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 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. 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

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