The purpose of this multi-part RFC is to determine whether particular sections should be included in David L. Jones.

Please reply Yes or Include or No or Exclude in the Survey for each section. Where there are two choices of content, please indicate which is preferred. Do not respond to the !votes of other editors in the Survey. Discussion should be in Threaded Discussion.

• Note to closer - There is off-wiki coordination concerning this article. For that reason, please discount all !votes by unregistered editors. Please take into account that comments by new editors may represent off-wiki coordination. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Current version: Currently, the article states:

On September 17, 2015, the Sydney Morning Herald published an article reporting on an upcoming battery booster product, the Batteriser, and controversy surrounding the claim that it could extend battery life by up to eight times. Dave Jones published at EEVBlog a detailed 40-minute theoretical 'takedown' of Batteroo's claims without having the product.. The CEO of Batteroo, the San Jose tech startup behind the Batteriser, stated that "every single one" of Jones' points was wrong, indicated that legal action against Jones was being considered, claimed that Jones had no formal electronic engineering credentials, and alleged that Jones was in the employ of Duracell (a claim that company denied). Three electronics and battery storage experts interviewed for the article concurred in finding the product claims of 8x battery life extension, misleading.^[1] Earlier, on September 2, 2015, the EEVBlog channel received a number of "dislikes," which Jones alleged was an attempt to demote the rank of a second video criticizing the Batteriser—it was later discovered that other YouTube channels with videos critical of the Batteriser were similarly affected.^[2][3] A researcher at Dell SecureWorks noted that the majority of the dislikes arrived "all at once in massive spikes that did not correlate with an increase in the number of views to the videos being disliked," and explained that dislike spam is a way to manipulate YouTube's view recommendation system.^[3]

Proposed version:

In mid 2015 Jones published a video blog disputing the claims made by the manufacturer of a then unreleased battery life extender, the Batteriser. Batteroo, the company behind the product, refuted Jones' arguments and published a number of demonstration videos in response.^[1] Jones' videos received a number of "dislikes," which he alleged was an attempt to demote the their rank. ^[4]"

Proposed version comments:

A purely factual, undisputed account of what happened based on the limited and rather weak sources available. Caution is exercised due to this being a BLP article.

Should a section be included on the Batteriser and associated controversy?

Should one of these (the current or proposed content) be included in the article? If so, which?

This question is fundamentally flawed. First, it's a false dichotomy. There could be a section, a sentence or two in another section, or nothing at all. Secondly, it presents the current wording as if it were an option, but of course there are infinitely many possible wordings to choose from. Voting "yes there should be a section" does not imply supporting the current text. The question should be scrapped. ゼーロ (talk) 09:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The "current" version is not representative of the discussion so far, as it's a new edit made without discussion by an editor who dropped in to the ongoing content debates. In order not to start further disputes in the midst of DRN, I have not changed it, but I for one challenge the changes. In particular, characterizing the review as a "theoretical 'takedown' ... without having the product at hand" presents a misleading portrayal of the situation, with a negative connotation for the BLP subject: "analyzed the performance claims for a product that had yet to be released for review or sale" or something like that is a more accurate description of the situation. --Tsavage (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I've changed the formatting, struck out the old question, an added what I hope is a better question.

If there are alternative proposals, let's list them. If there are more than a few, I hope we can agree on at most three. -Ronz (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there precedent for this type of RfC, trying to get wholesale approval for large chunks of content? Because (as I've already mentioned, to no response) it seems to go against policy (verifiability, no original research, neutrality, the whole core), by seeking consensus for something that cannot be upheld. If we get consensus on a particular version, what would the finding be for, exactly, as a section contains multiple sources and many wordings of phrases? Does that mean that any edit can be challenged, citing consensus for the existing version (if that possibility seems unlikely, look at the disucssion so far)? We can't knowingly do things that will lead to even more dispute. Why are we pursuing this absurd path? (I made a suggestion on the DRN page, that involves breaking things down into individual statements, which seems to be incrementally more reasonable.) --Tsavage (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

From my experience, this is how to do an RfC of this type. It's fairly common for articles under sanctions.

