Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderator guidelines - Revision history

Sojourna: Clean-up.

2026-04-25T03:11:26Z

Clean-up.

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:11, 25 April 2026
Line 26:		Line 26:
	#*Remove aricle, <-		#*Remove aricle, <-

	A person brought a 5-year-old iPhone 11 for battery replacement at official Apple Store in Rio. After a $170 service, both cameras stopped working. Apple blamed previous unauthorized <- unauthorised?		A person brought a 5-year-old iPhone 11 for battery replacement at official Apple Store in Rio. After a $170 service, both cameras stopped working. Apple blamed previous unauthorized <- unauthorised? {{Unsigned\|DavidBenJr\|04:21, 15 January 2025‎ (UTC)}}

	~~-- Preceding unsigned comment by~~ DavidBenJr at 04:21, 15 January 2025‎

	The spelling of “authorization” and the like depend on regional standards. Americans tend to spell it with a z, and the z spelling is actually also preferred by the Oxford English Dictionary. This is in contrast to analyze/analyse, where the OED prefers the s spelling. There is some etymological reason that I cannot be bothered to remember. [[User:Mingyee\|Mingyee]] ([[User talk:Mingyee\|talk]]) 11:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)		The spelling of “authorization” and the like depend on regional standards. Americans tend to spell it with a z, and the z spelling is actually also preferred by the Oxford English Dictionary. This is in contrast to analyze/analyse, where the OED prefers the s spelling. There is some etymological reason that I cannot be bothered to remember. [[User:Mingyee\|Mingyee]] ([[User talk:Mingyee\|talk]]) 11:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

	~~-------------~~		==Some additional typos==

	Some additional typos:

	2. The company does not have an existing page, which the artice <- article		2. The company does not have an existing page, which the artice <- article

Line 42:		Line 37:
	Aritcles <- Articles (inside categorization table)		Aritcles <- Articles (inside categorization table)

	If a deletion request is determined to be valid, <- (missing comma)		If a deletion request is determined to be valid, <- (missing comma) {{Unsigned\|JazzyPizza\|10:04, 25 April 2025‎ (UTC)}}

	~~-- Comment by JazzyPizza, 25 April 2025‎~~		:Thank you for pointing these out! and apologies for not actioning the earlier ones. I'll get everything done just now! [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 22:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

	Thank you for pointing these out! and apologies for not actioning the earlier ones. I'll get everything done just now!

	[[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 22:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

	==Question==		==Question==

	As part of these guidelines, it says this.		As part of these guidelines, it says this.
	<blockquote> If a deletion request is determined to be valid, the linked pages need to be handled and after that the page should be marked with the <code><nowiki>{{Garbage}}</nowiki></code> template and protected from edits, pending final deletion. If a talk page is present before deletion, it is best practice to keep the talk page as its contents usually explain to readers why the page was deleted.		<blockquote> If a deletion request is determined to be valid, the linked pages need to be handled and after that the page should be marked with the <code><nowiki>{{Garbage}}</nowiki></code> template and protected from edits, pending final deletion. If a talk page is present before deletion, it is best practice to keep the talk page as its contents usually explain to readers why the page was deleted.
Line 59:		Line 49:
	:thanks, have updated the text to remove reference to the garbage template [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 00:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)		:thanks, have updated the text to remove reference to the garbage template [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 00:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

	== Question about this "vague or subjective descriptions" ==		==Question about this "vague or subjective descriptions"==

	Allegations are supported by specific details rather than vague or subjective descriptions.		Allegations are supported by specific details rather than vague or subjective descriptions.

CasaRomeo: /* Question about this "vague or subjective descriptions" */ grammar correction

2026-04-07T02:11:29Z

Question about this "vague or subjective descriptions": grammar correction

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:11, 7 April 2026
Line 63:		Line 63:
	Allegations are supported by specific details rather than vague or subjective descriptions.		Allegations are supported by specific details rather than vague or subjective descriptions.

