Consumer Rights Wiki

Consumer Rights Wiki:Moderator guidelines

Revision as of 12:12, 18 July 2025 by Keith (talk | contribs) (added guidelines around file notice templates)

The Law of The Wiki

Rules and 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

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 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)
  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 article 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 independent 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)

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

Please note that, as per the Wiki's Living Persons Policy, a stricter approach should be taken to the moderation of articles about, or which mention, Living People.

A. Available tags:

Articles which are substantially non-compliant with Wiki rules can (and should) be marked with the tags described below. The purposes of such flags are twofold:

  1. to warn the reader of a potentially low-quality article, and
  2. to bring such articles to the attention of admins and other editors, who may improve or remove the article.

These tags can be used by writing {{TagName}} at the top of an article in the source editor. It is recommended to include a new line after the tag is added in order to make sure any future additions by users via the visual editor do not fall in the same line and causing problems with saving changes (as only wiki moderators can remove or add notices). Adding tags via the visual editor is possible using the insert dialog but is not recommended as it can cause formatting or placement issues due to the lack of placement control.

  • StubNotice
    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.
  • Incomplete
    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.
  • ToneWarning
    Use for an article where the tone is significantly non-compliant, and needs major improvement
  • Irrelevant
    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.
  • Garbage
    Use for an article which is clearly irrelevant, spam, or not likely to be improved.
  • SloppyAI
    Use for an article where AI is heavily used without enough care and/or supervision to guarantee the credibility or readability or the article.

Optionally when using the Incomplete tag, up to four specific issues with the article can be pointed out by including Issue 1/2/3/4 parameters these appear in a numbered list in the notice (see Incomplete for example usage).

Using the tags on articles automatically places them in categories in order to make going through them easier, both for users in order to improve them and for moderators to delete as necessary. The implicit categorization structure is as follows:

Notice/Tag Category Parent category Umbrella category
StubNotice Articles requiring expansion Articles in need of additional work Todo
Incomplete Articles with verification concerns or other deficiencies
ToneWarning Articles requiring change in tone
Irrelevant Articles marked as irrelevant
Garbage Articles marked for deletion
SloppyAI Articles that heavily rely on AI

It is also worth noting that articles created via the Create page dialog that include placeholder boxes will also be added to the Articles in need of work category.

B. 'In need of work' Category:

The articles in need of work category contains articles which require editor attention. Articles with an notice, or articles with leftover placeholder template elements from the article creation workflow, will be automatically placed in this category.

Articles should be removed from this category when they are, broadly, in an acceptable state. This removal is tied to the removal of the notices or placeholder boxes. In some cases users may have categorized the articles themselves however, in such cases, the appropriate notice should be used instead of just the category in order to visually communicate where editors and readers should pay attention.

C. Evidence requirements:

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

D. 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 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.
  • If the Incident affected only a small handful of consumers, demonstrate that the systems which enabled it have relevance to a wider consumer base.

E. Tone and presentation:

A good (non-Theme) 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 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.

F. Deletion requests and merge requests:

Users can use the request templates DeletionRequest (deletion request template page) and MergeRequest merge request template page) to indicate pages that may need attention. Look through the Articles with merge requests and Articles with deletion requests categories (both in the 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 {{Garbage}} 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.

3. Identifying file submissions in need of flags

Files uploaded to the wiki must comply with copyright and licensing requirements. The templates below can be applied to file pages to indicate their licensing status or flag problematic uploads that require moderator attention.

A. Available file notice templates:

Template Purpose Category Added Moderator Priority
No_license Files uploaded without any license information Category:Files with no license, Category:Suspected copyright violations High - Deletion candidate
Stolen Files uploaded without permission from copyright holder Category:Suspected copyright violations High - Deletion candidate
Fairuse Copyrighted material claimed under fair use None (legitimate use if properly applied) Medium - Requires verification
Permission Copyrighted files used with explicit permission Category:Files with permission Low - Legitimate if documented
Self Original work by uploader, rights reserved None Low - Legitimate
Self-PublicDomain Original work released to public domain by creator Category:Public domain Low - Legitimate
From_Wikimedia Files imported from Wikimedia projects None Low - Generally legitimate
CC-BY-SA Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licensed Category:Creative Commons licensed images Low - Legitimate
CC-BY Creative Commons Attribution licensed Category:Creative Commons licensed images Low - Legitimate
CC0 Creative Commons public domain dedication Category:Public domain, Category:Creative Commons licensed images Low - Legitimate
PD General public domain designation Category:Public domain Low - Generally legitimate
PD-USGov US government work in public domain Category:Public domain Low - Legitimate if accurate

B. High-priority templates requiring moderator action:

No_license Template: Files marked with this template have been uploaded without any licensing information whatsoever. These represent clear policy violations and should be prioritized for deletion or license identification unless the uploader can provide proper licensing documentation. The template warns that the file "may not be used legally" and gives uploaders an opportunity to correct the licensing before deletion. Once the initial backlog of improperly labeled file uploads has been cleared, such deletion should be swift going forwards

Stolen Template: This template indicates files that appear to be copyrighted material uploaded without the copyright holder's permission. These files pose significant legal risk to the wiki and should be handled expeditiously. Unlike No_license files which might simply lack documentation, Stolen files suggest active copyright infringement. Moderators should verify the copyright status and delete if the uploader cannot provide valid permission or fair use justification.

C. Medium-priority templates requiring verification:

Fairuse Template: Files using this template claim protection under fair use doctrine. While fair use can be legitimate, it requires careful analysis to ensure the use meets legal criteria. Moderators should verify that:

  • The use is for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research
  • The amount used is reasonable and necessary
  • The use does not harm the market for the original work
  • The file is being used in a transformative manner that serves the wiki's educational mission

Improperly claimed fair use should be corrected with appropriate licensing or removed.

Permission Template: Files marked with permission claims should have accompanying documentation proving the copyright holder has granted usage rights. Moderators should verify that such permission exists and is properly documented. Without adequate proof, these files should be treated similarly to Stolen files.

D. File categorization and cleanup:

Files with problematic licensing are automatically categorized to facilitate moderator review:

Regular review of these categories should be part of standard moderation workflow, with priority given to clearing the suspected copyright violations category.

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 article, 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://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Consumer_Rights_Wiki:Moderator_guidelines&oldid=17346"