Talk:Amigo Energy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Energy (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Threaded Discussion[edit]

Should this company page include details on the separation of a former CEO and the subsequent employment court battle? Commo soldier (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Even though the source of the information creates a COI, the facts are still present and they're from a reputable source (a law firm). The wording of the article would remain the same even if the information was presented from a neutral source. As far as whether or not it is relevant to the article itself, I think that given the fact he was CEO makes it notable. I think it's worth keeping. Pvvni (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I am an Amigo Energy customer looking for information about the company. I have never left a note on Wikipedia before, so excuse my ignorance if I am incorrect. However, I feel that this article lacks substance and rather serves as an agenda for a disgruntle employee. I was under the understanding that Wikipedia was a forum for neutral information to educate readers. This article lacks real substance such as where they service customers, how many customers they have, how large they are, etc. Take Reliant Energy's article for example, which includes information about the company and their operations, not about any lawsuits, etc. (which I am sure they have had plenty of as well - as a matter of fact, I am sure they have fired executives and have probably been sued for that a time or two. But unless that affects their operations or substantially who they are now, how is it relative?). Has the lawsuit against Mr. Vega affected the companies operations in any substantial way? If so, include that information and that would make it relative in my opinion. Otherwise, please just add information actually ABOUT the company. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No it appears to be written either for or by him and is very opinionated. I was surprised to see this here when I logged in to view the page about Amigo Energy.-- (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Questionable source regarding Vega's termination[edit]

I have to call into question the source used for describing Javier Vega's termination and subsequent lawsuit. In short, it's a press release from the law firm that represented Vega at trial, which automatically presents a WP:COI problem. If another source can't be found that discusses the situation regarding Amigo Energy and Vega's separation, without bringing the obvious bias into the matter, any discussion of Vega's separation -- I use that word specifically to maintain neutrality -- should be restricted to an article on Vega himself, and kept out of the company's article. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Found another article mentioning Amigo Energy and Javier Vega's termination. Added as a reference in the Controversy section. (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The good: it verifies the information. The bad: even though it comes from what most would call a reliable source (the Fort Worth Star-Telegram), the article is an op-ed piece, which is going to leave the door open to other challenges regarding non-neutrality. I read the referenced article before I came back here, and I don't see any inherent bias in its content; Lieber matter-of-factly states the result of the trial and the jury award, using it as a support for his own argument instead of arguing for (or against) Vega. I'd still like to see another source regarding Vega's termination, though. Of course, if another source CAN be found, it might argue for Vega getting a stand-alone article, which would remove the "Controversy" section completely from this article and replace it with a "see also". --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting controversy. The Dave Lieber source is definitely a biased opinion piece, and is likely editorializing the very press release from the law firm already called into question in P1 of this talk page. Additionally, Lieber's "Watchdog" column has a frequent history of targeting local businesses with a heavy populist bent, and is indefensible as an objective source. The topic of the article is to communicate strategies for coercing refunds on bills, and the inclusion of an employment dispute on this topic is suspect. I agree with the administrator, if the issue at hand is the employment status of Vega, shouldn't there be a stand-alone page for Vega?

