Consumer Rights Wiki

Consumer Rights Wiki:Moderator guidelines: Difference between revisions

← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
finalised the examples. page is now pretty much done, though others should review
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 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.
* 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!'''
'''Case: Amazon Broke Into My Garage to deliver my parcel!'''
A user reported that an Amazon delivery driver accessed their garage through their phone without authorization on two separate occasions to deliver packages. The incident was captured on camera, and Amazon confirmed the driver had no instructions to enter the garage. The user expressed concerns about their guard dog, and children's safety.
# '''Inclusion Decision:'''
# '''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.
#* '''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.
Line 95: Line 98:


'''Case: AppleCare Sucks'''
'''Case: AppleCare Sucks'''
User received multiple replacements for Apple Watch Series 8 through AppleCare, seeking a model matching original condition. Lost oxygen monitoring feature and received scratched replacements, spending nearly $1,300 in fees across three replacements.
# '''Inclusion Decision:'''
# '''Inclusion Decision:'''
#* '''Not included''': The submission lacks evidence of systemic issues and appears anecdotal. The tone is emotional and lacks verifiable claims.
#* '''Not included''': The submission lacks evidence of systemic issues and appears anecdotal. The tone is emotional and lacks verifiable claims.
# '''Changes Needed:'''
# '''Changes Needed:'''
#* Supply receipts or documented communications showing a pattern of mishandled replacements.
#* Supply receipts or documented communications showing a pattern of mishandled replacements.
#* Tie the issue to Apple's broader repair or replacement practices.
#* Remove aricle, and potentially use as an example when tied into wider issues with Apple's broader repair or replacement practices.


'''Case: Samsung Fold Screen Issue'''
'''Case: Samsung Fold Screen Issue'''
User reported that after updating their Fold 3 to One UI 6.1.1, they experienced screen issues including auto-rotate failures, blank screens, and sound problems. Samsung support claimed it affected 3% of users and offered only paid repairs despite the issue arising from their software update.
# '''Inclusion Decision:'''
# '''Inclusion Decision:'''
#* '''Not included''': It is based on a single user's experience and lacks substantial evidence of a widespread issue.
#* '''Potentially valid''': It is based on a single user's experience and lacks substantial evidence of a widespread issue. If evidence were gathered, and the issue was found to be legitimate by outside sources, it could be suitable for inclusion in the Wiki.
# '''Changes Needed:'''
# '''Changes Needed:'''
#* Issue could be revisited if covered by reputable tech outlets.
#* Issue could be revisited if covered by reputable tech outlets.
#* Provide documentation through credible sources or verification as a systemic problem affecting multiple users.
#* Provide documentation through credible sources as a systemic problem affecting multiple users.


'''Case: Motorola/Lenovo Warranty Issue'''
'''Case: Motorola/Lenovo Warranty Issue'''
Multiple customers report issues with Motorola phones under Lenovo ownership, including denied warranties, features removed after updates (e.g., Always On Screen), and screen problems with the Edge 30 Ultra. Users report extended service times and denied warranty claims across different countries.
# '''Inclusion Decision:'''
# '''Inclusion Decision:'''
#* '''Potentially valid''' for warranty denial if consistent and systemic pattern is documented.
#* '''Potentially valid''' for warranty denial if consistent and systemic pattern is documented.
#* '''Valid''' for features removal if significant functionality was removed without user consent.
#* '''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.
#* '''Not included''' for customer service complaints as they lack relevance to modern consumer protection, or substantial evidence of widespread problems.
# '''Changes Needed:'''
# '''Changes Needed:'''
#* Provide credible evidence of multiple verified complaints.
#* Provide credible evidence of multiple verified complaints.
Line 119: Line 125:


'''Case: Apple Genius Bar Repair'''
'''Case: Apple Genius Bar Repair'''
User's $4000 MacBook Pro had bent hinges after a small drop. Apple Genius Bar quoted $920 for full screen replacement, claiming hinges couldn't be fixed separately. Local repair shop fixed it for $200 by adjusting hinges. Apple refused to do detailed repairs or open computers for diagnosis.
# '''Inclusion Decision:'''
# '''Inclusion Decision:'''
#* '''Not included''': While high repair costs and repair refusal policies are documented issues, this case lacks new insights.
#* '''Not included''': While high repair costs and repair refusal policies are documented issues, this case lacks new insights.
Line 126: Line 133:


'''Case: Apple Stealing My Life-Saving Idea'''
'''Case: Apple Stealing My Life-Saving Idea'''
A medical doctor claims to have pitched a life-saving software idea to Apple through a contact. After a year of waiting, Apple indicated they might use the idea without cooperation.
# '''Inclusion Decision:'''
# '''Inclusion Decision:'''
#* '''Not included''': The submission is based on unverified claims and involves intellectual property rather than consumer issues.
#* '''Not included''': The submission is based on unverified claims and involves intellectual property rather than consumer issues.
Line 131: Line 139:
#* Provide supporting evidence for claims.
#* Provide supporting evidence for claims.
#* Demonstrate relevance to consumer exploitation rather than IP disputes.
#* Demonstrate relevance to consumer exploitation rather than IP disputes.
'''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.


'''Case: Apple Store Repair in Brazil'''
'''Case: Apple Store Repair in Brazil'''
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 repairs and refused refund.
# '''Inclusion Decision:'''
# '''Inclusion Decision:'''
#* '''Not included''': Lacks context about device condition and evidence of Apple's role in damage.
#* '''Not included''': Lacks context about device condition and evidence of Apple's role in damage.
Retrieved from "https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Consumer_Rights_Wiki:Moderator_guidelines"