Moderator Guidelines

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.

• Utilise sources in line with the Wiki's verifiability policy.
• Corroborate patterns or systemic relevance through multiple examples or reports

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.