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.

---

Moderator guidelines

Moderator Action Plans

This 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:

1. Assess Systemic Relevance

• 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

1. Does the submission highlight systemic company practices or policies?
2. Does it relate to modern consumer exploitation as defined in the mission statement?
3. Is there sufficient, verifiable evidence to support the claims?
4. Does it provide unique or substantial value to the wiki?
5. Is the tone factual, neutral, and aligned with the wiki’s standards?
6. Could the submission fit into a larger article about a broader issue?
7. Are there missing details that the submitter could provide to strengthen the case?

---

Example Application of Rules

Case: Amazon Broke Into My Garage

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

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.
   • Tie the issue to Apple’s broader repair or replacement practices.

Example applications of rules:

• 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:
  • 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.

Example Application:

Motorola/Lenovo Warranty Issue Submission:

1. 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).
2. Features Removed After Updates:
   • Valid if significant functionality (e.g., Always-On Display) was removed without user consent and documented as a widespread issue.
3. 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.

Example Application:

Apple Genius Bar Submission:

1. Known Issue:
   • The high repair costs and refusal to perform minor component repairs are well-documented issues with Apple’s repair policies.
2. No New Insight:
   • This specific case does not reveal a new policy, practice, or trend beyond what is already widely reported.
3. Exclusion:
   • 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:

1. Unverified Claim:
   • The submission is based on the doctor’s anecdote with no supporting evidence provided.
2. Not a Consumer Issue:
   • The dispute involves an intellectual property claim, which does not align with the wiki’s focus on consumer exploitation.
3. Exclusion:
   • The submission is rejected due to lack of evidence and irrelevance to the wiki’s mission.

Example Application:

AppleCare Sucks Submission:

1. Isolated Incident:
   • The submission describes an individual’s experience with replacements but does not provide evidence of a systemic issue.
2. Lack of Evidence:
   • No receipts or communications are provided to substantiate the claims, making it hard to verify.
3. 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:

1. 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.
2. Isolated Incident:
   • The case appears to be an individual experience at one Apple Store in Brazil, without evidence of a systemic policy or trend.
3. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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).
3. Exclusion:
   • The submission is excluded as it lacks substantial evidence and does not demonstrate systemic issues within Amazon’s policies or safeguards.