Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderator guidelines

Just a few typos

1. • Note: it is permissible for an incident to be positive, as long as it is both noteable <-notable

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

1. • The level of managerial independance <- independence

1. • The level of managerial independance - how independant <- independent

• 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 <-

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

• If the Incident affected only a small hanfdful <-

• 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

1. • Demonstrate a pattern of similar incidents or systemic flaws in Amazon's delivery authorization <- authorisation?

1. • 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidBenJr (talk • contribs) 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. 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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JazzyPizza (talk • contribs) 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! Keith (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Question

As part of these guidelines, it says this.

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 {{Garbage}} 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.

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? AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

thanks, have updated the text to remove reference to the garbage template 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.

CasaRomeo (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2026 (UTC)