Please note that all submissions to the site are subject to the wiki's licence, CC 4.0 BY-SA, as found here

Moderator Guidelines: Difference between revisions

From Consumer Action Taskforce
Jump to navigationJump to search
Newer edit →
VisualWikitext
aggregated user input, mission statement, and asked chatgpt to write this. this is a wireframe of rules for what is included, and a checklist for moderators to follow.
 
m add prelim category
(13 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:
----
----


=== 1. Determining Inclusion in the Wiki ===
=== 1. Determining Inclusion in the Wiki [mostly done but indentation needs fixing, will do that when I get back] ===


==== A. General Criteria for Inclusion: ====
==== A. General Criteria for Inclusion (Non-Theme articles): ====
A submission is appropriate for the wiki if:
An article submission is appropriate for the wiki if all of the following can be demonstrated:
 
* The article fits into one of the proscribed article types, or has a very compelling reason for not conforming to one of these article types
* '''If the article is an incident page,''' it describes an issue which fits into one of the following categories:


# '''Systemic Nature:'''
# '''Systemic Nature:'''
#* The incident demonstrates a pattern of systemic abuse, negligence, or policy that aligns with modern consumer exploitation (e.g., revocation of ownership, barriers to repair, forced obsolescence, data misuse).
#* The incident demonstrates a pattern of systemic abuse, negligence, or policy that aligns with modern consumer exploitation (e.g., revocation of ownership, barriers to repair, forced obsolescence, data misuse).
#* It is not an isolated or anecdotal incident caused by individual employee misconduct unless it reflects a broader systemic issue.
#* It is not an isolated or anecdotal incident caused by individual employee misconduct unless it reflects a broader systemic issue.
#* Note: it is permissible for an incident to be positive, as long as it is both noteable and relevant. A positive incident, however, should not simply be the rolling back of a policy which resulted in a negative incident - it must be an actively positive incident (e.g. a mass refunding of customers in a scenario where the company was not responsible for the failing, and had no obligation to repair the failing)
# '''Relevance to Modern Consumer Exploitation:'''
# '''Relevance to Modern Consumer Exploitation:'''
#* The case directly relates to new forms of exploitation outlined in the mission statement (e.g., policies impacting ownership rights, privacy, or repairability).
#* The case directly relates to new forms of exploitation outlined in the mission statement (e.g., policies impacting ownership rights, privacy, or repairability).
#* It does not belong on platforms like Yelp or small claims court (e.g., general customer service issues, personal disputes).
#* It does not belong on platforms like Yelp (e.g., general customer service issues, personal disputes).
 
* '''If the article is a company page:'''
 
# The company is connected to at least one incident which meets the guidelines above
# The company does not have an existing page, which the artice should be merged with (e.g. if the company has changed names)
# Note: If a company is a subsidiary of a larger company, whether it has its own page should be determined by an assessment of a number of factors, including:
#* The size of the parent company (i.e. is the parent too large to *not* be split into its subsidiaries? Could the activity of all subsidiaries be easily covered within the parent's page?)
#* The level of managerial independance - how independant is the management of the subsidiary from the parent company, and from other subsidiaries?
* '''If the article is a person page:'''
 
# The article is compliant with the [[Living Persons Policy|Living Persons policy]]. If article is non-compliant, then delete content, or the entire article, as appropriate.
# The subject of the article is a person with major decision-making influence over one or more incident pages, at least one of which must be of high quality (properly sourced, so on and so forth)
 
* '''For all pages:'''
 
# '''Verifiable Evidence:'''
# '''Verifiable Evidence:'''
#* The submission includes documentation or credible sources (e.g., receipts, communications, policy documents, public reports) that substantiate the claim.
#* In order for an article to be appropriate for submission, it must be verifiable. This does NOT mean that it must be properly sourced and fully compliant with wiki policy from its very creation. It instead means that it must be reasonably possible to source evidence which could support its claims. If the article relates to an issue which has not been documented by any acceptable source, then the article is unverifiable, and should be removed.
#* Allegations are supported by specific details rather than vague or subjective descriptions.
#* Allegations are supported by specific details rather than vague or subjective descriptions.
# '''Tone and Presentation:'''
# '''Tone and Presentation:'''
#* The submission avoids inflammatory language, emotional appeals, or promotional content.
#* The submission avoids inflammatory language, emotional appeals, or promotional content. Any article which is obviously fake or appears more akin to an angry yelp review than something which belongs on this Wiki should be marked for removal, or rapidly edited to a point where it does not violate this rule.
#* It is written in a factual, neutral tone with clear focus on the issue.
==== B. General Criteria for Inclusion (Theme articles): ====


==== B. Automatic Exclusion Criteria: ====
* The article must describe a theme which is relevant to Consumer Protection (new or old).
* The article must not be about a theme which is already present in the Wiki under a different name. In the case where two articles cover the same theme, they should either be merged, or the worse (as decided by admins or by a talk page discussion) of the two should be deleted.
 