Source:,, Commo soldier (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I'm going to play both sides of the fence here by stating although Lieber is citing the court case for his own ends, the results of that case are NOT in question, nor is Vega's employment status (or lack thereof) with Amigo Energy. I don't know enough about him or his activities to be able to judge whether he warrants his own article under WP:GNG. My original concern was what I saw as WP:UNDUE weight being given to his firing in an article about a company which previously employed him as CEO. Reviewing the article now, however, I must begin to ask if it meets WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:ORGIN without a discussion of Vega's termination. Conversely, would an article on Vega meet notability criteria without fouling WP:BLP1E? The two issues appear to be intertwined. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You make some good points. After doing some research, I agree that the issues are definitely intertwined. To start first with the issue of a stand-alone article for Vega, it would likely fail the "Depth of coverage" standard for "notable" according to this portion of WP:CORPDEPTH: "routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel" which defines "merely trivial coverage". With regard to the question of WP:UNDUE weight, the rules classify aspects of the subject as either majority viewpoints, minority viewpoints, and extremely small (or vastly limited) viewpoints. According to WP:UNDUE, "generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". Given that the discussion of the departure of Mr. Vega fails to qualify as notable given that the source is expressly excluded as "merely trivial", I would suggest that it also moves into the same area as a "vastly limited viewpoint" and is eligible for removal. Consensus on this is supported elsewhere[1]. It is likely that the intent of the rules in WP:CORPDEPTH are not only to identify the types of coverage that do not qualify the entire article as notable, but also intends to generally exclude those types of coverage as inappropriate for inclusion.

Untold hordes of employment lawsuits are filed every week, and unless more than one reliable and independent source gives these occurances significant coverage, they are not notable - only "merely trivial"(notice the plurality in first sentence of WP:CORPDEPTH).

While the results of the lawsuit are undisputed, truth alone does not qualify content for inclusion. Also, is the title "Controversy" appropriate? Seems like a weighted statement. Maybe "Conflict" would be better. I'm genuinely curious to hear the author's point of view! Commo soldier (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Just revisiting this, sans input from the author on this talk page I am assuming consensus on classifying the entire matter as trivial as well as running afoul of other wikipedia standards mentioned above. Dissenters speak up!  :) Commo soldier (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep the facts in the article. Vega was the founder and CEO of Amigo Energy, and his involuntary termination and lawsuit are quite relevant and qualify for inclusion. The termination of a CSR or any other lower level employee is not what is getting posted here. When Commo soldier gets terminated from Amigo Energy, this fact will not qualify for inclusion, as he is not the CEO, president, or founder. (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoa - let's not digress into personal attacks. Not sure what you are referring to about my being fired from a company I don't work for, but it will be best if we focus on the topic at hand: the lack of references to coverage of Vega's termination. Unless unbiased references can be provided to this story per Wikipedia guidelines, I am not seeing any way to justify its inclusion. The guidelines specifically mention the hiring/firing of employees as trivial matters. Unless outside citations can indicate otherwise, the mention of Vega's firing in the Amigo Energy article only serves the agendas of the parties mentioned, and does not serve to provide relevant and verifiable information to Wikipedia readers. Wikipedia is NOT a dispute resolution forum.

My vote is to remove mention of this matter.

Commo soldier (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

After re-reading the talk comments made by user, I am not seeing an attempt to reach consensus or otherwise comply with Wikipedia guidelines regarding this matter. I don't believe that the reasons for including this announcement of a termination and subsequent legal settlement are unbiased. The goal is to have a quality, relevant collection of information about the topic. I will wait for a response here, and if that response is to simply re-post the disputed information with no support, I will elevate this matter to dispute resolution.

Commo soldier (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I see in the revision history that on November 10th deleted the post regarding the reversal of the jury verdict in an attempt to continue to portray the interim finding as final. This behavior shows an explicit lack of a NPOV in the creation and editing history of this post. The Wikipedia rules explicitly prohibit using this medium as a platform for personal dispute resolution, with a specific reference to employment issues.

Mr. Vega's termination, while unfortunate, was not covered in the press with the exception of one article. The remainder of the references are simply a regurgitation of the press release (usually produced by the law firm as marketing content), and are not legitimate coverage of this event according to the Wikipedia guidelines.

Neither notability nor NPOV have been established, and the existence of this section invites suspicion as to the motives of the author as evidenced by the revision history.

Can someone else PLEASE provide some feedback here? This page has been a mess for too long!