As I pointed out, it would be best to start from a version that we already have consensus for including, but it's not necessay.

As for your concerns, I think WP:CONLEVEL covers it well: local consensus cannot override wider consensus. -Ronz (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Ronz Can you provide a link to at least one RfC, or preferably two or three, of this type? I'm interested to see how they went. --Tsavage (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies isn't archived for searching easily. Let us know what you find. -Ronz (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I've added the proposed alternative from the discussion below. -Ronz (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Current version: Currently, the states:

In 2008, Jones released the µWatch, a scientific calculator watch in kit form,^[5] which he designed as a replacement for his defunct Casio CFX-400,^[6] the last available scientific calculator watch since 1985.^[7]Engadget "^[8] and bit-tech"^[9] published positive reviews. The µWatch may be built from off-the-shelf parts following DIY instructions. It has a 16-bit processor and 64K of flash memory, and uses open source software.^[9][10]"

Proposed version:

In 2008 Jones published open source plans for the "µWatch", a scientific calculator watch in kit form,^[5] which he designed as a replacement for his defunct Casio CFX-400,^[6]

Proposed version comments:

Based on a single primary source, since the suggested secondary sources don't even seem to have seen in watch in person, let alone used it, and are mostly just gushing filler pieces.

Should a section be included on the μWatch?

Should this section be included in the article?

Should one of these (the current or proposed content) be included in the article? If so, which?

COMMENT ON RfC

There is no sourcing for "published open source plans" - what publishing? what plans? --Tsavage (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Should a section be included on the μCurrent device?

Currently, the article states: "Jones designed the μCurrent, a precision current adapter for multimeters,^[11][12]"

(Does someone have a proposal for expansion or other changes? )

• I cannot find any dispute in the DRN discussion nor the article talk page on μCurrent. Anyone object if it is not included in the RfC? --Ronz (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed content #1:

Jones' exhaustive reviews, antics and pranks, and irreverent style have garnered a range of reactions from product manufacturers.

• Microchip Technology responded to one of Jones' largely negative reviews with a self-satirizing YouTube video spoof, responding to the design criticisms.^[13]
• Tektronix collaborated with Jones on a April Fools prank video concerning a minor effect of gravity on the accuracy of one of their products.^[14]
• Silicon Labs embedded the EEVBlog Tiny Gecko review episode on their web site, and recommended it as a good video guide to their product.^[15]
• Extech Instruments responded to praise from Jones with a press release covering in detail the "exhaustive" EEVBlog product comparison.^[16]
• On their web site, Cypress Semiconductor noted that Jones' had unpackaged their PSoC 5LP product in an EEVBlog "Mailbag" segment, and encourage readers to request a product review.^[17]

Proposed content #2:

Jones' exhaustive reviews, antics and pranks, and irreverent style^[18] have been the subject of reactions from product manufacturers.

In "EEVblog #39 - Microchip PICkit 3 Programmer/Debugger Review" (9:54), Jones published a negative evaluation of the PICkit 3, commenting:

"I reckon management took over ... designed it by committee, how can we do it different ... these MBA management types, that's what they're trained to do. ... So they completely dropped support for the really cool external programmer software ... and I don't reckon we'll ever get it back. Why? Because some dickhead manager at Microchip ... will never admit they're wrong. That dickhead is probably going to get promoted, too. ... I tried to find something good about this compared to the PICkit 2 but I can't really, it's worse in almost every respect. It wins the EEVBlog Retarded Product of the Week Award."^[19]