==== C. Automatic Exclusion Criteria: ====
'''A submission should be rejected if:'''
'''A submission should be rejected if:'''


* It describes an isolated incident with no evidence of systemic relevance.
* It describes an isolated incident with no evidence of systemic relevance.
* It is based on unverifiable claims or relies solely on anecdotal evidence.
* It is based on ''unverifiable'' claims or relies solely on anecdotal evidence.
* It lacks a clear connection to modern consumer exploitation as defined in the mission statement.
* The issue concerns employee rights, labor disputes, or government misconduct unrelated to consumer protection regulation or enforcement. '''This is a wiki about consumer protection, not about general corporate maleficence. If the article does not relate to the interaction between the provider of a product or service, and the consumer of that product or service, then it does not belong here!'''
* The issue concerns employee rights, labor disputes, or government misconduct unrelated to consumer protection regulation or enforcement.


----
----


=== 2. Identifying Changes Needed for Inclusion ===
=== 2. Identifying Articles in Need of Flags (Stubs and beyond) [WIP] ===
These are guidelines for the implementation of the Wiki's content policies and editorial guidelines.


==== A. Evidence Requirements: ====
==== A. Available Tags: [note: revisit once these are finalised] ====
For a submission to qualify:
Articles which are substantially non-compliant with Wiki rules can be marked with the tags described below. The purposes of such flags are twofold: to warn the reader of a potentially low-quality article, and to bring such articles to the attention of admins and other editors, who may improve or remove the article.


# '''Substantiate Claims:'''
* Stub (for an article which is simply underdeveloped: the content currentlyu within it does not justify its existence, but there is nothing wrong in concept with such an article existing)
#* Provide clear documentation (e.g., receipts, photos, communications, repair logs) or credible reporting from reputable sources.
* Needs additional verification (for an article that might be basically fine, but is dangerously under-cited, or the citations are very sus. Should only lead to deletion if it's in massive violation of the No Original Reaearch policy, and no good sources exist with which to fix it)
#* Corroborate patterns or systemic relevance through multiple examples or reports.
* Questionable Relevance (for an article that is on the edge of not being relevant, and an editor feels falls foul of the inclusion criteria above. Basically a limbo to put articles in where their merits can be discussed before a descision is made on their deletion)
# '''Clarify Context:'''
#* Specify details that establish a connection to systemic company policies or failures (e.g., was this behavior authorized or enabled by the company?).
#* Explain how the incident fits into the broader framework of modern consumer exploitation.


==== B. Alignment with Mission: ====
==== B. Evidence Requirements: ====
To make the submission relevant:
A good article, not in need of marking, should '''substantiate its claims.'''


# '''Tie to Systemic Issues:'''
* Utilise sources in line with [[Wiki Content Policies#Verifiability|the Wiki's verifiability policy]].
#* Demonstrate how the incident reflects deliberate corporate practices rather than isolated errors or rogue employee actions.
* Corroborate patterns or systemic relevance through multiple examples or reports
#* Connect the issue to themes like ownership revocation, barriers to repair, or privacy violations.
# '''Focus on Broader Impact:'''
#* Show evidence of a pattern or trend affecting multiple consumers rather than an individual case.
#* Avoid local, one-off incidents unless they reveal systemic failures.


==== C. Rewriting for Tone and Presentation: ====
==== C. Alignment with Mission: ====
To ensure suitability for the wiki:
A good article, not in need of marking, will make it clear how it relates to broader issues of consumer protection:


# '''Neutral and Factual:'''
* Demonstrate (through evidence, and assertion by sources, not thorugh direct accusation in the Wiki's voice) how the incident reflects deliberate corporate practices rather than isolated errors or rogue employee actions.
#* Remove emotional language, personal grievances, or irrelevant hypotheticals.
* Directly link to the theme articles describing the relevant practices.
#* Focus on presenting facts with citations and avoiding subjective commentary.
# '''Condense and Organize:'''
#* Break down issues into specific claims with clear supporting evidence.


----
* If the Incident affected only a small hanfdful of consumers, demonstrate that the systems which enabled it have relevance to a wider consumer base.
 
==== D. Tone and Presentation: ====
A good article, not in need of marking, will be written in accordance with the Wiki's implementation of [[Wiki Content Policies|NPOV (Neutral Point-Of-View):]]
 
* '''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 ===


==== Case: Amazon Broke Into My Garage ====
== Example Application of Rules ==


'''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.
# '''Changes Needed:'''
# '''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 ====


'''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'''
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:'''
#* '''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:'''
#* Issue could be revisited if covered by reputable tech outlets.
#* Provide documentation through credible sources as a systemic problem affecting multiple users.


=== Final Checklist for Moderators ===
'''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:'''
#* '''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, or substantial evidence of widespread problems.
# '''Changes Needed:'''
#* Provide credible evidence of multiple verified complaints.
#* Document company policy regarding warranty denials.
#* Demonstrate widespread impact of feature removal.


# '''Is this incident tied to systemic company practices or policies?'''
'''Case: Apple Genius Bar Repair'''
# '''Does the submission relate to modern consumer exploitation?'''
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.
# '''Is there sufficient evidence to support the claims?'''
# '''Inclusion Decision:'''
# '''Does the tone align with the wiki’s standards of neutrality and professionalism?'''
#* '''Not included''': While high repair costs and repair refusal policies are documented issues, this case lacks new insights.
# '''Could the submission fit into a larger article about a systemic issue?'''
# '''Changes Needed:'''
#* Provide evidence of new policies or practices beyond existing documentation.
#* Demonstrate unique aspects of this case that add to current understanding.