Thanks, Commo soldier (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am here because RFCBot picked me randomly to help out. I'm not completely versed in the issue but here's my take on it:

  • The fact that the founder and CEO was terminated followed by legal dispute seems notable. However, the lack of secondary sources indicates this is not particularly notable.
  • The lack of secondary sources also means we can't say much more about it other than that there is a lawsuit. (Press releases by Vega's law firm do not meet our reliability standards.) When there is a judgment we can add that. Perhaps there will be secondary coverage at that time also.
  • Putting this in a separate "controversy" section seems undue. I suggest it be part of the history section.

Jojalozzo 00:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I added material to the history section, although this section needs additional references regarding Vega as CEO and founder: I am sure there are some out there. I will differ to an editor bolder than I to delete the "Controversy" section as it is now redundant. (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Shortened paragraph:It is correct to state that there was one person named in the lawsuit filed by Vega who was not part of the Fulcrum executive team. That additional person was Everard Santamarina, but he was not a fellow co-founder of Amigo Energy. The only other founder besides Javier Vega was Javier's father, Antonio Vega. Everard Santamarina had been a close friend of Javier Vega's from graduate school, but he was not a co-founder of Amigo Energy, so I'm correcting the History section edit done earlier today, removing the part about "fellow co-founder". (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jojalozzo. I rewrote the History section, adding content with verifiable sources and covering the disputed lawsuit with neutral language and correct reference. I removed the "Controversy" section as it is now redundant (per Jojalozzo's suggestion). The information on the lawsuit is now an objective mention of the suit and the judgement as described in the court documents; this is within guidelines on undue weight. It might enhance this section to add references to the original petition, but I think that anymore content on this subject would be undue weight. Please make an argument if you feel that there should be additional coverage of this suit on this article page! Thanks for everyone's help. Commo soldier (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Commo's changes satisfy the need to include mention of the lawsuit without making it into more than the sources would support. Good work everyone. Jojalozzo 02:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The surprising amount of text that seems to be required to explain what should be a brief mention (e.g. after Fulcrum terminated Vega without cause, he sued and lost) as well as recent troubles with the link for the court docs is giving me second thoughts. I think we need reliable secondary sources for this. Otherwise it's giving it undue weight. Jojalozzo 04:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

One of the interesting things about the case is that Vega didn't actually lose the wrongful termination lawsuit. The judgement won't be final for a while, so I don't expect any secondary sources yet. Please post if you find some. The case keeps evolving. Even after a "final" judgement is final, there will always be appeals. You can log on to the Harris County clerk's website and view the case's documents, but it requires a free login for security purposes. If you read the case's petition, you can see that there was drastic upheaval in the Amigo Energy management in the summer leading up to Vega's termination. As the founder and active CEO of Amigo Energy who was responsible for the actions of the company, he did not agree with or condone the actions of other Fulcrum executives in charging inappropriately high rates to customers. You can see the hordes of complaints lodged by Amigo customers against Amigo that summer merely by looking at the main article's history page. I haven't bothered to recite the complaints references, but I can if that helps. In response to the numerous complaints, the PUC stepped in, opened an investigation of Amigo about the high rates, and told Amigo to re-rate the customers' bills with a lower rate. Then the Fulcrum executives ignored the PUC's orders and instead misrepresented the PUC's order as supporting the original too-high rates when they communicated with the Amigo customers. When Vega accidentally walked in un-invited on a meeting of Fulcrum and Amigo management and discovered a fraudulent and misrepresentative letter that the management team was planning to send to mis-billed customers at the beginning of October 2008, he was terminated shortly after for clearly stating that this letter could not be sent out with its misrepresentations. Upon Vega's termination, he was not paid for his earned bonus, unused vacation, or the value of his equity in the company, even though Fulcrum had previously agreed to do so in Vega's employment contract. He even asked politely about his earned compensation and equity. So he had to file a civil suit to get Fulcrum to pay him for these components that he had already earned or owned. And in August 2011, and jury unanimously agreed that Vega was wrongfully terminated and that Fulcrum should pay him for his equity interest in the company, which they valued at about $2M. There are more details, and the case is ongoing, even though the original trial is over. The Fulcrum executive team had to work really hard after that summer to change their image with both the PUC and the public. The mention of the Vega termination, along with the heavy number or customer complaints, gives a general wikipedia reader a little bit of insight into the ethics and actions of the Fulcrum executive team and the strategic shifting that took place at Amigo in 2008. The references for this paragraph are the Harris County district clerk site's documents for this case, which I cannot effectively link to here because of the clerk site's security measures. Feel free to log in and read the documents. (talk) 06:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
It sounds like you have a personal interest in this issue. Do you have a personal or business relationship with any of the executives of Fulcrum or Amigo? Jojalozzo 17:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I think this is obviously a NPOV WP:NPOV issue. There is a lot of apparently original content in the latest additions. Someone should make a separate page for Vega if it is notable, with a "see also" pointing to it as suggested by Alan the Roving Ambassador. Just my thoughts :) (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I have ongoing business relationships with most of the parties involved in the lawsuit. I was surprised when I was contacted by both sides of this case as a potential witness as I really didn't have much to add, but that made me start looking through the court docs to see what was going on, beyond what others had already told me. I knew some of what had happened and how the customer service representative's were told to handle customers, but I didn't know the extent or detail. The court docs have been very informative all the way around. (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


