sits on servers the manufacturer could withdraw at any time, exactly as it withdrew the source-code downloads.

Why I think it meets the inclusion guideline. The subject is a practice rather than a single consumer's complaint. Applications that were finished, localized and shipped to the manufacturer's servers were never offered in some markets, and the sets were then abandoned in that state; the source code the licence requires was published and later withdrawn while the same service continues for newer models. Both affect an entire television generation — one service manual alone covers five screen sizes — not the two sets I happen to own.

Happy to make any changes asked for, here or on the article's talk page. Capitain jack (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

'''Follow-up, 18 September 2026 — the work has continued and the one gap the appeal named is now closed.''' Recording this here so the thread stays current. I am not asking for a faster decision; the notice can stay until a moderator has time.

'''The weakly-sourced incident is resolved, and it also corrected an overclaim of mine.''' The appeal flagged the January 2022 firmware-removal incident as resting on owner observation. Sony's own Brazilian support site now settles it: in place of a download it serves a notice headed "Encerramento do software de atualização da TV", with a model checker that returns my KDL-46HX855 as affected and names its latest software as PKG2.120BRA. I have archived that page. Reading it also showed my original wording was too strong: the page routes an affected owner to a support contact rather than leaving no path at all, so I have rewritten the incident to what the page actually supports — no self-service download remains, and recovery depends on a discretionary support request or on third-party archives. I would rather the claim be narrower and exactly true.

'''Sony's own dated end-of-service notices, for five separate services, each naming both sets.''' Since the appeal I have found and archived Sony Brasil's per-service shutdown announcements, one article per service, each listing KDL-46EX725 and KDL-46HX855 by model number among roughly a hundred and thirty sets:

• Facebook application, withdrawn from 27 April 2015 (Sony article S1Q2489).
• Skype, ended 30 June 2017 after prior withdrawal in June 2016 (S1Q2505).
• Video & TV SideView second-screen companion, TV functions ended 24 May 2017 (S1Q2517).
• Artist Information and TrackID music recognition, declared no longer functional (S1Q2522).
• Twitter / TV Tweet, removed March 2018 after a Twitter login-API change (S1Q2540).

These are corporate communications on the manufacturer's own domain, dated, model-specific, and now permanently held at the Internet Archive.

'''Independent reporting, and the same notices in other regions.''' Three of the shutdowns also have independent coverage, which I have cited: TechCrunch on the Skype-for-TV shutdown, 9to5Google on the Twitter wind-down, and Android Police on TrackID (where Sony itself recommended installing Shazam on a phone, rather than restoring the feature on the set). The same Sony notices are published in English by Sony Canada and Sony Latin America under the same article numbers, which confirms these were global communications rather than a local quirk.

'''One incident added, from Sony's own manual.''' I have added an incident describing that the panel's documented 3D processing, including the 2D-to-3D "Simulated 3D" mode, was never available to the television's own internet and application content, although the same panel switches to 3D from other inputs. It is cited to Sony's own i-Manual for the set, which documents the feature with no input or source restriction on the Simulated 3D mode, and to reproducible owner testing for the observed behaviour. No claim is made about intent.

'''A note for the Foundation, not a legal claim.''' The two sets are Brazilian-market units and the notices above are Sony Brasil's. I have added a short "Consumer-rights context (Brazil)" section that states the applicable provisions of the Código de Defesa do Consumidor against the sourced facts and draws no legal conclusion. It is flagged in the article as not legal advice and as a matter for the Foundation and Brazilian counsel to assess, not something the article decides.