By following these rules and checklist, moderators can make objective, consistent decisions and help contributors refine their submissions to align with the wiki’s mission.
'''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:'''
#* '''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.


= Moderator guidelines =
'''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.
=== Moderator Action Plans ===
# '''Inclusion Decision:'''
This consolidated action plan provides a step-by-step guide for moderators to objectively determine whether a submission should be included in the wiki. Follow these steps to evaluate each submission:
#* '''Not included''': Lacks context about device condition and evidence of Apple's role in damage.
----
# '''Changes Needed:'''
 
#* Provide documentation of device's prior condition.
==== 1. Assess Systemic Relevance ====
#* Demonstrate connection to systemic issues rather than isolated incident.
 
#* Include verifiable evidence of Apple's involvement.
* '''Ask:''' Does the submission highlight a systemic issue or a broader pattern of modern consumer exploitation (e.g., revocation of ownership, privacy violations, barriers to repair, forced obsolescence)?
* Reject If:
** The incident is an isolated or anecdotal occurrence with no evidence of systemic relevance.
** The issue relates to personal disputes, local business misconduct, or rogue employee actions without ties to company policy or systemic failure.
 
----
 
==== 2. Verify Evidence ====
 
* Ask:  Does the submission provide credible, verifiable evidence to support the claims?
** Examples of acceptable evidence:
*** Receipts, repair logs, or communications with the company.
*** Video footage or images corroborating the incident.
*** Credible reports from reputable sources or multiple corroborating testimonies.
* Reject If:
** The submission lacks evidence or relies solely on personal anecdotes, hearsay, or unverifiable claims.
 
----
 
==== 3. Evaluate Noteability ====
 
* Ask:  Does the submission provide unique or substantial insights into systemic issues already documented in the wiki?
** Include If:
*** The submission adds new information or specific examples to a known problem.
*** It demonstrates a broader trend, policy, or emerging issue that aligns with the wiki's mission.
** Reject If:
*** The submission only confirms a widely recognized issue without offering new insights or significant value.
 
----
 
==== 4. Check Alignment With Mission ====
 
* Ask:  Does the submission directly relate to modern consumer exploitation as defined in the mission statement?
** Include If:
*** The issue demonstrates systemic abuses enabled by technology, complex legal mechanisms, or corporate policies that undermine consumer rights.
** Reject If:
*** The incident belongs in a Yelp review or small claims court (e.g., poor customer service, local disputes, minor grievances).
*** The focus is on employee rights, labor disputes, or government misconduct unrelated to consumer protection regulation.
 
----
 
==== 5. Confirm Tone and Presentation ====
 
* Ask:  Does the submission maintain a factual, neutral tone that aligns with the wiki’s standards?
** Include If:
*** The submission avoids inflammatory language, personal grievances, and speculative hypotheticals.
*** It is concise, well-organized, and clearly focuses on the issue.
** Reject If:
*** The tone is overly emotional, combative, or promotional.
 
----
 
==== 6. Request Additional Information (If Needed) ====
 
* Ask:  Does the submission have potential but lack critical details or evidence?
** Action:
*** Request the submitter provide additional evidence, such as receipts, documentation, or corroborating reports.
*** Clarify missing context or connections to systemic practices.
 
----
 
==== 7. Consider Integration Into Broader Issues ====
 
* Ask:  Does the submission fit into a larger article about a systemic issue already in the wiki?
** Include As Part Of Another Page If:
*** The incident is a minor example of a larger issue but offers specific, verifiable details that enhance understanding.
** Reject If:
*** The submission does not provide sufficient value even as a supporting example.
 
----
 
=== Final Checklist for Moderators ===
 
# Does the submission highlight systemic company practices or policies?
# Does it relate to modern consumer exploitation as defined in the mission statement?
# Is there sufficient, verifiable evidence to support the claims?
# Does it provide unique or substantial value to the wiki?
# Is the tone factual, neutral, and aligned with the wiki’s standards?
# Could the submission fit into a larger article about a broader issue?
# Are there missing details that the submitter could provide to strengthen the case?
 
----By consistently applying this action plan, moderators can ensure submissions meet the wiki’s standards, maintaining its focus on systemic, well-documented consumer exploitation while rejecting irrelevant or unsupported claims.
 
== Test cases for creating rules ==
 
=== Case 1 ===
 
==== Rule for Unverified or Anecdotal Reports: ====
 
* '''Criteria for Exclusion:'''
** Reports based solely on personal experience, without evidence of systemic impact or corroboration from multiple independent, reliable sources, are not to be included.
** Community posts or discussions without further investigation by reputable sources are insufficient for inclusion.
* '''Reasoning:'''
** The wiki focuses on '''systemic consumer abuses''', not isolated incidents. For an issue to be included, it must demonstrate clear evidence of a '''widespread pattern''' affecting multiple users.
** Relying on anecdotal reports risks the credibility of the wiki and deviates from its mission to provide factual, well-documented information.
* '''Moderator Action:'''
** If an issue has potential (e.g., multiple similar complaints), flag it for '''monitoring and further investigation'''. Inclusion can be reconsidered once reputable sources or systemic patterns emerge.
* '''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.
 