I shortened the content related to the lawsuit and tried to neutralize the info about complaints. Please review and revise.

I do not understand how Amigo is getting awards for customer satisfaction and performance while also being rated as having higher than average complaints:

Amigo is currently labelled with a "higher than average rate of complaints" on its most recent PUCT Residential Retail Electric Provider Complaint Scorecard, ranked at #31 out of 38 REPs in Texas.

In 2010, Amigo Energy was ranked #2 in the J.D. Power and Associates Customer Satisfaction Index Ranking.

As of September, 2011, Amigo Energy was ranked as "Better Than Most" in all qualification areas by J.D. Power and Associates.

It's probably evident from reading the sources but I don't have time now. If no one else gets around to sorting it out I'll have a look over the weekend. Jojalozzo 02:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Great work on this, Jojalozzo, thanks for your help. This is looking great, I cleaned up a few issues as well, and this thing is starting to be pretty neutral. FYI Joja - I read up on the references, and the complaint scorecard is a regulatory administrative issue of processing consumer challenges, while the J.D. Power & Assoc. rating is based on customer survey. Not really an issue leaving these lines as-is, both statements are factual and verifiable. But that is kind of quirky.

One other small thing, I should be able to cite that court document without a link directly to it, as WP guidelines only require that the cited material be "available to the public", even if payment or other hurdles exist, such as referencing a copyrighted book or video stored in a news station archive. What would be the best way to write this citation? I took a gander at the WP help articles, but was unable to come up with an answer quickly. I will look at it later this weekend, but hoping you have a short answer :) Thanks again for your input! Commo soldier (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that court documents are primary sources and not considered reliable in the absence of secondary sources. Jojalozzo 05:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I am probably wrong about relability of court docs. Go ahead and add that ref for the case but please tell the reader how to search for the docs themselves since the link you're using takes me to a blank search page and is not a valid link for the doc. Jojalozzo 05:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with citing the court docs, but then I also don't see any issue with citing the Bracewell & Giuliani article or the Fort Worth Star Telegram article about the case. All three are references for the fact that a lawsuit was filed between those two parties. (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
We just need a ref for the trial outcome. All the intervening court activity is not pertinent (WP:UNDUE). The Bracewell & Giuliani press release is not reliable and the Star Telegram piece does not cover the final outcome. It would be best if we had a similar article that covered the final judgment. Jojalozzo 23:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Just throwing this out there, if the only coverage is from op-ed, press releases, and primary sources, is the entire case in fact notable? Especially with no verifiable coverage (to date) of the outcome of the lawsuit. It seems that any inclusion without verifiable coverage is de facto non-neutral.Commo soldier (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