	I always try to find already written articles or evidence ~~that is repeatable~~, but sometimes this is not possible at least not with sources that ~~are aligned to~~ the ~~Guidlines~~ as written.		I always try to find already written articles or repeatable evidence, but sometimes this is not possible, at least not with sources that follow the Guidelines as written.

	I have a discussion open in the Audible section~~, on~~ of the problems there is rather subjective and more a dark pattern ~~then~~ anything else. It ~~also~~ is repeatable or ~~proveble~~, but for example not in the US or UK because of ~~Geo-blocking~~. As I use a VPN, I can check this but what do we do if you have arguments that are ~~defenetly~~ relevant ~~for~~ consumer rights~~, that~~ border these ~~"new"~~ dark ~~paterns~~ that appear nowadays?		I have a discussion open in the Audible section. One of the problems there is rather subjective and more of a dark pattern than anything else. It is repeatable or provable, but for example not in the US or UK because of geo‑blocking. I use a VPN so I can check this, but what do we do if you have arguments that are definitely relevant to consumer rights and border these “new” dark patterns that appear nowadays?

	There are ~~alot~~ of ~~these~~ consumer rights topics nowadays that only ~~get detected~~ by ~~patern~~ recognition~~, do~~ we leave them out? Do we ignore them? At some point someone will ~~make~~ verifiable ~~and~~ proven ~~datapoints out of~~ them, but ~~untill~~ then what do we do? Or rather how ~~to fomulate~~ this without ~~beeing subjectiv~~ or vague?		There are a lot of consumer rights topics nowadays that are detected only by pattern recognition. Do we leave them out? Do we ignore them? At some point someone will produce verifiable, proven data points about them, but until then what do we do? Or rather, how do we formulate this without being subjective or vague?

	As an example ~~every gamer knew~~ (~~yes~~ not factually knew) that ~~for example~~ Activision ~~has~~ a consumer unfriendly even ~~predetory Matchmaking~~ system~~, it was done for~~ engagement, ~~selling~~ skins, ~~artifically increasing~~ playtime and ~~manipulating behaviour paterns~~. Some of this for monetary gain some ~~of it~~ for player retention ~~and so on~~. This only ~~came out~~ because they ~~where~~ partly forced to ~~open up some of their~~ internal ~~documentations via the Gambling~~ accusations ~~from~~ the EU, US and ~~so on~~. It still ~~is only~~ anecdotal ~~evidence,~~ therefore ~~inhearently~~ not verifiable, at least I ~~did~~ not ~~check up on~~ it ~~again~~. This started 2012 and ~~goes on~~ to this day. ~~Pls dont~~ make me search every claim I made right now, I ~~only~~ used this example ~~because its a good way~~ to ~~showcase~~ how long ~~"subjective patern recognition"~~ can be ~~right but~~ ignored ~~because~~ of ~~missing~~ evidence. ~~Dont~~ nail me on this but I ~~thing~~ it ~~came out~~ 2019.		As an example: many gamers believed (not factually knew) that Activision had a consumer unfriendly, even predatory, matchmaking system designed to increase engagement, sell skins, artificially increase playtime, and manipulate behavior patterns. Some of this was for monetary gain, some for player retention. This only became public because they were partly forced to release internal documentation following gambling related accusations in the EU, US, and elsewhere. It is still largely anecdotal and therefore not inherently verifiable at least I have not rechecked it. This started in 2012 and continues to this day. Please don’t make me search for every claim I made right now, I used this example to show how long “subjective pattern recognition” can be correct yet ignored for lack of evidence. Don’t nail me on this, but I think it surfaced in 2019.