----This rule ensures that moderators have a clear and objective basis to exclude unverified reports while leaving room for reconsideration if stronger evidence arises. It aligns with the mission to document systemic consumer exploitation, not anecdotal frustrations.
 
=== Case 2 ===
 
==== Rule for Hyper-Local or Non-Systemic Issues: ====
 
* '''Criteria for Exclusion:'''
** Cases involving '''individual contractors, local businesses, or isolated incidents of poor service''' are not to be included unless they demonstrate a '''systemic pattern of abuse''' or highlight a practice that is directly relevant to modern consumer protection (e.g., revocation of ownership, privacy violations, or anti-repair practices).
** Issues limited to a specific individual or region, such as bad contractors or dishonest local businesses, are better suited for local consumer protection agencies, review platforms (e.g., Yelp, Google), or small claims court.
* '''Reasoning:'''
** The wiki’s purpose is to address '''modern systemic consumer exploitation''', not localized or anecdotal issues. Including hyper-local matters would dilute the focus and value of the repository.
** As noted in the mission statement, these cases lack the broader relevance required for inclusion and are better addressed through alternative channels like local reviews or regulatory bodies.
* '''Moderator Action:'''
** Reject cases that:
*** Focus on an individual or small business without a broader, systemic component.
*** Do not involve mechanisms like legal loopholes, deliberate opacity, or exploitation through technology.
** Redirect users to appropriate resources (e.g., local consumer protection agencies or review platforms).
* '''Example Application:'''
** Eugene Harrington case (linked video):
*** '''Not included:''' This is an example of a dishonest contractor operating at a local level, with no evidence of systemic relevance or practices tied to modern consumer exploitation.
*** '''Alternative action:''' Suggest filing complaints with local consumer protection agencies or posting reviews to alert other potential customers.
 
----This rule gives moderators a concrete framework to handle such cases objectively and aligns with the mission to focus on broader, systemic issues that reflect the new landscape of consumer exploitation.
 
=== Case 3 ===
 
==== Rule for Exclusion of Government and Employment Disputes: ====
 
* '''Criteria for Exclusion:'''
** Cases involving  government actions or disputes  are excluded unless:
*** The government activity directly pertains to '''consumer protection regulation''' or the '''enforcement of regulation''' aimed at protecting consumers from corporate abuse.
*** The issue specifically involves '''modern consumer exploitation''' (e.g., enabling corporate practices like forced obsolescence or data misuse).
** Cases related to '''employee rights or labor disputes''' are excluded entirely, as the wiki is focused on consumer rights, not employment issues.
* '''Reasoning:'''
** The wiki’s mission is to document '''consumer exploitation by corporations''', not broader government misconduct or labor issues.
** Including cases like government fraud or taxation disputes would dilute the focus and misrepresent the purpose of the repository.
* '''Moderator Action:'''
** Reject cases involving:
*** General government fraud, tax disputes, or mismanagement unrelated to consumer protection.
*** Employee rights violations or labor disputes, even if they involve corporate practices.
** Redirect users to appropriate channels, such as local legal aid, government oversight agencies, or advocacy groups for these specific issues.
* '''Example Application:'''
** The Texas Tax Office problem:
*** '''Not included:''' This case involves alleged government misconduct unrelated to corporate consumer exploitation or regulatory enforcement.
*** '''Alternative action:''' Recommend legal aid organizations or state-specific resources for property tax disputes.
** Hypothetical case of government enforcing anti-repair laws:
*** '''Included:''' If a government entity actively enforces laws that restrict consumers’ ability to repair devices, this would qualify as it directly affects consumer rights and aligns with modern consumer protection themes.
 
=== Case 4 ===
 
==== Rule for Submissions with Allegations of Consumer Exploitation: ====
 
# '''Criteria for Inclusion:'''
#* Allegations must be:
#** '''Specific:''' Clearly articulated grievances with identifiable and verifiable claims (e.g., "warranty denied for Motorola Edge 30 Ultra due to green lines after an update" rather than general statements like "customers get screwed").
#** Supported by Evidence:  Demonstrable through reputable sources, such as:
#*** Journalistic reporting from credible outlets.
#*** A pattern of complaints substantiated by independently verifiable documentation (not just forum anecdotes).
#*** Publicly available company policies or communications that support the claim.
# '''Criteria for Exclusion:'''
#* '''Vague or Broad Claims:''' Submissions that are "all over the place" or fail to present specific, actionable grievances.
#* '''Unsupported Allegations:''' Complaints based entirely on forum posts or anecdotal evidence without further substantiation.
#* '''Unrelated to Modern Consumer Exploitation:''' Grievances about customer service quality, forum moderation, or minor feature changes that do not rise to the level of systemic consumer abuse.
# '''Breakdown of Relevant Issues (If Verified):'''
#* Denied Warranty:
#** Include if a systemic pattern is proven (e.g., a consistent and deliberate policy of denying warranty claims across regions).
#* Features Removed After Updates:
#** Include if the feature removal is significant and part of a broader trend of diminishing product functionality through updates.
#** Exclude if the issue is minor, such as changes to aesthetic or trivial features, or subjective complaints (e.g., "the game character I liked was nerfed").
#* Customer Service Failures:
#** Include only if there is significant evidence that the company has deliberately engineered poor customer service to prevent claims (e.g., health insurance-style intentional delays or barriers).
#** Exclude general complaints about poor support or unhelpful forum moderators.
# '''Tone and Format:'''
#* Submissions must avoid inflammatory language and accusations without basis (e.g., "paid assholes by Lenovo").
#* Moderators should reject submissions that include excessive venting or are written in a "Yelp-like" tone, focusing instead on factual, neutral reporting.
 
