Talk:Ripoff Report

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Tone and style[edit]

I removed the quotation marks around "attempted extortion", as they were clearly inserted as an editorial device intended to cast doubts on the veracity of the claim, ala Military "Intelligence." Some of you really need to read Wikipedia's style guides. There is absolutely no doubt that the lawsuit against Ripoff Report accused them of attempted extortion. It was the exact wording of the suit. Thus, placing a factual statement regarding a legal proceeding into Quotation Marks turns the entry into an opinion piece instead of a statement of fack. Wikipedia, unlike Ripoff Report, absolutely IS concerned with impartiality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism links[edit]

It cannot be denied there is some controversy surrounding Ripoff Report. However, they should be described following Wikipedia rules. This obviously has not been the case so far. No time for it myself, alas. 14:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed two external links. Not only for being superfluous, but the one leading to the advocacy program page contains a very aggressive popup. I understand mr Magedson needs the money to keep up his (imo great) site. I guess Errorsafe pays well, but this product is no good (containing spyware) and their marketing sucks big time. Please, be advised to get rid of that. 11:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the forum links, but have integrated the link and point into the Criticism section; which is entirely in keeping with Wikipedia rules. If you disagree, be specific and I can look into it. - RoyBoy 800 04:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Alleging someone is an extortionist a.o. without undisputable legal proof is libel. The given references are sites run by Magedsons opponents, highly biased and exclusively put up to attack him. Not what one can consider to be reliable impartial sources. I see you do a lot of work, very fast. Please be advised to take a little more time to look into this a bit deeper. Thank you. 04:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

And yet posting anonymous attacks on random businesses without verification, as Ripoff Report does, is perfectly fine? That aside, you clearly have no idea how Wikipedia works. There was, in fact, a lawsuit against Ripoff Report that did, in fact, accuse them of attempted extortion. That is the only issue at hand here. This article doesn't try to determine the merits of the lawsuit, it merely reports that it did, in fact, occur. You clearly have a pro-Ripoff Report axe to grind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Fast fingers, but if anything looks amiss – like this – that is indeed what I do. I support your content edits, but negative links and criticism are required to be referenced on Wikipedia (linked to). - RoyBoy 800 15:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I feel your last editing is another step to further improvement in the right direction. Have a nice weekend! 18:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
You too. - RoyBoy 800 04:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I edited Criticism and lawsuits. Decided to remove all specified allegations, in order to keep this article factual and undisrupted by a war of allegations. There is plenty to find in provided links and the Internet. For more clarity we could use a simple complete list of cases against ROR. No extended case histories. Mentioning only end-verdicts and currently undecided cases, with references to documents or sites about it. 20:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


As to his representing lawyer, the criticism websites list lawyers that have withdrawn from the case. So does that leave his business partner? If so, does she legally represent him? If she doesn't then wouldn't he need to be served personally? - RoyBoy 800 04:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I made a mistake: unless the court orders that his attorney accept service, serving his attorney is not service to Magedson. 20:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Tagged for deletion[edit]

Unless MAJOR editing takes place, then the article is worthy of deletion. it is biased and advertising. contact me to dispute this. Jmac 19:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC). hey hey

You are correct. And I thought Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic. The section claiming Madgeson may be guilty of extortion is downright hearsay. Unless Madgeson has been found to be guilty of extortion, this should not even be mentioned. This article is downright crap... (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree this ripoff report section is so self serving and must have been created by ED or directed by Ed to create it. DELETE IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Your nomination for deletion Rip-off Report page[edit]

-jmac-, while agreeing there needs work to be done on this page, I strongly disagree with deleting it. Both supposed advantages and critisism of ROR are present. Over all neutrality in tone of voice is moving in the right direction. Who is biased here? I can't help noticing, you did not even remove the blatant vandalism. SooperJoo 20:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

jmac, thanks for your answer on my talk page. Feel free to help me out working on the Background section. I am not a native writer, costs me lots of effort to formulate correctly. SooperJoo 20:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


From some of the things I have heard about this Ed person, he will shut down all of Wikipedia for daring to level relevant criticism. 15:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Metatran[edit]

Metatran, thank you for contributing. Please review NPOV for Wikipedia Neutral Point Of View rules and perhaps give it another try. SooperJoo 19:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

bad-business-rip-off[edit] down as of 10 Dec 2006, but bad-business-rip-off.netis still up, but having some loading difficulties. For the record, the latest contribution to that site. Previous versions in

Newest Update: November 27th 2006

Ed Magedson is fighting for his life in Illinois Federal Court for the right to continue publishing the following despicable lies and personal attacks, despite already having been held in contempt of court for doing so. Consider carefully the base nature of these criticisms Magedson struggles to keep on his website.