And I am deleting the stuff above (for the second time) about Mr. Santamarina. Please read WP:living regarding unverifiable info on living persons. Please do not undue this delete.Commo soldier (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I added a shortened version of the paragraph back in. This is a talk page, not the main article, and I was explaining an edit that I did on the main article. In fact, my edit did correspond with guidelines, as I was removing a statement from the main article (less information is better than wrong information, correct?). Santamarina was not a cofounder of Amigo Energy. Santamarina was sued, but no cofounders were sued. There was never anything negative or sensationalistic in this paragraph. I could have even cited Santamarina's published resume to support this paragraph and the corresponding edit, but I did not expect this edit and its supporting logic to get this kind of reaction. (talk)

After reading up on the "scorecards" by the PCUT, these are published regularly for all of the companies. Without secondary coverage, this is original content that is neither notable nor verifiable, so I went ahead and deleted the content. The info on the fine in 2008 is notable as it was covered by a verifiable secondary source. The fact that complaint statistics for every month for every company are made public by the PCUT means that individual instances of information are not notable. This would be akin to arbitrarily listing every speeding and parking ticket received by every player for the L.A. Lakers; while factual, it would be less than notable and have undue weight on the spirit of the Lakers article because it isn't covered by a secondary source, meaning that inclusion is tantamount to original thought. I am challenging the neutrality of listing complaint statistics for Amigo Energy UNLESS they are specifically covered by a true third party per wikipedia guidelines on sourcing making them notable.. I encourage all editors to read up on: "Wikipedia is not a battleground" and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". This article should portray a neutral point of view, and I ask that future edits and additions of content be towards that purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that the reports published by the PUC and regulatory consults about complaint data is "akin to arbitrarily listing every speeding and parking ticket received by every player for the L.A. Lakers". The complaint reports are more like baseball statistics that communicate a general situation in fairly simple terms. There is plenty of additional media (third party) coverage of the complaints from Amigo Energy customers, but any source other than the government agency's own reports and those of third party regulatory consultants (again, a secondary source already referenced before being deleted by another editor) may be targeted as biased and not appropriately neutral by another editor, so I didn't cite any additional sources. This sounds like a challenge to the neutrality or verifiability of the PUC's own reports. I added the report information back in. (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

My research shows that the lawsuit filed by Vega had multiple elements, including alleged fraud, breach of duty, breach of contract, and negligence, wrongful termination, and termination without cause. While Vega prevailed in one of these elements, termination without cause, he did not prevail in the majority of his claims. The judge in the case states clearly in the "ORDER ON REQUESTS FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS" document that with regard to the lawsuit as a whole, the Plaintiff (Vega) was not the prevailing party, and the Defendant "Fulcrum" was the prevailing party, which is why the judge awarded Fulcrum attorney's fees. Those in the Vega camp may see this as hiding the fact that Vega prevailed in the one element, however it would misleading to characterize the case as being about the one element that Vega prevailed in (which has been in the article up until now). The judge states clearly in his order that the case was about much more, and that overall Fulcrum prevailed. My edit reflects this neutral finding by the judge, references it, and corrects the narrow language that Vega "sued for wrongful termination".