	As ~~of how~~ I understand the Guidelines such ~~problems for~~ consumer rights would have to be deleted or are not allowed, right? I ~~just~~ ask because consumer rights ~~for lets say "new media" is very easyly~~ miscategorized as subjective. I think ~~alot~~ of these ~~behavoiurs~~ will not be ~~covered by~~ dark ~~paterns~~ in the future. ~~Same goes for goverment~~ recognition in form of law or ~~customer~~ protection. I ~~pretty much~~ would have to reference several different ~~country cosumer~~ protection laws or ~~breaks~~ to even start a topic like the example (I ~~dont intent~~ to ~~as said~~ only an example). Would the topic be deleted beforehand, if I ~~would take~~ to ~~long for this~~? I know ~~there~~ are a lot of questions but the guidelines feel a ~~littlebit~~ pressuring if that would be the case. Thanks for input on this. [[User:CasaRomeo\|CasaRomeo]] ([[User talk:CasaRomeo\|talk]]) 02:04, 7 April 2026 (UTC)		As I understand the Guidelines, such consumer rights issues would have to be deleted or are not allowed, right? I ask because consumer rights concerns about “new media” are easily miscategorized as subjective. I think many of these behaviors will not be labeled as dark patterns in the future. The same applies to government recognition in the form of law or consumer protection. I would likely have to reference several different countries consumer protection laws or violations to even start a topic like the example (I do not intend to, this was only an example). Would the topic be deleted beforehand if I took too long to provide sources? I know these are a lot of questions, but the guidelines feel a bit pressuring if that would be the case. Thanks for any input.

			Edit:
			I run this text thru a correction tool for better readability and correction of my grammar.

			[[User:CasaRomeo\|CasaRomeo]] ([[User talk:CasaRomeo\|talk]]) 02:04, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

CasaRomeo: /* Question about this "vague or subjective descriptions" */ new section

2026-04-07T02:04:08Z

Question about this "vague or subjective descriptions": new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:04, 7 April 2026
Line 58:		Line 58:

	:thanks, have updated the text to remove reference to the garbage template [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 00:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)		:thanks, have updated the text to remove reference to the garbage template [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 00:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

			== Question about this "vague or subjective descriptions" ==

			Allegations are supported by specific details rather than vague or subjective descriptions.

			I always try to find already written articles or evidence that is repeatable, but sometimes this is not possible at least not with sources that are aligned to the Guidlines as written.

			I have a discussion open in the Audible section, on of the problems there is rather subjective and more a dark pattern then anything else. It also is repeatable or proveble, but for example not in the US or UK because of Geo-blocking. As I use a VPN, I can check this but what do we do if you have arguments that are defenetly relevant for consumer rights, that border these "new" dark paterns that appear nowadays?

			There are alot of these consumer rights topics nowadays that only get detected by patern recognition, do we leave them out? Do we ignore them? At some point someone will make verifiable and proven datapoints out of them, but untill then what do we do? Or rather how to fomulate this without beeing subjectiv or vague?

			As an example every gamer knew (yes not factually knew) that for example Activision has a consumer unfriendly even predetory Matchmaking system, it was done for engagement, selling skins, artifically increasing playtime and manipulating behaviour paterns. Some of this for monetary gain some of it for player retention and so on. This only came out because they where partly forced to open up some of their internal documentations via the Gambling accusations from the EU, US and so on. It still is only anecdotal evidence, therefore inhearently not verifiable, at least I did not check up on it again. This started 2012 and goes on to this day. Pls dont make me search every claim I made right now, I only used this example because its a good way to showcase how long "subjective patern recognition" can be right but ignored because of missing evidence. Dont nail me on this but I thing it came out 2019.

			As of how I understand the Guidelines such problems for consumer rights would have to be deleted or are not allowed, right? I just ask because consumer rights for lets say "new media" is very easyly miscategorized as subjective. I think alot of these behavoiurs will not be covered by dark paterns in the future. Same goes for goverment recognition in form of law or customer protection. I pretty much would have to reference several different country cosumer protection laws or breaks to even start a topic like the example (I dont intent to as said only an example). Would the topic be deleted beforehand, if I would take to long for this? I know there are a lot of questions but the guidelines feel a littlebit pressuring if that would be the case. Thanks for input on this. [[User:CasaRomeo\|CasaRomeo]] ([[User talk:CasaRomeo\|talk]]) 02:04, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Keith at 00:51, 20 November 2025