Cries of pedophilia, child pornography and drug dealing to children are typically unfair criticisms of a business, but this is a shared experience for all those targeted by Magedson for his Corporate Remediation Plan (aka Extortion Racket). After unsuspecting businesses initially object to what is typically much more benign criticism, then Magedson starts to create his own comments intended to embarrass and harass the company and its owners into submission. One can see many examples of this by reading this website carefully. The pattern is the same: Once Magedson knows he has a business' attention, if the mark won't pay his extortion demand, Rip-Off Report pulls out the stops and goes for the maximum damage with scandalous allegations of child pornography, pedophilia and drug dealing. We question the public interest in reading lies like these, and we know from personal, first hand experience that Magedson and the Rip-Off Report only fight for the right to keep such filth online in order to further their ongoing extortion racket:

Original Court Document, Pages 1-2. PDF

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SooperJoo (talkcontribs) 19:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

oei! --SooperJoo 19:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved to talk[edit]

I am not sure what this user is attempting to say:

Apparently some companies hired the services of fictious organisation 'Defamation Action League' (criminal spammers William L. (Bill) Stanley and Robert Russo). The criminals - allegedly operating from Austria - are very open about their defamation of ROR, the owner and his hosting companies by all kinds of Internet means. [1] [2]

Travb (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Denial of Service Attack?[edit]

The web site is loading slowly as of March 7, 2007. Most pages don't load on the first try. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for screenshot.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg screenshot.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Two video links are broken removed ad[edit]

There are two video links which are broken. I left them on the page though.

I wikified the site links, made the statments morre neutral. etc.

I moved the following to the talk page:

One added feature offered by the Rip-off Report is the "Corporate Advocacy and Remediation Program". As a companion service to the main web page, this add-on provides assistance to businesses who have unfavorable Rip-off Reports. Magedson offers his services to help companies handle online complaints – specifically those posted on the Rip-off Report – in which the complaints are investigated. As a companion service to the main web page, this add-on provides assistance to businesses who have unfavorable Rip-off Reports. First, Magedson emails the Report filers and informs them that the business wants to make amends (usually including a 100% refund -- which is required to join the program). Second, the results of this offer of remediation are then posted along with the Report on the site. The original report is not rescinded but is updated to reflect whether the offer of remediation was accepted or not. Magedson points out that the Report filers identities are not disclosed in the process unless the filer wishes to communicate with the company directly about a remediation. The "advocacy and remediation" element of this resource involves a consulting fee. This appears to be one aspect of the revenue stream at the Rip-off Report. Magedson bills his program as something that benefits both consumers and businesses, and he promises to reduce the number of complaints received by companies who retain his services.

This sounds like an ad, and the only reference is itself. Instead, I moved the corporate (extortion) program to the criticism section, and quoted a third party--the Phoenix New Times.

I decided not to include this paragraph on the main page, from the Phoenix New Times article, probably too remote:

In 2001 pizza deliveryman John Unger sued Pizza Hut several allegations. Magedson helped Unger with media coverage and introduced Unger to his own lawyer, Maria Crimi Speth. According to the court file in Pinal County, Magedson's called a Pizza Hut executive threatening him with media coverage and a large class-action lawsuit if the executive didn't give Unger $200,000. Ugner had agreed to pay Magedson a portion of the settlement.

The case eventually settled.

Travb (talk) 05:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Added the mug shot, this is a fact User: jglogau Jordan G (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Article is about the web site, not Magedson. Might be appropriate for a bio, but it's not appropriate here. Shritwod (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You must not have any exposure to corporate structure, anyone can form a corporation for a small fee, RipOffReports IS Magedson. Corporations were invented in the 1800's to help investors limit they liabilities, a good idea that promoted major investments, like building most of the rail systems around the world. Magedson hides his acts behind ROR. When does wiki "objectivity" become criminal neglect? Jordan G (talk) 14:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


There has been a lot of vandalism by people who presumably are upset about being listed on RipOffReport. It's easy to understand why people get angry, but the article needs to retain a Neutral Point of View and have appropriate citations. There is quite a lot of criticism in the article already. Shritwod (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggest Removal[edit]

This does sound like more of an advertisement than it does about a "real" company. While the tone does try to come about as neutral, the links and the text do not. I would suggest removal —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Federal Communications Decency Act[edit]

This article is in need of editing. There is non-factual information being presented as fact, including statements about the Federal Communications Act - opinion being stated as fact. If others wish to work on editing this type of content, please feel free to post here, otherwise I will probably come back in the future to work on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has been used as a valid defense in law several times, to the extent that most cases accept CDA 230 where it is applicable. There are some exceptions it seems, some of which involve RipOffReport itself. The style of the article isn't quite right, but I think that the assertions made about CDA 230 immunity are basically valid. Shritwod (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not a valid article and should be removed.[edit]

Several problems are blatant on this article and it needs to be cleaned up or removed from Wikipedia. List follows:

1. "Many users enjoy the opportunity to vent online; the site gives the impression that claims may get eventual media attention and/or legal action. The site claims to have helped consumers settle their disputes with the offending companies, and, given the high-profile nature of the Rip-off Report on several search engines, those claims carry some weight."