With regard to the previous issue on citing the court docs, please see the WP page on References, which explicitly talks about how to handle restricted access links. Regarding these court documents, they are available in both their original form on file at the Court Clerk office, or online through the Court Clerk website. I have opted to provide the link to the website as a matter of convenience, but the validity of the citations does not rest on the ability to link directly to the document on the world wide web. All information needed to view the exact content that I am referencing is appropriately included in the citations. Thanks everyone, and as always your input is valued! Commo soldier (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It's good to have the case and outcome explained better but I don't see how it's relevant, especially in the amount of detail now presented (itemized charges, quotes of the judge, exact amount of the judgment). Given that Fulcrum's actions were found to be legitimate, how does the whole lawsuit have sufficient weight to deserve mention in an article about the company (not about Vega)? I suggest we move the details into the reference/footnote. Jojalozzo 13:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I AGREE. I vote we either truncate the explanation to exclude the amount of the judgement, or remove mention of the case entirely. To simply state that Vega sued without showing that said suit did not prevail is a bit pejorative, even if the details are included in a footnote. So, what's your vote folks, truncate the existing mention of the suit to something like "Vega sued for several issues, defendant prevailed" with existing citations, or remove this matter entirely? I tend to side with Joja, that given the failure of Vega's suit to prevail, this is not especially relevant to Amigo Energy as a subject.
Also I found this document that shows Vega's dad is the CEO and Vega jr. as the Regulatory Representative at Mission Power, a start-up competitor of Amigo. The original dispute on this talk page was regarding the NPOV of the lawsuit being added to the article, and the fact that the principal center of the controversy works for a competitor of the company adds a little color to this whole discussion.
Folks, please chime in on this, and I will make the edits unless someone volunteers to so in the meantime. Thanks everyone! Commo soldier (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I would generally assume that the company's founders would still be working in the same industry, maybe even founding another company, so I don't see how that is a problem. Would the same set of facts in the article somehow have a different meaning if the employment arrangements of these people were different? Good link idea, but I don't see how it's relevant here. (talk)

Ok, weren't we all talking about less coverage of this lawsuit? These new edits are highly inappropriate. While the $2M jury valuation is interesting, the court docs show that the judge found that part of the jury finding to be inappropriate and threw it out. Didn't we cover this already? He also promptly denied motions by the plaintiff to reverse his finding, and the final judgement shows the valuation to be in effect zero, not 2M. Your other edits were rather severe against Amigo as well regarding complaint statistics from up to 5 years ago, which are not appropriate content for a wikipedia page.

Also, please keep discussion edits linear, it makes it easier for everyone to read and keeps the signatures appropriately aligned with the author's comments. Regarding your statement above it certainly matters if someone with a commercial interest in damaging a company image is making edits to this article.Commo soldier (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

NPOV tag[edit]

Is the NPOV tag in the 'History' section still necessary? Beagel (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparently so, there is still dispute about the listing of government data. Maybe the NPOV tag is more appropriate at the article level, not the history level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, thanks for the clarification of the Fulcrum/Amigo issue, Beagle. I got confused.

Article level NPOV tag sounds fine. Someone at an Amigo Energy address ( is deleting my edits without any listed reason. (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Performance and complaints[edit]