'''Still ongoing.''' I am continuing to archive the manufacturer's own support pages as I find them, so more citations of this kind may follow. Happy to change, trim or restructure anything, here or on the article's talk page. If the preference is still to keep the notice in place while this settles, that is fine by me. Capitain jack (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Apologies for the long wait. — Sojourna (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

No worries, you guys are warriors! Thank you! Capitain Jack (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Request: Incomplete removal from Lenovo Mirage AR after product-skeleton restructure

The {{Incomplete }} tag on Lenovo Mirage AR reads "Article must follow proper incident page format, or appended to relevant company or product page". I have restructured the article to the product skeleton from {{ProductPreload }} (lead, consumer-impact summary, incidents, see also, references) and addressed the content gaps:

• The 2022 retirement of both companion apps (Star Wars: Jedi Challenges and Marvel Dimension of Heroes) is now an Incidents subsection, cited to the Star Wars Support and Disney Games and Apps Support retirement notices, both held at the Internet Archive (2022 and 2024 snapshots).
• The lead is cited for the 2017 launch, bundle contents and $199 preorder price (CNET, archived).
• The consumer-impact summary now explains the mechanism (smartphone-dependent headset, no onboard processing) rather than asserting conclusions, and quotes the no-refunds position from the retirement notices.
• Mechanical fixes: the floating uncited reference and bare <references /> were replaced with proper {{Reflist }} citations; the empty Website and multi-value Company cargo fields were cleaned up.

Two questions: (1) can the Incomplete tag come off, or is more work wanted first? (2) If the preference is instead to append this material to a company or product page and redirect, I can do that — but since the headset is the shared hardware across two retired app ecosystems, a standalone product page seemed the better home. Happy to adjust either way. — WTFelvemage (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done. — Sojourna (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Request: SloppyAI removal from KPN mandatory SMS authentication

The {{SloppyAI }} tag on KPN mandatory SMS authentication appears justified by the previous state of the article: raw markdown (bold markers, parenthetical bare links) pasted directly into wikitext. I have rewritten the article (rev 69338) and would appreciate a mod's eye on whether the tag can come off:

• All markdown converted to proper wikitext; all three sources converted to {{Cite web }} with archive links and translations of the Dutch titles.
• The previous text dated the rollout to "early 2024"; the cited Security.NL article (and KPN's own community FAQ) places the phased rollout in July 2025, mandatory for all customers from 5 August 2025. The IncidentCargo StartDate is corrected accordingly.
• The empty "Lawsuit" section (which stated no lawsuit exists) was removed.
• New, verified content: KPN added an authenticator-app option on 23 April 2026, so SMS is no longer the only method; the article now reflects both the original SMS-only situation and this update.

Sources: Security.NL, KPN's official community FAQ thread, and a KPN community thread with a moderator reply — all archived at the Internet Archive. WTFelvemage (talk) 23:54, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done. — Sojourna (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Request: Incomplete removal from Scribd after tone and citation overhaul

The {{Incomplete }} tag on Scribd predates a rewrite I just completed (rev 69340). Requesting a mod's judgment on whether it can come off:

• The article's only incident was written in editorial voice ("classic predatory scheme", accusatory image captions) with zero inline citations for its claims. It now states the same facts neutrally — payment details required at trial sign-up, temporary card verification charge, automatic monthly renewal — each cited to Scribd's own help-center articles (How to subscribe, Pending transactions during your free trial, Downloading documents, Upload benefits), all archived at the Internet Archive.
• The lead is now cited (About us, archived), the malformed citation (archive link outside the template, wrong parameter) is fixed, and the empty CompanyCargo Description is filled.
• Image captions rewritten to describe rather than accuse; both screenshots retained.
• Added a See also section linking {{Dark pattern }} and {{Click-to-cancel }}.

One editorial question: the previous text claimed the upload-for-download alternative is "written in small text and placed at the bottom of the page" to imply intent. I dropped that characterization since I can only verify the program's existence, not its visual prominence — but if the community considers it relevant, it could be restored with a citation. WTFelvemage (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done. On its own, I'm not sure it's worthwhile to include that bit unless it could be established as part of an overall pattern of behavior. The links in the see also section are fine in the meanwhile. — Sojourna (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2026 (UTC)