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)

Pokey5945, thank you for using the talk page. Wikipedia requires reliable sources WP:RS to support statements about a subject. BBB ratings typically don't make it onto Wikipedia pages; and here the subject has a | B- rating. Thus, I've reverted your edit.DavidWestT (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There was no problem with the original BBB source--a news article. It is certainly notable, and well sourced, and so it stays in. Furthermore, you have given no explanation for repeatedly deleting 6000 characters under obfuscatory edit summaries. WHat is your justification for that?Pokey5945 (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The BBB source you provided goes to the | Northwest BBB Florida page. It says nothing about Vivint. Subject is in Utah, not FL.DavidWestT (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your allegations are false. The source re BBB's grade of F is an ABC news piece. Please do not change the title of this Talk page section again. You still haven't attempted to justify your mass deletions.Pokey5945 (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears that the current Better Business Bureau rating is B- according to this. The ABC source is certainly reliable, but may be outdated. Bahooka (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that link was already supplied. Maybe the article can note that it had an F rating and the BBB raised it to a B-, with both sources? Bahooka (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. A Wikipedia search for "BBB rating" shows a handful of businesses with the current rating. So let's include the rating. DavidWestT (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What is your rationale for redacting the ABC story from a few weeks ago? How do you know what the "current rating" is, given that ABC's reporting contradicts your claim?Pokey5945 (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Instead of going back and forth with this content, you may want to consider Requests for comment to get feedback from additional editors. Bahooka (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Reintroducing Advert flag and readding or removing advertising
The April 2 version, among others, cleared the advertising flag after what looks like a lot of clean up. It doesn't make sense to revert to a 2014 version that did include advertising language ("excellent" this or that) just so we can include the advert flag.

I re-added the full legal issues section in this morning's edit. It is granular for Wikipedia. At 8 paragraphs the reasonable reader gets the point. Any more, and Vivint probably can use a separate page just on Legal Issues.DavidWestT (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please cite the WP policy re granularity that you are using to justify your deletion of this content.Pokey5945 (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is Vivint's sanctioning by the Better Business Bureau and numerous state prosecutors relevant?
1) Vivint has been sanctioned by prosecutors in many states for illegal business practices. Is a complete listing of these sanctions relevant? 2) Vivint was recently (December 2014) given a rating of "F" by the BBB. The BBB web page currently (May 2015) shows a rating of B-. Is the F rating relevant? Is the number of complaints recently received by the BBB relevant? Pokey5945 (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding (1): As long as the content about legal issues is accurate, NPOV, and properly sourced (which, upon a cursory glance, it seems to be), then I don't think it's a problem to include it. Information about a company's legal troubles is not inherently POV or unencyclopedic.
 * Regarding (2): I'm not sure BBB ratings are relevant, period. The BBB isn't a government organization, and has been criticized for its rating practices. Is there existing consensus/precedent for including BBB ratings in articles about businesses? –GlottalFricative(talk) 01:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree on both parts. First, though it is appropriate to report on sanctioning, the detail should be limited. If for example they have been sanctioned by 2 or 3 states, we'd list them. If by 20, we give the number and if possible a summary ref, or if necessary a number and all their refs, and perhaps say something like initially by ND, and most recently by NH, or whatever. Listing each one is bias by overemphasis. As for the BBB, despite instances of unreliability and charges of bias, their ratings remain generally accepted.  DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point about summarizing if there's a large number of them. (See also The Gnome's comment below.) However, I'm still not sure about the BBB rating (especially if it changes with apparent regularity). Do you know of any other articles for businesses that list BBB ratings?
 * Actually, addendum after I typed the above: I looked through WP:RSN for discussions of the BBB and found this one and this one. The first discussion seems to support that the BBB is reliable and worthy of mentioning. The second is less clear. I also found this discussion, which, while not mainly about the BBB, brings up a related point. Might it be WP:UNDUE weight to put the BBB rating in the lead of the article? Actually, looking at the lead again, I'd be inclined to remove both the BBB rating and the reference to an award. Do you think refactoring the BBB rating into the body of the article is a good compromise? (The award is already listed in its own "recent awards" section.) –GlottalFricative(talk) 14:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep it short and refer to sources for fuller information. -The Gnome (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Relevant, maintain due weight I was invited randomly here by a bot. The sanctions are clearly relevant. A long list of law suits and settlements is undue. A summary of legal issues should provide sufficient coverage. Jojalozzo (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Jojalozzo, as above. -The Gnome (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Attempting to summarize the comments above into a consensus: All of the legal proceedings are relevant, and should be addressed and cited, but should be consolidated into a shorter summary discussion per WP:UNDUE. BBB should be removed from intro, but remains relevant in the body. Awards should also be removed from the intro.Pokey5945 (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Full reporting is better Greetings, I was called by the bot. More information is better than less, provided the information is relevant and has references / citations. A quick look at things and it appears to me that enumerating a full list of such information better serves researchers than would be a partial, reduced list. Obviously the Wikipedia article can be expected to be the first Google search result and would serve as a launching-off point for prospective customers and even prosecutors et al., so I believe that to work to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic, more information is almost always better than less. Damotclese (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This completely ignores the fact that it's a BLP we're talking bout. Discretion is strictly recommended. Not the opposite. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Vivint is a corporation, not a person. If this is a misunderstanding, would you care to modify your comments above?Pokey5945 (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the confusion. (I have to cut down on the RfC's I'm participating, perhaps.) My comments abt this being a BLP, of course, are wrong and should not apply. -The Gnome (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Cite all, but condense - All cases should be cited as sources, but don't go overboard on how much space and text to attribute to each one. Minor cases should be mentioned, major ones explained. Mathijsvs (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments

 * I think a summary with a full set of references would be better than a long list of specific legal disputes. Thorough references would serve those who have an interest in the specifics and the summary would provide good balance with the rest of the article. Jojalozzo (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Remove This is a large (>$240 M / year) company. The lawsuits seem minor (all less than $1/2 a million, and only two over $400k in five years) . I don't believe that this is out of line for a company of this size. More importantly, I see nothing in the references that would make me think this is out of line. One of the references quotes a BBB representative saying that the number of complaints is "not many" for a company of this size, and nothing in any of the references that I've seen seems to contradict that. Unless we can show, with valid references, that the lawsuits are unusual in some way (and include context), then I vote that this information should not be included. Wikipedia does not typically list lawsuits (or summarize lawsuits) unless we can also relevance. Also, some of the references for this section are press releases - that may be fine when used for some things, but not for legal actions. If legal actions are important, they should have better references than press releases. Regarding the BBB "F" rating, I think that including that based solely on information from the BBB site borders on original research. Unless there is a reference in the press, academia, etc., about this rating (which should also include some context and background), I would not include that either. James Cage (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed the potential $6M settlement, but I still do not see any indication that this is out of line. Note that the reference for the settlement is another press release, and the references for the class actions are court filings. If this is indeed unusual / out of line for the industry, why isn't there press coverage? Other sections of this article do read like company advertising - that should be addressed separately. James Cage (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite
Wow this article is bad. Unreliable sources, self-sourced (or otherwise not independent) claims everywhere, odd/unclear wording on controversies and promotional wording spread throughout. Sources used for claims that they don't actually support. This needs a rewrite. I'm going to try and help with what I can. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 23:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Currently in the middle of a mass removal of unsourced content. Half of these award claims are sourced to random semi-relevant links that don't actually mention the award, or are self-cited. Not to mention tons of sources to Forbes contributors, clearly paid/influenced articles, press releases, etc. for significant claims, and blatant lying or extrapolating from sources. There's references to mergers that were only mentioned in SEC filings and not reported anywhere else. There's no way in hell this wasn't WP:PAID and intentionally embellished. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 00:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed content that is improperly sourced, unsourced, etc. I've tried to find content to fill it in, but very few independent, reliable sources write about this outside of the legal issues. Tons of press releases and Forbes contributors posts, though, heh. As well as industry-specific blogs with questionable reliability. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 01:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)