Consumer Rights Wiki

Consumer Rights Wiki:Moderator guidelines: Difference between revisions

← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
→F. User provided insights:: edited and clarified some things.
Sorted out the spelling errors highlighted by JazzyPizza
Line 18: Line 18:
#*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)
#*Note: it is permissible for an incident to be positive, as long as it is both notable 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).
Line 26: Line 26:


#The company is connected to at least one incident which meets the guidelines above
#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)
#The company does not have an existing page, which the article 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:  
#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 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?
#*The level of managerial independance - how independent is the management of the subsidiary from the parent company, and from other subsidiaries?
*'''If the article is a person page:'''
*'''If the article is a person page:'''


Line 69: Line 69:


*[[Template:StubNotice|StubNotice]] <br />Use for an article which is simply underdeveloped: the content currently within it does not justify its existence, but there is nothing wrong in concept with such an article existing in the wiki.
*[[Template:StubNotice|StubNotice]] <br />Use for an article which is simply underdeveloped: the content currently within it does not justify its existence, but there is nothing wrong in concept with such an article existing in the wiki.
*[[Template:Incomplete|Incomplete]] <br />Use for an article that has the potential to be high-quality, but is dangerously under-cited, or the citations are to dubious sources. This should only lead to deletion if it's in violation of the No Original Reaearch policy, or if no good sources exist with which to fix it.
*[[Template:Incomplete|Incomplete]] <br />Use for an article that has the potential to be high-quality, but is dangerously under-cited, or the citations are to dubious sources. This should only lead to deletion if it is in violation of the No Original Research policy, or if no good sources exist with which to fix it.
*[[Template:ToneWarning|ToneWarning]]<br />Use for an article where the tone is significantly non-compliant, and needs major improvement
*[[Template:ToneWarning|ToneWarning]]<br />Use for an article where the tone is significantly non-compliant, and needs major improvement
*[[Template:Irrelevant|Irrelevant]] <br />Use 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.
*[[Template:Irrelevant|Irrelevant]] <br />Use 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 decision is made on their deletion.
*[[Template:Garbage|Garbage]]<br />Use for an article which is clearly irrelevant, spam, or not likely to be improved.
*[[Template:Garbage|Garbage]]<br />Use for an article which is clearly irrelevant, spam, or not likely to be improved.
*[[Template:SloppyAI|SloppyAI]]<br />Use for an article where AI is heavily used without enough care and/or supervision to guarantee the credibility or readability or the article.
*[[Template:SloppyAI|SloppyAI]]<br />Use for an article where AI is heavily used without enough care and/or supervision to guarantee the credibility or readability or the article.
Line 86: Line 86:
|<code>StubNotice</code>
|<code>StubNotice</code>
|[[:Category:Articles requiring expansion|Articles requiring expansion]]
|[[:Category:Articles requiring expansion|Articles requiring expansion]]
| rowspan="3" |[[:Category:Articles in need of additional work |Aritcles in need of additional work]]
| rowspan="3" |[[:Category:Articles in need of additional work |Articles in need of additional work]]
| rowspan="6" |[[:Category:Todo|Todo]]
| rowspan="6" |[[:Category:Todo|Todo]]
|-
|-
Line 121: Line 121:
A good article, not in need of marking, will make it clear how it relates to broader issues of consumer protection:
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.
*Demonstrate (through evidence, and assertion by sources, not through 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.
*Directly link to the theme articles describing the relevant practices.


Line 129: Line 129:
A good (non-Theme) 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):]]
A good (non-Theme) 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 article should be neutral and factual,''' without unnecessarily 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.
*The citing of sources for opinion or commentary should present a balanced and rational view, without giving undue weight to fringe opinions.


Line 135: Line 135:
Users can use the request templates <code>DeletionRequest</code> ([[Template:DeletionRequest|deletion request template page]]) and <code>MergeRequest</code>[[Template:MergeRequest| merge request template page]]) to indicate pages that may need attention. Look through the [[:Category:Articles with merge requests|Articles with merge requests]] and [[:Category:Articles with deletion requests|Articles with deletion requests]] categories (both in the[[:Category:Todo| todo]] category) in order to look though these requests.
Users can use the request templates <code>DeletionRequest</code> ([[Template:DeletionRequest|deletion request template page]]) and <code>MergeRequest</code>[[Template:MergeRequest| merge request template page]]) to indicate pages that may need attention. Look through the [[:Category:Articles with merge requests|Articles with merge requests]] and [[:Category:Articles with deletion requests|Articles with deletion requests]] categories (both in the[[:Category:Todo| todo]] category) in order to look though these requests.


If a deletion request is determined to be valid the linked pages need to be handled and after that the page should be marked with the <code><nowiki>{{Garbage}}</nowiki></code> template and protected from edits, pending final deletion.  
If a deletion request is determined to be valid, the linked pages need to be handled and after that the page should be marked with the <code><nowiki>{{Garbage}}</nowiki></code> template and protected from edits, pending final deletion.  


In cases of merge requests, things might not be as simple. After deciding on the page which is to be kept, and moving all relevent content to that page, the page [[Special:MergeHistory]] should be used in order to maintain the edit history and contributors. This might become complicated if three or more pages are to be merged, so they should be merged sequentially to avoid conflicts. After merging, and ensuring the retention of all edit history, any redundant pages should be deleted.
In cases of merge requests, things might not be as simple. After deciding on the page which is to be kept, and moving all relevent content to that page, the page [[Special:MergeHistory]] should be used in order to maintain the edit history and contributors. This might become complicated if three or more pages are to be merged, so they should be merged sequentially to avoid conflicts. After merging, and ensuring the retention of all edit history, any redundant pages should be deleted.
Retrieved from "https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Consumer_Rights_Wiki:Moderator_guidelines"