Talk:Vivint

"Criticisms" POV

Added section POV tag to the "Criticisms" subsection because it reads like a defense rather than description of criticisms. Most of the problem is with the third sentence: "Vivint joined the Corporate Advocacy Program for Ripoff Report because they want customers to know they will resolve any and all customer issues." This is definitely not neutral. I don't know the proper way to fix it. 65.78.153.72 (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• I removed the tag, after cleaning up the section and restoring the material deleted by the person who added the advocacy language.Pokey5945 (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oldnoah, please stop reverting the edits to this page. I have restored information about this firm that was in the article originally, and then deleted by someone who was clearly trying to whitewash the firm's history. There should be no question that Vivint's legal problems are notable. How many firms have a BBB alert on them, a Bloomberg article detailing those problems, and numerous district attorneys' alerts? By any standard, this firm has run into a lot of trouble with the law. Reasonable people can disagree over how much detail on Vivint's legal problems should be in WP, but to simply delete the critical material would exhibit a biased POV that does not conform to WP policy.Pokey5945 (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Presumably youngnoah is the same editor. Please stop with the massive deletes, and stop entering corporate puffery in place of the court actions against this firm.Pokey5945 (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I have shortened the disputed section in response to Old/YoungNoah's complaints, and yet the complaints have not changed, nor has there been any attempt at negotiation on the talk page. I have sought assistance from the dispute resolution process, but it was canceled due to Young/OldNoah's refusal to negotiate in good faith on the talk page. I can only conclude that we are dealing with a sock puppet edit warrior who is uninterested in negotiation. I must admit to having lost count and violating the 3RV rule today, and I will take any subsequent sanctions in the spirit in which they are administered. I would request WP administrators to keep an eye on this article. Pokey5945 (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Sentence in lead section

The lead section contains the sentence "A TCPA class action lawsuit has been certified against Vivint (Christopher Johansen v. Vivint, Inc)." It was recently added by a user that continues to add it in after it was reverted. I think the sentence is WP:UNDUE for the lead, particularly as there has been no outcome yet. It's possible that it belongs in the article body, but it probably doesn't belong there. The adding of the this sentence to the lead may be because of WP:RECENTISM. The edits of this IP only consist of critical edits. I am going to remove the sentence from the lead again per WP:BRD and invite new user User:Cnolon to discuss the reasoning here. Bahooka (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

edits

There are many inaccuracies in this page,the page looks like it was written by Vivint with all the fluff pieces.

1. Blackstone (Vivint/APX Group Holdings) doesn't own 2GIG, Norteks's Linear does. (FIXED)

2. The severe weather alerts on the 2GIG panel used by Vivint are not pushed to users by Vivint as suggested in page...Its is a feature provided by alarm.com for the NWS. Vivint has no control over this panel feature. Vivint is a customer (Dealer like hundreds of others) of ADC/2GIG. (FIXED)

3. More detailed summaries provided for State actions against Vivint (Ohio/Nebraska/Kansas) (restored four times)

4. As for the class action in Lead, it is relevant...the lead should be a condensed summary of the page...the fact a class action has been certified is a big deal, that could represent a class in the hundreds of thousands. The fact that the State actions are shown in the Lead support this assertation. Its the same- a short summary of the legal issues.

Cnolon (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

vandalism

This page is a target for vandals who routinely remove information about the numerous actions against Vivint by prosecutors across the country, and about the numerous consumer complaints that have led to BBB giving Vivint an rating of "F". User:DavidWestT is the latest culprit. I would ask anyone interested in editing this article to keep a close watch on all changes made. User:DavidWestT's edits have been made using obfuscatory edit summaries.Pokey5945 (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)