Days later, Microchip Technology replied on YouTube with a spoof video, "Microchip Response to PICkit 3 Review from EEVblog #39" (7:40), where a fictional newly-hired manager with an MBA, D. Head (identified later in the video as Dick), reduces product quality and forces consumers to pay for upgrades in order to increase profits; the design engineers fight back by improving the product, and Mr. Head is eventually fired.^[13] In a follow-up EEVblog episode, Jones gave Microchip his first Flying Pig Award, described receiving a phone call from Microchip CEO, Steve Sanghi ("thanking me for raising the issues"), and commented, "It really is incredible that a multi-billion dollar huge corporation like Microchip Technologies would actually care about what someone like me says in my blog."^[20]

Extech Instruments covered the results of "EEVblog #91 - $50 Multimeter Shootout - Extech EX330, Amprobe AM220, Elenco, Vichy VC99, GS Pro-50" in a product press release, commenting on Jones' "candor, humor" and "characteristically irreverent and off-the-cuff style," and the "exhaustive 54-minute episode." The release includes frame grabs from the episode, and quotes liberally from the review.^[16]

Silicon Labs embedded the "EEVblog #269 - Energy Micro Tiny Gecko" (29:54) review in a company blog post, "EFM32 Tiny Gecko meets EEVblog," with the caption, "Not sure where to start ... ? Here is a good video guide made by David L. Jones from EEVblog ... an electronics engineering video blog showing how to test various electronics design products in a unique and enthusiastic way."^[15]

Tektronix supported Jones' concept for a 2015 April Fool's prank, resulting in "eevBLAB #8 - New Tektronix AGO3000 Oscilloscope" (8:24), an EEVBlog preview of an imaginary new product featuring a "mechanical, gravitational field sensor" intended to compensate for the effect of gravity on precise measurements (a real but non-problematic phenomenon), with Jones commenting, “Awesome, Tektronix leading the field yet again. Gravity compensation. Look out for gravity compensation."^[14]

Proposed content #3:

* Microchip Technology staff responded to Jones' largely negative review with a self-satirizing YouTube video, responding to the design criticisms.^[13]

Proposed content #3 comments:

Being mindful of BLP, these references are too weak to justify any content. Most are just corporate blogs and social media accounts, created for the sole purpose of promoting the company and liable to comment on and link to anything that mentions them. There are no good secondary sources and taken as a whole the ones presented don't suggest any kind of "industry reaction", merely typical commercial social media use. The one exception is the Microchip video, and the proposed text reflects the fact that it was one video and the response was by staff rather than a corporate level one.

Should a section be included on Industry Reception (of Jones by the industry)?

Should one of these be included in the article? If so, which?

(Does someone have a proposal for the section? Should we use one from Talk:David_L._Jones#Industry_reaction_section?)

I've included the two proposals from the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• It is not exactly "Industry reception". It is "Reaction in industry", similar to "International reaction" in various politico articles. Whatever there info is, it does not speak for the whole industry, just 3-4 representatives of industry who were featured in blog. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think any reasonable reader (and frankly, I don't care about unreasonable ones) would ever think that a few lines of text in a WP article was meant to represent the reaction of the entire electronics industry. IOW I think this complaint is a little bit of ado about nothing. However I have no objection to the wording change. Jeh (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

"Whatever there info is, it does not speak for the whole industry, just 3-4 representatives of industry who were featured in blog." "Industry reaction" (which is what it was in the article) or "Industry reception" does not necessarily mean "all of the industry," any more than "People's reaction" means all of the people, in common English usage, it refers to reaction from that particular group, qualified by whatever comes next. --Tsavage (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