----
 
==== Moderator Action Plan: ====
 
# Verify Specificity:
#* Ask: What is the clear grievance being presented? Is it specific and tied to a systemic issue, or is it a vague general complaint?
# Request Supporting Evidence:
#* If the claim has potential but lacks documentation, flag it for follow-up or request additional information from the submitter.
# Break Issues into Relevant Categories:
#* Split broader submissions into separate incidents if multiple distinct issues are raised (e.g., warranty denial, feature removal).
# Reject if Exclusion Criteria Apply:
#* Submissions focusing solely on customer service tone or forum moderation should be rejected.
 
----
 
==== Example Application: ====
 
===== Motorola/Lenovo Warranty Issue Submission: =====
 
# Denied Warranty:
#* '''Potentially valid''' if a consistent and systemic pattern of warranty denial is documented. Needs credible evidence (e.g., multiple verified complaints, company policy documentation).
# Features Removed After Updates:
#* '''Valid''' if significant functionality (e.g., Always-On Display) was removed without user consent and documented as a widespread issue.
# Customer Service Quality:
#* '''Not included.''' Complaints about forum moderators or customer support quality (e.g., "paid assholes by Lenovo") lack relevance to modern consumer protection.
 
----By structuring the rule this way, moderators can objectively assess whether submissions align with the wiki’s purpose, ensuring only well-documented, systemic issues make it through while providing a clear path for submitters to refine their cases if necessary.
 
=== Case 4 ===
 
==== Rule for Submissions Highlighting Known Practices: ====
 
# '''Criteria for Inclusion:'''
#* Submissions may only be included if they:
#** Provide '''new information''' about a company’s practices that significantly adds to public understanding of the issue.
#** Highlight a '''specific incident''' that demonstrates an emerging trend or unexplored aspect of a broader problem.
#* Submissions related to '''well-known and documented practices''' must bring substantial additional value (e.g., new evidence, data, or systemic changes).
# '''Criteria for Exclusion:'''
#* Submissions recounting '''commonplace examples''' of already well-documented corporate behavior (e.g., Apple’s high repair costs or refusal to repair components) will not be included.
#* Submissions that do not provide broader systemic insight beyond an individual anecdote are not suitable, even if they confirm an existing issue.
# '''Integration into Existing Content:'''
#* If the incident reinforces a '''widely recognized issue''', it may be referenced or cited as part of a larger page (e.g., "Apple's repair policies"), but only if it provides unique or corroborative evidence.
# '''Tone and Presentation:'''
#* Submissions must avoid unnecessary editorializing (e.g., "Apple are bastards"), focusing instead on factual descriptions of the issue and its implications.
 
----
 
==== Moderator Action Plan: ====
 
# Assess Contribution to Understanding:
#* Ask: Does this submission reveal anything new about the company’s practices, or is it a redundant example of a known issue?
# Check Relevance for Existing Pages:
#* If the issue fits into a broader, well-documented systemic practice, determine whether the submission adds sufficient new detail or evidence to be cited.
# Reject If Insufficiently Notable:
#* Submissions that merely confirm an established problem without adding meaningful context or evidence should be rejected.
 
----
 
==== Example Application: ====
 
===== Apple Genius Bar Submission: =====
 
# Known Issue:
#* The high repair costs and refusal to perform minor component repairs are well-documented issues with Apple’s repair policies.
# No New Insight:
#* This specific case does not reveal a new policy, practice, or trend beyond what is already widely reported.
# Exclusion:
#* Not included as a standalone page. The submission lacks new or notable information and only serves as minor confirmation of an existing issue.
 
----By emphasizing the need for new insights or systemic relevance, this rule ensures the wiki remains focused on providing valuable and unique information, rather than becoming cluttered with redundant anecdotes. Moderators can also use this rule to guide users toward refining their submissions to better align with the mission.
 