Where is the citation of which consumers have been helped and where are the examples needed to make this claim. While Rip-off report has had a high profile on Google, this does not hold true on other engines. Several times, searching a company on Yahoo and other sites puts the first ripoff report on page 2. This is an opinion paragraph and needs to be reworked.

2. "The site cannot differentiate between documented incidents of bad business and empty claims posted."

Unfortunately, this site can, but chooses not to. It has several posters "Charles" comes to mind who write in about any person or thing who displeases them. The site simply does not ask for proof of the problem rather than investigating a problem. This is false and needs to be deleted.

3. "One aspect of Rip-off Report that distinguishes it from similar sites is that in general, Reports are never taken down or removed."

This is in direct opposition to Rip-off Report's claims. If this is false, then it needs to be removed. If, on the other hand the site does take down reports, then the paragraph that states that it is covered by the CDA is false. Again, needs rework or deletion.

The entire of the Lawsuits section requires citation, as it sounds more like a commercial than an entry.

The overall bias of the article demands deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this sounds like an advertisement and seems almost word-for-word the same text Magedson has used on the site to defend himself. I wouldn't be surprised if he wrote this page. It is biased and perpetuates the concept that his quest is noble when it is anything but. Palindrome13 (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur -- the entirety of the page reads like an advertisement to me, but especially the lawsuits section which appears to omit several significant developments and largely ignores the "extortion" allegations being made. Definitely appropriate for the advert tag. Willfe (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

DoS Attack[edit]

A further denial of service attack on seems to be going on now. There was one in 2007. Fraudsters don't like the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The DoS attack is still going on now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
A lawyer, acting for Ripoff Report, says that there have been numerous attempts at hacking and denials of service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Despite the DoS attack, a Google search still shows complaints against companies on Ripoff Report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The ripoffreport site is now working. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The fraudsters behind the DoS attack cannot be easily identified.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2010

GW Equity v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC[edit]

Regarding this information on the article page:

Most recently, in GW Equity v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, a Texas district court dismissed all claims including one that the Advocacy Program was extortionate.[3][not in citation given]

The case stated:

In addition, Defendants have created the “Rip-off Report Corporate Advocacy Business Remediation & Consumer Satisfaction Program,” pursuant to which, for a fee, the defendants will investigate “rip-off reports” targeting member companies and will post more prominent rebuttals to those reports. (Id.) GW has not cited any case law in which this conduct was considered a bar to a defendant’s assertion of CDA immunity. Unless Congress amends the (Communications Decency Act) CDA, it is not a bar to immunity for an Internet provider to refuse to remove defamatory material created by a third party, or to otherwise use it to their advantage, even though the Internet provider’s conduct may be considered reprehensible and offensive. Through the [Communications Decency Act], “Congress granted most Internet services immunity from liability for publishing false or defamatory material so long as the information was provided by another party.” Carafano, 339 F.3d at 1122. Here, the material was unequivocally provided by another party. GW’s contention that Defendants’ conduct after the postings should bar them from receiving [Communications Decency Act] immunity is without merit.[1]
..."This Court recommends that the District Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment because Plaintiff’s claims are barred, as a matter of law, by the [Communications Decency Act]."

I searched for the word "extort" and the word is no where to be found in the court case. I will revise this sentence to reflect the actual case. (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

removed blog entry to talk[edit]

I removed this entry to the talk page:

At least one commentator has suggested this conduct amounts to extortion and may be actionable under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act or "RICO":

Because a lot of us have much to gain from a strong CDA, I hope that plaintiffs will continue to press the RICO/Extortion combo. This will direct the conversation away from the CDA and focus it on the extortion elements of the case. This is appropriate because this is what makes RipOff Report’s alleged conduct so reprehensible. If RipOff report were just providing a neutral and organic platform to publish good and bad comments about businesses, no one would be complaining.[4]

This is a blog posting by an a seemingly unknown attorney. (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I also removed this source: and added a fact tag. (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
This statement was removed:
Other sites have argued that “Review websites [such as Ripoff Report] should be held accountable for claims posted on their sites by instilling a system to identify the validity of claims and reports.”
Which is attributed to some no-name websites.[2] (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I could not find this article:
Serino, Danielle Consumer Alert: Ripoff Report [5][not in citation given] (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

reorganization and clean up[edit]

I reorganized this article.[3] Resulting in this result.

