Talk:Ripoff Report/Archives/2013

Report removed pyramid sales scheme
Can anyone tell me why this report was removed: The title (Scentura) is there, but a link to the report is not.
 * http://www.ripoffreport.com/Search/36647.aspx

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: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r//Salt-Lake-City-Utah-84120-1202/World-Perfume-Scentura-Scentura-Creations-hundreds-of-distributor-names-Scentura-World-36647 DS Cable (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding lawsuits
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 scribd.com.

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 (talk • contribs) 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fromthestretch (talk • contribs) 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== Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at 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 scribd.com, 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. 82.73.147.201 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? PAER.gov? 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 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)