=== Case 5 ===
 
==== Rule for Submissions Involving Intellectual Property (IP) or Idea Theft: ====
 
# '''Criteria for Inclusion:'''
#* Submissions related to IP theft or idea disputes may only be included if they:
#** Provide '''clear, verifiable evidence''' of the company’s alleged misconduct (e.g., documentation of the idea submission, subsequent use by the company without credit or compensation, and relevant communications).
#** Demonstrate a '''systemic issue''' that aligns with the wiki's focus on modern consumer exploitation (e.g., patterns of corporations exploiting small inventors or disregarding intellectual property rights to suppress competition).
# '''Criteria for Exclusion:'''
#* Submissions are excluded if they:
#** Are based solely on unverified claims or personal anecdotes without supporting evidence.
#** Do not involve consumer exploitation or practices directly related to ownership, privacy, or repair rights.
#** Focus on moral arguments (e.g., “not acting on a life-saving idea is immoral”) rather than systemic abuse or actionable misconduct.
#* The wiki is not a platform for personal disputes, promotional efforts, or unverified accusations against corporations.
# '''Moderator Guidance:'''
#* Evaluate whether the submission contributes to understanding '''modern systemic exploitation''' (e.g., if Apple or other corporations have a documented history of exploiting inventors or IP holders).
#* Encourage submitters to provide supporting evidence if the claim has potential relevance but lacks documentation.
# '''Tone and Intent:'''
#* Submissions must focus on facts and avoid emotional appeals or promotional language (e.g., “this idea could save thousands of lives” or “Apple is immoral”).
 
----
 
==== Moderator Action Plan: ====
 
# Verify Evidence:
#* Ask: Is there clear documentation of the idea being stolen or misused? Is this part of a broader pattern by the company?
# Assess Systemic Relevance:
#* Determine if the issue reflects a systemic practice that fits the wiki’s mission of documenting modern consumer exploitation.
# Reject If Unsupported:
#* If the claim lacks evidence or relevance, reject the submission with an explanation and suggest other avenues (e.g., legal counsel, IP advocacy organizations).
 
----
 
==== 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.
 
----This rule ensures the wiki remains focused on its purpose, while guiding moderators to handle IP-related claims with clarity and objectivity. It also establishes a clear boundary to prevent the wiki from becoming a platform for unverified or personal disputes.
 
=== Case 6 ===
 
==== Rule for Submissions Involving Isolated Customer Support or Replacement Issues: ====
 
# '''Criteria for Inclusion:'''
#* Submissions must demonstrate a '''systemic pattern''' of poor practices by the company (e.g., documented widespread issues with replacements, repairs, or refund policies).
#* Claims must be supported by '''verifiable evidence''' (e.g., receipts, communications with the company, or reports from other customers showing a consistent issue).
#* The submission may be included as part of a broader article (e.g., “Apple’s replacement process”) if it provides well-documented, specific insights into systemic practices.
# '''Criteria for Exclusion:'''
#* Submissions are excluded if they:
#** Appear to be '''isolated incidents''' of bad customer support or replacement issues, with no indication of systemic relevance.
#** Lack verifiable evidence to support the claims (e.g., receipts or documented communications).
#** Focus on subjective dissatisfaction (e.g., “I couldn’t get a replacement without scratches”) without clear evidence of broader consumer exploitation.
# '''Moderator Guidance:'''
#* Evaluate whether the submission highlights a systemic issue or simply describes an individual’s negative experience.
#* Submissions must clearly contribute to understanding modern consumer exploitation; anecdotal or unverifiable claims do not qualify.
# '''Integration Into Broader Issues:'''
#* If the issue aligns with a known systemic practice (e.g., wasteful replacement policies or refusal to properly repair), assess whether the submission provides sufficient evidence to serve as an example within a larger article.
 
----
 
==== Moderator Action Plan: ====
 
# Check for Evidence:
#* Ask: Are there receipts, communications, or other forms of verification to support the claims? Does the case illustrate a systemic practice?
# Assess Relevance:
#* Determine if the issue aligns with broader known issues (e.g., Apple’s wasteful replacement policies) and whether the submission adds meaningful insights.
# Reject If Isolated or Unverified:
#* If the submission appears to be an isolated incident or lacks evidence, reject it with an explanation (e.g., suggest documenting the chain of events for future consideration).
 
----
 
==== 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.
 
----This rule ensures that moderators focus on systemic issues with verifiable evidence while rejecting isolated or anecdotal claims that lack broader relevance, keeping the wiki aligned with its mission.
 
=== Case 7 ===
 
==== Rule for Submissions Involving Isolated Incidents or Unverified Claims: ====
 
# '''Criteria for Inclusion:'''
#* Submissions may only be included if they:
#** Provide '''clear and verifiable documentation''' of the incident (e.g., receipts, repair logs, communications with the company, or photographic evidence of damage caused).
#** Demonstrate a '''broader systemic issue''' tied to company practices (e.g., a pattern of blaming customers for repair issues to deny liability or warranties).
#** Highlight specific policies or practices by the company that are independently verifiable.
# '''Criteria for Exclusion:'''
#* Submissions are excluded if they:
#** Lack sufficient evidence to verify the events described.
#** Appear to be '''isolated incidents''' without relevance to a broader systemic pattern.
#** Are narrated in a way that suggests significant missing context, bias, or unreliability (e.g., "unofficial" repairs not disclosed before official servicing).
#** Are tied to events in a single foreign location or involve jurisdictional issues that do not demonstrate broader consumer protection concerns.
# '''Moderators' Noteability Standard:'''
#* Submissions must meet a basic '''noteability threshold''', contributing unique or compelling evidence to systemic issues already documented in the wiki.
#* Incidents must serve as either:
#** A '''case study''' for known practices (if sufficiently documented).
#** Evidence of an '''emerging trend or pattern''' with credible corroboration.
 
