So you're equating a sole proprietor taking ownership (and responsibility) of articles hosted on _his_ site as a sign of negligible behavior? Did you have a contract that indicated you owned the work you produced for the site? The tone of your message conveys a chip on shoulder - and from the looks of things, the articles say Jack Moliere, so as soon as you (publicly) aired your concerns, they were able to fix it.
Did you take any other measures first, or was this seeming attempt to call into question Ron's ethics the first time you've spoken up? Last I checked, a fair number of my old reviews have given games 324234523 / 100, and the pros/cons were borked. The problems have been discussed by the management / tech staff in the site feedback section. Who knows, perhaps all imported articles also indicate Ron, or at least those who's original "owners" do not exist in the latest iteration of the DB.
My point is, is it ethical to slam someone who brings up ethics based on a personal concern in a very public manner without providing them:
a) information about your opined discrepancy
b) an opportunity to explain how or why this happened
c) the knowledge that the lack of credit is something that bothers you.
d) the wherewithal to make corrections or apologies.
It would seem to me that would have been valuable in resolving this issue a lot quicker. Maybe you've been hounding Ron for months about your articles - and this was your last resort. Given the fix turnaround and knowing Ron to be a pretty up-standing guy, I doubt this is the case.
Your approach certainly has brought up some interesting ethical points WRT publication ownership, but I don't know that it speaks at ALL to the explicit topic brought up in the OP.