I added names to all of the links, dates to many of the links, etc. Making all the links standard. I moved some of the less important detailed aspects of the SEO lawsuit to the references. I also reorganized the order of the criticism section. I removed a few links, which I listed above, and removed one dead links. many of these links had been tagged by another user. (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Further DoS attack[edit]

A further denial of service attack on the Ripoff Report site seems to be going on now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC) The apparent DoS attack on Ripoff Report seems to be continuing. Fraudsters hate the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

A cottage industry has arisen, trying to remove or push down a report in a Google search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The attack seems to have been eliminated now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Yet another attack seems to have started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
A Google search on the name of a company will show up the reports on it on Ripoff Report.
This works, even if the original site can not be reached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I am now getting through to the Ripoff site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can't deal directly with Ripoff Report, you can use the cached version in a Google search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC) It may be the text-only version that is best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC) The site might be another site you can use, if defrauded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The site is very good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The site is not any use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The staff remove complaints at the suggestion of irate fraudsters, without a reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The Google cache or the archive site can be used to find complaints that have been removed from other complaint sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Odd Sentences[edit]

I was looking at this article when I noticed these lines right at the end. They seemed to have been randomly tacked on: "Rip of report method has given a huge chance for its owner to earn . protected by CDA but ethically illegal platform where competitors keep posting bad responses and the innocent companies keep working on reverse seo or paying to rebuttal or membership of rip off report. THis site is taking a huge advantage." Should we consider deleting this? Jordan.labelle (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Warning Posted[edit]

Our article, at this writing, evidences highly critical bias against the subject, the RipOff Report consumer complaint website. But I should make clear that this NPOV concern arises primarily from the quantitative and qualitative incompleteness of our article; in a word: the lack of encyclopedic coverage of the subject. This produces an apparent severe bias, because the only section of the entire article that is complete is the section captioned "Criticism and Controversy" -- criticism, of course, of the protagonist, the RipOff Report, by the antagonists: mainly corporate interests who have in some cases lodged lawsuits against the RipOff report.

Approximately 90% of the content of our article expands upon "Criticism and Controversy", thus establishing prima facie antagonistic bias. "Criticism" is but one small facet of a far larger body of knowledge and legitimate inquiry, the entirety of which should be evenly summarized in an encyclopedia article. The importance of the RipOff Report, if it warrants inclusion in the Wikipedia encyclopedia at all, is in good part related to the some 600,000 posts (mainly by aggrieved consumers) made on the RipOff Report site. This statistic, duly cited in our article, makes the RipOff Report among the most heavily annotated of all forum-style websites. By that fact alone, Ripoff Report is of significance in a variety domains of knowledge, not just the concerns of the mainly corporate interests whose alleged misdeeds are documented on the pages of that site The purported encyclopedic subject of our Wikipedia article fairly begs for exploration of the following additional facets, among others:

  • History of the Consumer Movement and the Impact of the Internet: Confusion and Consolidation
  • History and Inspiration for the RipOff Report; Background of the Founder
  • Corporate Interests and Efforts to Dismantle Consumer Watchdogs (from Consumers' Union -- in re the Corvair car, etc, to the antagonists of the RipoffReport)
  • Bibiliometry and Usage Trends for the RipOff Report
  • Impact of Consumer Communities on Product Quality, Generally (+ in American Auto Industry) and re: RipoffReport
  • Other Consumer Communities and Their Organs, Online and Offline
  • Hybridized E-Commerce and Review Sites: Ebay, Amazon, and the Future of RipoffReport

The broad coverage promised by the all-encompassing title of our Wikepedia article, the total lack of coverage of the foregoing subject matters, yet with a lopsided, lawyerly, and exhaustive recounting in "Criticism and Controversy" -- these together mandate the NPOV flag. But that's not all. I would suggest that other, more severe remedies are needed, at least temporarily. These would include narrowing the title of our article to the more appropriate "Criticism of the RipOff Report Website", or deletion of the entire article pending the necessary additional research and writing befitting an encyclopedia article accessible to billions of people. Contrablue (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Location[edit] and,+Apache+Junction,+AZ+85219&cid=10355222873996250602 seem to imply that Xcentric Ventures sold its location at 2033 W McDowell Boulevard, Apache Junction, AZ 85220-9157 for $175,000 on 15 June 2010.   — Jeff G.  ツ 03:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Report removed pyramid sales scheme[edit]

Can anyone tell me why this report was removed:

The title (Scentura) is there, but a link to the report is not.