2025-11-20T00:51:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:51, 20 November 2025
Line 57:		Line 57:
	I have never seen the garbage template used, except for one time when I thought it was an alternative to deletionrequest. Is this still done? [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|talk]]) 07:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)		I have never seen the garbage template used, except for one time when I thought it was an alternative to deletionrequest. Is this still done? [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|talk]]) 07:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

	:~~yep~~, have updated the text to remove reference to the garbage template [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 00:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)		:thanks, have updated the text to remove reference to the garbage template [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 00:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Keith: /* Question */ Reply

2025-11-20T00:51:33Z

Question: Reply

AnotherConsumerRightsPerson: /* Question */ new section

2025-11-19T07:23:04Z

Question: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:23, 19 November 2025
Line 49:		Line 49:

	[[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 22:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)		[[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 22:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

			== Question ==

			As part of these guidelines, it says this.
			<blockquote> If a deletion request is determined to be valid, the linked pages need to be handled and after that the page should be marked with the <code><nowiki>{{Garbage}}</nowiki></code> template and protected from edits, pending final deletion. If a talk page is present before deletion, it is best practice to keep the talk page as its contents usually explain to readers why the page was deleted.
			</blockquote>
			I have never seen the garbage template used, except for one time when I thought it was an alternative to deletionrequest. Is this still done? [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|talk]]) 07:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Keith at 22:39, 25 April 2025

2025-04-25T22:39:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:39, 25 April 2025
Line 45:		Line 45:

	-- Comment by JazzyPizza, 25 April 2025‎		-- Comment by JazzyPizza, 25 April 2025‎

			Thank you for pointing these out! and apologies for not actioning the earlier ones. I'll get everything done just now!

			[[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 22:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

JazzyPizza: /* Just a few typos */

2025-04-25T17:15:39Z

Just a few typos

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:15, 25 April 2025
Line 31:		Line 31:

	The spelling of “authorization” and the like depend on regional standards. Americans tend to spell it with a z, and the z spelling is actually also preferred by the Oxford English Dictionary. This is in contrast to analyze/analyse, where the OED prefers the s spelling. There is some etymological reason that I cannot be bothered to remember. [[User:Mingyee\|Mingyee]] ([[User talk:Mingyee\|talk]]) 11:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)		The spelling of “authorization” and the like depend on regional standards. Americans tend to spell it with a z, and the z spelling is actually also preferred by the Oxford English Dictionary. This is in contrast to analyze/analyse, where the OED prefers the s spelling. There is some etymological reason that I cannot be bothered to remember. [[User:Mingyee\|Mingyee]] ([[User talk:Mingyee\|talk]]) 11:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			-------------

			Some additional typos:

			2. The company does not have an existing page, which the artice <- article

			This should only lead to deletion if it's <- it is

			Aritcles <- Articles (inside categorization table)

			If a deletion request is determined to be valid, <- (missing comma)

			-- Comment by JazzyPizza, 25 April 2025‎

JazzyPizza at 17:06, 25 April 2025

2025-04-25T17:06:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:06, 25 April 2025
Line 31:		Line 31:

	The spelling of “authorization” and the like depend on regional standards. Americans tend to spell it with a z, and the z spelling is actually also preferred by the Oxford English Dictionary. This is in contrast to analyze/analyse, where the OED prefers the s spelling. There is some etymological reason that I cannot be bothered to remember. [[User:Mingyee\|Mingyee]] ([[User talk:Mingyee\|talk]]) 11:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)		The spelling of “authorization” and the like depend on regional standards. Americans tend to spell it with a z, and the z spelling is actually also preferred by the Oxford English Dictionary. This is in contrast to analyze/analyse, where the OED prefers the s spelling. There is some etymological reason that I cannot be bothered to remember. [[User:Mingyee\|Mingyee]] ([[User talk:Mingyee\|talk]]) 11:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

	~~------------------------~~

	~~Some additional typos:~~

	~~2. The company does not have an existing page, which the artice <- article~~

	~~This should only lead to deletion if it's <- it is~~

	~~Aritcles <- Articles (inside categorization table)~~

	~~If a deletion request is determined to be valid, <- (missing comma)~~

JazzyPizza at 17:04, 25 April 2025

2025-04-25T17:04:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:04, 25 April 2025
Line 31:		Line 31:

	The spelling of “authorization” and the like depend on regional standards. Americans tend to spell it with a z, and the z spelling is actually also preferred by the Oxford English Dictionary. This is in contrast to analyze/analyse, where the OED prefers the s spelling. There is some etymological reason that I cannot be bothered to remember. [[User:Mingyee\|Mingyee]] ([[User talk:Mingyee\|talk]]) 11:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)		The spelling of “authorization” and the like depend on regional standards. Americans tend to spell it with a z, and the z spelling is actually also preferred by the Oxford English Dictionary. This is in contrast to analyze/analyse, where the OED prefers the s spelling. There is some etymological reason that I cannot be bothered to remember. [[User:Mingyee\|Mingyee]] ([[User talk:Mingyee\|talk]]) 11:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			------------------------

			Some additional typos:

			2. The company does not have an existing page, which the artice <- article

			This should only lead to deletion if it's <- it is

			Aritcles <- Articles (inside categorization table)

			If a deletion request is determined to be valid, <- (missing comma)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:51, 20 November 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Just a few typos ==		==Just a few typos==

	#* Note: it is permissible for an incident to be positive, as long as it is both noteable <-notable		#*Note: it is permissible for an incident to be positive, as long as it is both noteable <-notable

	# The company does not have an existing page, which the artice <- article		#The company does not have an existing page, which the artice <- article

	#* The level of managerial independance <- independence		#*The level of managerial independance <- independence

	#* The level of managerial independance - how independant <- independent		#*The level of managerial independance - how independant <- independent

	* Stub (for an article which is simply underdeveloped: the content currentlyu <-		*Stub (for an article which is simply underdeveloped: the content currentlyu <-

	lead to deletion if it's in massive violation of the No Original Reaearch <-		lead to deletion if it's in massive violation of the No Original Reaearch <-
Line 15:		Line 15:
	Basically a limbo to put articles in where their merits can be discussed before a descision <- decision		Basically a limbo to put articles in where their merits can be discussed before a descision <- decision

	* Demonstrate (through evidence, and assertion by sources, not thorugh <- through		*Demonstrate (through evidence, and assertion by sources, not thorugh <- through

	* If the Incident affected only a small hanfdful <-		*If the Incident affected only a small hanfdful <-

	* '''The article should be neutral and factual,''' without unneccesarily -< unnecessarily		*'''The article should be neutral and factual,''' without unneccesarily -< unnecessarily

	A user reported that an Amazon delivery driver accessed their garage through their phone without authorization		A user reported that an Amazon delivery driver accessed their garage through their phone without authorization
	#* Demonstrate a pattern of similar incidents or systemic flaws in Amazon's delivery authorization <- authorisation?		#*Demonstrate a pattern of similar incidents or systemic flaws in Amazon's delivery authorization <- authorisation?

	#* Remove aricle, <-		#*Remove aricle, <-

	A person brought a 5-year-old iPhone 11 for battery replacement at official Apple Store in Rio. After a $170 service, both cameras stopped working. Apple blamed previous unauthorized <- unauthorised?		A person brought a 5-year-old iPhone 11 for battery replacement at official Apple Store in Rio. After a $170 service, both cameras stopped working. Apple blamed previous unauthorized <- unauthorised?
Line 50:		Line 50:
	[[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 22:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)		[[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 22:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

	== Question ==		==Question==

	As part of these guidelines, it says this.		As part of these guidelines, it says this.
Line 56:		Line 56:
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>
	I have never seen the garbage template used, except for one time when I thought it was an alternative to deletionrequest. Is this still done? [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|talk]]) 07:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)		I have never seen the garbage template used, except for one time when I thought it was an alternative to deletionrequest. Is this still done? [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|talk]]) 07:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

			:yep, have updated the text to remove reference to the garbage template [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 00:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)