----
 
==== Moderator Action Plan: ====
 
# Evaluate the Narrator and Evidence:
#* Ask: Is the submitter providing clear, verifiable facts? Are there key details missing that could undermine the credibility of the submission?
# Assess Noteability and Systemic Relevance:
#* Determine if the incident ties to a broader systemic practice or policy that the wiki is documenting.
#* Reject submissions that fail to meet the '''noteability standard''' due to lack of corroboration or isolated nature.
# Request Clarification:
#* If the submission has potential but lacks essential details (e.g., who opened the phone, proof of damage caused by Apple), ask for more information before making a decision.
 
----
 
==== 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.
 
----This rule ensures that the wiki maintains high standards for noteability and evidence while rejecting submissions that are unverifiable, overly anecdotal, or biased. It also provides moderators with clear criteria for assessing systemic relevance and credibility.
 
=== Case 8 ===
 
==== Rule for Submissions Involving Actions by Individual Employees: ====
 
# '''Criteria for Inclusion:'''
#* Submissions may be included if they:
#** Provide '''substantial evidence''' that the incident reflects an '''unofficial or systemic policy''' of the company (e.g., multiple corroborated reports or documentation suggesting a pattern of similar behavior).
#** Highlight a failure in '''company oversight or safeguards''' that allowed the incident to occur (e.g., inadequate training, deliberate negligence, or flaws in company systems).
# '''Criteria for Exclusion:'''
#* Submissions are excluded if they:
#** Describe isolated incidents caused by '''rogue or bad employees''' without any evidence that such behavior is linked to company policy, training, or systemic negligence.
#** Focus on personal discomfort or hypothetical outcomes (e.g., “What if the dog had bitten the driver?”).
#** Lack evidence or documentation to substantiate the claim (e.g., no video footage, logs, or other records).
# '''Company Policies and Systems:'''
#* Submissions may still be considered if they demonstrate:
#** A failure in '''systems or policies''' that enabled employee misconduct (e.g., drivers accessing unauthorized areas due to flaws in Amazon’s delivery system).
#** A systemic lack of safeguards to prevent such incidents, even if the individual action was unauthorized.
 
----
 
==== Moderator Action Plan: ====
 
# Evaluate Evidence of Systemic Issues:
#* Ask: Is there evidence that this incident reflects a broader problem with company policies or systems? Could the behavior result from inadequate safeguards or training?
# Assess Employee Conduct:
#* Determine whether the incident is attributable to an individual’s rogue behavior or whether it aligns with a pattern of systemic failure.
# Reject If Isolated and Unsubstantiated:
#* If the incident lacks evidence of systemic issues or appears to be an isolated act by an individual, reject it with an explanation.
 
----
 
==== 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.


----This rule ensures that the wiki remains focused on systemic consumer issues, rather than isolated misconduct by individual employees, unless there is credible evidence linking the behavior to broader company practices. It provides clear guidelines for moderators to assess and reject submissions that fail to meet the inclusion criteria.
[[Category:CAT]]

Revision as of 10:51, 14 January 2025

The Law of The Wiki

Rules & Guidelines

Moderator Rules for Evaluating and Processing Submissions

These rules aim to provide clear guidance for moderators to determine whether a submission should be included in the wiki and outline what changes or additional information would be required for inclusion.

1. Determining Inclusion in the Wiki [mostly done but indentation needs fixing, will do that when I get back]

A. General Criteria for Inclusion (Non-Theme articles):

An article submission is appropriate for the wiki if all of the following can be demonstrated:

  • The article fits into one of the proscribed article types, or has a very compelling reason for not conforming to one of these article types
  • If the article is an incident page, it describes an issue which fits into one of the following categories:
  1. Systemic Nature:
    • The incident demonstrates a pattern of systemic abuse, negligence, or policy that aligns with modern consumer exploitation (e.g., revocation of ownership, barriers to repair, forced obsolescence, data misuse).
    • It is not an isolated or anecdotal incident caused by individual employee misconduct unless it reflects a broader systemic issue.
    • Note: it is permissible for an incident to be positive, as long as it is both noteable and relevant. A positive incident, however, should not simply be the rolling back of a policy which resulted in a negative incident - it must be an actively positive incident (e.g. a mass refunding of customers in a scenario where the company was not responsible for the failing, and had no obligation to repair the failing)
  2. Relevance to Modern Consumer Exploitation:
    • The case directly relates to new forms of exploitation outlined in the mission statement (e.g., policies impacting ownership rights, privacy, or repairability).
    • It does not belong on platforms like Yelp (e.g., general customer service issues, personal disputes).
  • If the article is a company page:
  1. The company is connected to at least one incident which meets the guidelines above
  2. The company does not have an existing page, which the artice should be merged with (e.g. if the company has changed names)
  3. Note: If a company is a subsidiary of a larger company, whether it has its own page should be determined by an assessment of a number of factors, including:
    • The size of the parent company (i.e. is the parent too large to *not* be split into its subsidiaries? Could the activity of all subsidiaries be easily covered within the parent's page?)
    • The level of managerial independance - how independant is the management of the subsidiary from the parent company, and from other subsidiaries?
  • If the article is a person page:
  1. The article is compliant with the Living Persons policy. If article is non-compliant, then delete content, or the entire article, as appropriate.
  2. The subject of the article is a person with major decision-making influence over one or more incident pages, at least one of which must be of high quality (properly sourced, so on and so forth)
  • For all pages:
  1. Verifiable Evidence:
    • In order for an article to be appropriate for submission, it must be verifiable. This does NOT mean that it must be properly sourced and fully compliant with wiki policy from its very creation. It instead means that it must be reasonably possible to source evidence which could support its claims. If the article relates to an issue which has not been documented by any acceptable source, then the article is unverifiable, and should be removed.
    • Allegations are supported by specific details rather than vague or subjective descriptions.
  2. Tone and Presentation:
    • The submission avoids inflammatory language, emotional appeals, or promotional content. Any article which is obviously fake or appears more akin to an angry yelp review than something which belongs on this Wiki should be marked for removal, or rapidly edited to a point where it does not violate this rule.

