Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderator guidelines: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m Clean-up. |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| 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)}} | ||
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)}} | ||
: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 58: | Line 48: | ||
: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 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. 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 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: 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 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) | |||