Wikipedia is not a place to act out the vindication of a disgruntled employee or competitor. The language added by to the Performance and complaints section is heavily weighted against Amigo in general, and NPOV problems have already been established regarding this user's involvement in a lawsuit with the company. Please, add to the relevant, informative nature of this article, and don't simply inflame this process by building a case against your least-favorite electric company. By all Wikipedia standards, collection of data from government agencies, even if it is public, and flaming a company on their article page is not notable, relevant, and neutral. Even addressing complaint statistics at all is undue weight, unless those complaint statistics are covered by a third party, such as a news source. Given the obvious NPOV and other issues here, I am undoing the revision, PLEASE ADD TO THIS DISCUSSION, don't just go repost your agenda! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm adding the complaint scorecard information back into the "performance and complaints" section. I am also listing out third party references regarding the relevance of the Retail Electric Provider Complaint Scorecards information. This was requested somewhere outside of this talk section. Also, the information about the PUC investigation into Amigo Energy and its conclusion was already verified with third party sources, and there was no cited cause to remove it; I'm adding it back in. It's information about Amigo Energy; it's not ugly or inflammatory information, it's just factual and relevant information. See the following references for complaint scorecard relevance: 1) "But we would be remiss to point out that they consistently have one of the worst complaint records on file with the Public Utilities Commission."[2] 2) "Hopefully this complaint scorecard will give you some idea on what energy companies are worth switching to."[3] 3) "Every month, the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) issues a new Residential Retail Electric Provider Complaint Scorecard. The scorecard (which is available to the public on makes it easy for consumers to see the rate at which customers complain about the different electricity REPs in Texas."[4] 4) "To help you make an informed decision when choosing your next provider, the Public Utility Commission of Texas publishes a complaint scorecard each month. These scorecards take into account six months of customer complaint data and rate each provider based on how many complaints they have received."[5] 5) "The link marked “Residential Retail Electric Provider Complaint Scorecard” leads you to a state scorecard showing complaint ratings for a six-month period based on a four-star system, similar to movie ratings. Except, here, you don’t want four stars."[6] (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The complaint info is NOT an objective and unbiased comparison to other companies, and wikipedia is not the place to create that comparison (Original Work). Author of content is almost certainly related to a certain competitor, and is using wikipedia as a battleground (see WP:BATTLEGROUND). I am deleting these posts as blatantly biased and destructive to the spirit of wikipedia. I am also pleading to to cease this edit war and recuse yourself from further libel of Amigo Energy. (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This section is titled "Performance and Complaints", not "Only Awards". I already responded to your previous challenge or request for third party references to support the relevance of the complaint scorecard. I know that it is your job, as an Amigo Energy (now Just Energy) employee at an Amigo Energy address,, to present a biased view of Amigo Energy. I have not deleted any of the information you have posted, even though it has been questionable at times, and you have not always added third party references to support your edits, even when requested on this page. I have posted factual, relevant information from multiple unbiased, third party sources. The complaint information is actually from government sites and industry newsletters, not from any potentially biased media outlets, and is cited appropriately. This shouldn't bother you, and it follows Wikipedia guidelines. I haven't posted other, exclusively positive info about Amigo since you have managed to do that already. I'm adding the complaint facts back in. Please refrain from deleting appropriately cited, relevant facts. (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The content is not appropriately included - 2007 is not relevant to the history of this brand, and inclusion of asymmetric, biased info is not appropriate, EVEN IF YOU HAVE REFERENCES. Please read the wikipedia guidelines. you have already self-identified as someone close to executives no longer with the company, please do not use this page as a place to promote personal agendas. I am deleting your edits. (talk) 14:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The performance and complaint information I have posted is related to 2007, 2008, and 2011. Some of it is past and present (2007 and late 2011) complaint information, and some of it is regulatory investigation information. 2007 is relevant to the history of this brand, as it was the year that Amigo signed up as jersey sponsor for the local soccer team, the Houston Dynamo. That was a big brand recognition year for Amigo, followed by a few more big years. You can post additional years' information about performance and complaint data; I did not include more data from 2009 and 2010 as it was so similar to the rest of the posted complaint data. (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request:
I don't see a problem with the inclusion of complaints in a performance and complaints section at all. Perhaps turning the data into prose may settle people down a bit? It is worth noting at this point that the people vehemently against the inclusion of this information have only and expressly dealt with this article only since their account creation, which makes it clear they are pushing an agenda. This is wikipedia kids, not your public relations department. :P ʇdɯoɹdɥsɐq (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Also note that the single individual that is a proponent of including this info fits the same description. I think everyone clearly understands that wikipedia is not a PR department. Wikipedia is also not a platform for disgruntled individuals to wage defamation against brands. If the interpretation of information put forth for inclusion had been vetted through standard news channels AND was relevant to the current form of the company (new owners are now in place), then it would meet prevailing wikipedia guidelines. The content posted that is in question is an ORIGINAL interpretation of both factual data and opinion of the editor. This is NOT considered acceptable under wikipedia guidelines. This matter is very clearly dealt with in rules.

For additional support of my position, note that the WP page on the iPhone contains verifiable information on the physical attributes and operations of the article subject, and is not a forum for controversy and discontent (of which there is plenty).

Anyone else choose to weigh in on this? :) (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)