B. General Criteria for Inclusion (Theme articles):

  • The article must describe a theme which is relevant to Consumer Protection (new or old).
  • The article must not be about a theme which is already present in the Wiki under a different name. In the case where two articles cover the same theme, they should either be merged, or the worse (as decided by admins or by a talk page discussion) of the two should be deleted.

C. Automatic Exclusion Criteria:

A submission should be rejected if:

  • It describes an isolated incident with no evidence of systemic relevance.
  • It is based on unverifiable claims or relies solely on anecdotal evidence.
  • The issue concerns employee rights, labor disputes, or government misconduct unrelated to consumer protection regulation or enforcement. This is a wiki about consumer protection, not about general corporate maleficence. If the article does not relate to the interaction between the provider of a product or service, and the consumer of that product or service, then it does not belong here!

2. Identifying Articles in Need of Flags (Stubs and beyond) [WIP]

These are guidelines for the implementation of the Wiki's content policies and editorial guidelines.

A. Available Tags: [note: revisit once these are finalised]

Articles which are substantially non-compliant with Wiki rules can be marked with the tags described below. The purposes of such flags are twofold: to warn the reader of a potentially low-quality article, and to bring such articles to the attention of admins and other editors, who may improve or remove the article.

  • Stub (for an article which is simply underdeveloped: the content currentlyu within it does not justify its existence, but there is nothing wrong in concept with such an article existing)
  • Needs additional verification (for an article that might be basically fine, but is dangerously under-cited, or the citations are very sus. Should only lead to deletion if it's in massive violation of the No Original Reaearch policy, and no good sources exist with which to fix it)
  • Questionable Relevance (for an article that is on the edge of not being relevant, and an editor feels falls foul of the inclusion criteria above. Basically a limbo to put articles in where their merits can be discussed before a descision is made on their deletion)

B. Evidence Requirements:

A good article, not in need of marking, should substantiate its claims.

C. Alignment with Mission:

A good article, not in need of marking, will make it clear how it relates to broader issues of consumer protection:

  • Demonstrate (through evidence, and assertion by sources, not thorugh direct accusation in the Wiki's voice) how the incident reflects deliberate corporate practices rather than isolated errors or rogue employee actions.
  • Directly link to the theme articles describing the relevant practices.
  • If the Incident affected only a small hanfdful of consumers, demonstrate that the systems which enabled it have relevance to a wider consumer base.

D. Tone and Presentation:

A good article, not in need of marking, will be written in accordance with the Wiki's implementation of NPOV (Neutral Point-Of-View):

  • 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

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.

  1. 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.
  2. Changes Needed:
    • 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.

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.

  1. Inclusion Decision:
    • Not included: The submission lacks evidence of systemic issues and appears anecdotal. The tone is emotional and lacks verifiable claims.
  2. Changes Needed:
    • Supply receipts or documented communications showing a pattern of mishandled replacements.
    • 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 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.

  1. Inclusion Decision:
    • 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.
  2. Changes Needed:
    • Issue could be revisited if covered by reputable tech outlets.
    • Provide documentation through credible sources as a systemic problem affecting multiple users.

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.

  1. 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, or substantial evidence of widespread problems.
  2. Changes Needed:
    • Provide credible evidence of multiple verified complaints.
    • Document company policy regarding warranty denials.
    • Demonstrate widespread impact of feature removal.

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.

  1. Inclusion Decision:
    • Not included: While high repair costs and repair refusal policies are documented issues, this case lacks new insights.
  2. Changes Needed:
    • Provide evidence of new policies or practices beyond existing documentation.
    • Demonstrate unique aspects of this case that add to current understanding.

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.

  1. Inclusion Decision:
    • Not included: The submission is based on unverified claims and involves intellectual property rather than consumer issues.
  2. Changes Needed:
    • Provide supporting evidence for claims.
    • Demonstrate relevance to consumer exploitation rather than IP disputes.

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.

  1. Inclusion Decision:
    • Not included: Lacks context about device condition and evidence of Apple's role in damage.
  2. Changes Needed:
    • Provide documentation of device's prior condition.
    • Demonstrate connection to systemic issues rather than isolated incident.
    • Include verifiable evidence of Apple's involvement.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/index.php?title=Moderator_Guidelines&oldid=475"