Does anyone else have links which no longer work also?

Right above this link the site says:

Wondering if a report is missing? We DO NOT remove reports from our database. However, as the leading consumer advocacy website, our technology is being continually upgraded to handle the volume of searches from consumers, the media, the authorities and millions of others from around the world. While we are always in the process of upgrading, our search results may not return all reports. This is only temporary and intermittent. If you are an attorney helping victims, the media, or law-enforcement, please contact us to have us run a complete database search to help your case or story.

It says we do not remove reports from our database, but could a report still be in the database and have the link to it removed?

Any clarification would be appreciated, preferably with proof. Calendar2 (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ripoffreport never responded to my email. Ripoffreport deletes complaints about pyramid sales schemes? Calendar2 (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

ROR's URL structure has changed. That report was not removed; it is still located on the site here: DS Cable (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding lawsuits[edit]

Regarding lawsuits, reliable third-party coverage, and not court filings by parties in question, are appropriate sources. Complaints can contain literally anything, and they are not reliable. If the complaint itself is noteworthy, someone else will have reported on it in a reliable publication. See WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY for more. JFHJr () 01:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I just cut a large amount of material due to this. We need third party reporting to establish the proper weight and context. - MrOllie (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The court filings are primary sources of what litigants have claimed. Mr. Ollie needs to distinguish between allegations that RIpoff Report has made and whether the courts have ruled upon them. It is censorship to delete Wikipedia commentary on court filings.

Mr. Ollie's edits are one-sided.

By Mr. Ollie's reasoning, he should also delete all references substantiated by citations to Ripoff Report's court filings that portray Ripoff Report in a favorable light. Currently, those include references #31, 33, 34, 38, 39, 77, 82, 84, 87, 88, 89. Mr. Ollie has not deleted those. His edits do not present a neutral point of view. They are all court documents posted at

Applying Mr. Ollie's policy would result in massive censorship of what Ripoff Report's activities in the courts have been and their mixed results. Therefore, all these types of sources should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fromthestretch (talkcontribs) 23:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that Mr. Ollie reword any material in the article to make it clear when the source is a court order, or a court filing, rather than simply cutting out wholesale large portions of this article. See the guidlines at — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fromthestretch (talkcontribs) 23:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Fromthestretch (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree that these documents are primary sources. The issue is that on Wikipedia, we are generally not supposed to summarize primary sources - we are supposed to summarize secondary sources. It is not in the scope of Wikipedia to write about court cases if journalistic outlets have taken no notice of them. I cannot reword the material because both filings and court orders are primary sources and we should not be basing this content on either one - secondary sources such as news articles are required. - MrOllie (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Ollie, you have deleted approximately 75% of the article along with its references, for the third time in close to 24 hours. Rather than revert your large scale edits and engage in edit warring, I will refer you to ==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion== Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Fromthestretch (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Fromthestretch, you should be aware that citing YouTube or similar videos not clearly uploaded by the copyright holder (as is clearly the case here) is contrary to Wikipedia policy. And as for material uploaded to, it cannot be cited either: there is no way to verify the authenticity of such documents. Though primary legal documents are unlikely to be accepted as a source anyway, as MrOllie has already explained. Find proper sourcing, and we can discuss what needs to go into the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. What is "proper sourcing" for the public record? Back in 2006, this talk page stated that "For more clarity we could use a simple complete list of cases against ROR. No extended case histories. Mentioning only end-verdicts and currently undecided cases, with references to documents or sites about it. 20:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)." The last revision deleted the entire list of cases.

This goes also for the multitude of cases that Ripoff Report has filed against reporters and its critics. So you are saying that Wikipedia cannot cite to cases filed in the public record unless a reporter has commented on it? The last revisions deleted scored of blog posts and online news sources about cases filed. What references are acceptable? Westlaw? LEXIS? Do you no longer believe it is useful to collect a list of lawsuits?Fromthestretch (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Something posted by an anonymous IP back in 2006 certainly cannot determine article content in 2013. Apart from anything else, policy and guidelines have changed considerably since then - though I doubt that the proposed content was in agreement with policy even at the time. As for what 'proper sourcing' consists of, you should read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. If a court case is significant, it will have been reported in secondary sources. Find them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Is this reliable?[edit]

I came across:

Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The first one is a WordPress blog, so probably not; the second one probably is, as the Phoenix New Times is an actual publication. Trivialist (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)