Consumer Rights Wiki

Consumer Rights Wiki:Moderator guidelines: Difference between revisions

← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
→A. Available Tags:: switching to markdown editor to fix formatting
formatting
Line 87: Line 87:


----
----
=== Example Application of Rules ===
==== Case: Amazon Broke Into My Garage ====
# '''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.
# '''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 ====
# '''Inclusion Decision:'''
#* '''Not included''': The submission lacks evidence of systemic issues and appears anecdotal. The tone is emotional and lacks verifiable claims.
# '''Changes Needed:'''
#* Supply receipts or documented communications showing a pattern of mishandled replacements.
#* Tie the issue to Apple’s broader repair or replacement practices.
----
=== Final Checklist for Moderators ===
# '''Is this incident tied to systemic company practices or policies?'''
# '''Does the submission relate to modern consumer exploitation?'''
# '''Is there sufficient evidence to support the claims?'''
# '''Does the tone align with the wiki’s standards of neutrality and professionalism?'''
# '''Could the submission fit into a larger article about a systemic issue?'''
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.


= Moderator guidelines =
= Moderator guidelines =


=== Moderator Action Plans ===
=== Moderator Action Plans ===
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:
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 ====
==== 1. Assess Systemic Relevance ====
Line 133: Line 100:
** The issue relates to personal disputes, local business misconduct, or rogue employee actions without ties to company policy or systemic failure.
** The issue relates to personal disputes, local business misconduct, or rogue employee actions without ties to company policy or systemic failure.


----
 


==== 2. Verify Evidence ====
==== 2. Verify Evidence ====
Line 145: Line 112:
** The submission lacks evidence or relies solely on personal anecdotes, hearsay, or unverifiable claims.
** The submission lacks evidence or relies solely on personal anecdotes, hearsay, or unverifiable claims.


----


==== 3. Evaluate Noteability ====
==== 3. Evaluate Noteability ====
Line 156: Line 122:
*** The submission only confirms a widely recognized issue without offering new insights or significant value.
*** The submission only confirms a widely recognized issue without offering new insights or significant value.


----
 


==== 4. Check Alignment With Mission ====
==== 4. Check Alignment With Mission ====
Line 167: Line 133:
*** The focus is on employee rights, labor disputes, or government misconduct unrelated to consumer protection regulation.
*** The focus is on employee rights, labor disputes, or government misconduct unrelated to consumer protection regulation.


----


==== 5. Confirm Tone and Presentation ====
==== 5. Confirm Tone and Presentation ====
Line 178: Line 143:
*** The tone is overly emotional, combative, or promotional.
*** The tone is overly emotional, combative, or promotional.


----


==== 6. Request Additional Information (If Needed) ====
==== 6. Request Additional Information (If Needed) ====
Line 187: Line 151:
*** Clarify missing context or connections to systemic practices.
*** Clarify missing context or connections to systemic practices.


----


==== 7. Consider Integration Into Broader Issues ====
==== 7. Consider Integration Into Broader Issues ====
Line 197: Line 160:
*** The submission does not provide sufficient value even as a supporting example.
*** The submission does not provide sufficient value even as a supporting example.


----


=== Final Checklist for Moderators ===
=== Final Checklist for Moderators ===
Line 209: Line 171:
# Are there missing details that the submitter could provide to strengthen the case?
# 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.
----
 
=== Example Application of Rules ===
 
==== Case: Amazon Broke Into My Garage ====
 
# '''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.
# '''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 ====
 
# '''Inclusion Decision:'''
#* '''Not included''': The submission lacks evidence of systemic issues and appears anecdotal. The tone is emotional and lacks verifiable claims.
# '''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 applications of rules: ==
Line 219: Line 200:
*** '''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.
*** '''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:'''
* '''Example Application:'''
Line 226: Line 206:
*** '''Alternative action:''' Suggest filing complaints with local consumer protection agencies or posting reviews to alert other potential customers.
*** '''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.


#*


----


==== Example Application: ====
==== Example Application: ====
Line 243: Line 220:
#* '''Not included.''' Complaints about forum moderators or customer support quality (e.g., "paid assholes by Lenovo") lack relevance to modern consumer protection.
#* '''Not included.''' Complaints about forum moderators or customer support quality (e.g., "paid assholes by Lenovo") lack relevance to modern consumer protection.


----
#*
----


==== Example Application: ====
==== Example Application: ====
Line 259: Line 232:
#* Not included as a standalone page. The submission lacks new or notable information and only serves as minor confirmation of an existing issue.
#* 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: ====
==== Example Application: ====
Line 275: Line 244:
#* The submission is rejected due to lack of evidence and irrelevance to the wiki’s mission.
#* The submission is rejected due to lack of evidence and irrelevance to the wiki’s mission.


#*
----


==== Example Application: ====
==== Example Application: ====
Line 290: Line 256:
#* 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.
#* 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: ====
==== Example Application: ====
Line 305: Line 267:
# Exclusion:
# 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.
#* 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: ====
==== Example Application: ====
Line 321: Line 278:
# Exclusion:
# Exclusion:
#* The submission is excluded as it lacks substantial evidence and does not demonstrate systemic issues within Amazon’s policies or safeguards.
#* 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.
Retrieved from "https://consumerrights.wiki/Consumer_Rights_Wiki:Moderator_guidelines"