Consumer Rights Wiki:Moderator guidelines: Difference between revisions

← Older edit Newer edit →

VisualWikitext

@@ Line 85: / Line 85: @@
 * '''The article should be neutral and factual,''' without unneccesarily emotional language, and without coming across as an expression of personal grievances or irrelevant hypotheticals.
 * The citing of sources for opinion or commentary should present a balanced and rational view, without giving undue weight to fringe opinions.
+== Example Application of Rules ==
-== Example Application of Rules ==
 '''Case: Amazon Broke Into My Garage to deliver my parcel!'''
 # '''Inclusion Decision:'''
 #* '''Not included''': The submission describes an isolated incident caused by an employee, with no evidence of systemic policy or failure. It lacks corroborating evidence and relevance to modern consumer exploitation.
 # '''Changes Needed:'''
-#* Provide documentation (e.g., video footage, Amazon’s internal logs).
+#* Provide documentation (e.g., video footage, Amazon's internal logs).
-#* Demonstrate a pattern of similar incidents or systemic flaws in Amazon’s delivery authorization process.
+#* Demonstrate a pattern of similar incidents or systemic flaws in Amazon's delivery authorization process.
-'''Case: AppleCare Sucks, they'''
+'''Case: AppleCare Sucks'''
 # '''Inclusion Decision:'''
 #* '''Not included''': The submission lacks evidence of systemic issues and appears anecdotal. The tone is emotional and lacks verifiable claims.
 # '''Changes Needed:'''
 #* Supply receipts or documented communications showing a pattern of mishandled replacements.
-#* Tie the issue to Apple’s broader repair or replacement practices.
+#* Tie the issue to Apple's broader repair or replacement practices.
-'''Example Application:'''
-* The Samsung Fold screen issue described in the email:
-** '''Not included:''' It is based on a single user’s experience and lacks substantial evidence of a widespread issue.
-** '''Next steps:''' The issue could be revisited if covered by reputable tech outlets, documented through credible sources, or verified as a systemic problem affecting multiple users.
-==== Example Application: ====
+'''Case: Samsung Fold Screen Issue'''
+# '''Inclusion Decision:'''
+#* '''Not included''': It is based on a single user's experience and lacks substantial evidence of a widespread issue.
+# '''Changes Needed:'''
+#* Issue could be revisited if covered by reputable tech outlets.
+#* Provide documentation through credible sources or verification as a systemic problem affecting multiple users.
-===== Motorola/Lenovo Warranty Issue Submission: =====
+'''Case: Motorola/Lenovo Warranty Issue'''
+# '''Inclusion Decision:'''
+#* '''Potentially valid''' for warranty denial if consistent and systemic pattern is documented.
+#* '''Valid''' for features removal if significant functionality was removed without user consent.
+#* '''Not included''' for customer service complaints as they lack relevance to modern consumer protection.
+# '''Changes Needed:'''
+#* Provide credible evidence of multiple verified complaints.
+#* Document company policy regarding warranty denials.
+#* Demonstrate widespread impact of feature removal.
-# Denied Warranty:
+'''Case: Apple Genius Bar Repair'''
-#* '''Potentially valid''' if a consistent and systemic pattern of warranty denial is documented. Needs credible evidence (e.g., multiple verified complaints, company policy documentation).
+# '''Inclusion Decision:'''
-# Features Removed After Updates:
+#* '''Not included''': While high repair costs and repair refusal policies are documented issues, this case lacks new insights.
-#* '''Valid''' if significant functionality (e.g., Always-On Display) was removed without user consent and documented as a widespread issue.
+# '''Changes Needed:'''
-# Customer Service Quality:
+#* Provide evidence of new policies or practices beyond existing documentation.
-#* '''Not included.''' Complaints about forum moderators or customer support quality (e.g., "paid assholes by Lenovo") lack relevance to modern consumer protection.
+#* Demonstrate unique aspects of this case that add to current understanding.
+'''Case: Apple Stealing My Life-Saving Idea'''
+# '''Inclusion Decision:'''
+#* '''Not included''': The submission is based on unverified claims and involves intellectual property rather than consumer issues.
+# '''Changes Needed:'''
+#* Provide supporting evidence for claims.
+#* Demonstrate relevance to consumer exploitation rather than IP disputes.
-==== Example Application: ====
+'''Case: AppleCare Experience'''
+# '''Inclusion Decision:'''
+#* '''Not included''': Describes an isolated incident without evidence of systemic issues.
+# '''Changes Needed:'''
+#* Provide receipts and communications to verify claims.
+#* Demonstrate connection to broader issues in Apple's replacement practices.
-===== Apple Genius Bar Submission: =====
+'''Case: Apple Store Repair in Brazil'''
+# '''Inclusion Decision:'''
-# Known Issue:
+#* '''Not included''': Lacks context about device condition and evidence of Apple's role in damage.
-#* The high repair costs and refusal to perform minor component repairs are well-documented issues with Apple’s repair policies.
+# '''Changes Needed:'''
-# No New Insight:
+#* Provide documentation of device's prior condition.
-#* This specific case does not reveal a new policy, practice, or trend beyond what is already widely reported.
+#* Demonstrate connection to systemic issues rather than isolated incident.
-# Exclusion:
+#* Include verifiable evidence of Apple's involvement.
-#* Not included as a standalone page. The submission lacks new or notable information and only serves as minor confirmation of an existing issue.
-==== Example Application: ====
-===== Apple Stealing My Life-Saving Idea Submission: =====
-# Unverified Claim:
-#* The submission is based on the doctor’s anecdote with no supporting evidence provided.
-# Not a Consumer Issue:
-#* The dispute involves an intellectual property claim, which does not align with the wiki’s focus on consumer exploitation.
-# Exclusion:
-#* The submission is rejected due to lack of evidence and irrelevance to the wiki’s mission.
-==== Example Application: ====
-===== AppleCare Sucks Submission: =====
-# Isolated Incident:
-#* The submission describes an individual’s experience with replacements but does not provide evidence of a systemic issue.
-# Lack of Evidence:
-#* No receipts or communications are provided to substantiate the claims, making it hard to verify.
-# Exclusion:
-#* The submission is excluded due to its isolated nature and lack of verifiable evidence. However, if properly documented, it might be admissible as an example in a broader article about Apple’s replacement practices.
-==== Example Application: ====
-===== Apple Store Repair Submission: =====
-# Unreliable Narrator and Missing Context:
-#* The submission does not provide enough information about the phone’s prior condition (e.g., who previously opened it) or detailed evidence of Apple’s role in damaging the device.
-# Isolated Incident:
-#* The case appears to be an individual experience at one Apple Store in Brazil, without evidence of a systemic policy or trend.
-# Exclusion:
-#* The submission is excluded due to lack of verifiable evidence, potential bias in narration, and insufficient relevance to systemic issues. If better documentation or corroboration arises, it may be reconsidered.
-==== Example Application: ====
-===== Amazon Broke Into My Garage Submission: =====
-# Isolated Incident:
-#* The incident appears to involve a single Amazon driver acting without authorization, with no evidence that this reflects an unofficial company policy or systemic failure.
-# Lack of Substantiation:
-#* The submission relies on anecdotal testimony and hypothetical concerns (e.g., harm to a guard dog) without providing direct evidence or documentation (e.g., video footage, Amazon system logs).
-# Exclusion:
-#* The submission is excluded as it lacks substantial evidence and does not demonstrate systemic issues within Amazon’s policies or safeguards.