We don't have "People's reaction" in Wikipedia articles. I am not questioning whether "all of industry" or "some of industry". "Industry reaction" means "on behalf of industry". Just as "International reaction" sections in Wikipedia are restricted to official government reaction, not random rants from all over the world. I disagree with the judgement "ado about nothing". I am suggesting IMO a bit more precise section title. If you don't see the difference between terms "reception" and "reaction", I disagree. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for as precise titles as possible, and I don't quite see the problem here. "Reaction" is generally in response to something: reviews are published, industry reacts to reviews. "Reception" usually implies a critical componenent, how well or poorly something was received: reviews are published, industry expresses views about those reviews. Reaction would seem to be a bit more neutral, as categorizing a response as a "reception" or "review" may be stretching to original research, depending on what the industry response was ("response" is another possibility, but it may suggest that there was a need for a response, some sort of question or challenge: reviews are published, industry responds to the claims in the reviews. Is that what you're discussing? Do you have a suggestion? --Tsavage (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Currently, the article contains a section titled "EEVBlog". It includes the following, followed by a subsection for Batterizer:

EEVBlog was launched as a YouTube channel on 4 April 2009.^[21] As of November 2015, the channel includes over 900 videos, has more than 290,000 subscribers, and a total of over 50 million views, recently averaging over 65,000 views per day;^[22]

Proposed alternative:

The EEVBlog YouTube channel was started on 4 April 2009.^[21]

Proposed alternative comment:

"Lunched" isn't accurate, there was no "launch" event to speak of. The stats are already out of date and are available on the YouTube channel, so there is little reason to include them here other than to try to sound impressive. Again, BLP, best to stick to accurate, uncontroversial facts.

Should this content be included on the EEVBlog, regardless of the Batterizer content whether or not the Batteriser subsection is included?

Alternative question: Should this be included as a section, or as a sentence in the header, or not at all?

I don't understand the question: what does "regardless of the Batteriser content" refer to? And who challenged this section in the first place - is their actually an existing content dispute? --Tsavage (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It may be there is no dispute. It was brought up in discussions.

I tried to make the question above clearer. -Ronz (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The question is not any clearer to me: how are EEVBlog stats connected to Batteriser?

More importantly, if there is no dispute, why are we including it in the RfC? As it is now, this RfC is in effect an AfD, because just about the entire article is included. Why don't you just post it as you like and see what happens, we are never going to perfect the wording going at it this way. Consider also that, since a formal close can't go against policy, which recommends inclusion of well-sourced and noteworthy content, there can't be a consensus finding that says, "there can be no mention of a watch that the subject designed," or, "there can be no mention of the subject blog's audience size." We should not be knowingly pursuing an approach that will waste editors' time. --Tsavage (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Since the Batteriser events are all related to the video blogs, it seems to fit.

I continuing to assume good faith in the editors that created the subsection in the article and this subsection here on the topic of EEVBlog. -Ronz (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

"Since the Batteriser events are all related to the video blogs, it seems to fit." Seems to fit what? EEVBlog is central to Jones' notability, and it is his main outlet - how can basic information about EEVBlog, like viewership stats, be reliant for noteworthiness on other events, like a controversial exchange between Jones and an electronics company? By that reasoning, "Industry reaction" (the misnamed "Industry reception") should also be connected here, as it is entirely "related to the video blogs." Why is that not the case?

Why don't we just put the whole article in the RfC and ask, "Should this article be included in Wikipedia?" - since we are not citing reasons for why these sourced items are in the RfC, it is unclear why these particular items are being challenged, and not the rest of the article. --Tsavage (talk)

Didn't we have that decision already at the second AFD? Rather overwhelmingly, as I recall. Jeh (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The specific issue I have is that the stats are out of date and not really worth including. Simply saying that it is a popular channel would be enough. ゼーロ (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That's like saying the population of China is out of date, simply saying that it has lots of people should be enough. We commonly use numerical measures to describe things, in everyday life and on Wikipedia, including circulation of newspapers, copies sold of various media, TV viewership stats, page impressions and unique visitors for web sites, and so forth. There is no argument here...yet it is being argued. ゼーロ, do you have something personal against Jones, because I really cannot understand your endless series of challenges, which, taken together, seem to have the main result of disrupting the editing of this article and keeping it in a suboptimal state? --Tsavage (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Nice try, but I'm not getting sucked in. I'm only stating the issue so that it may give clarity the questions in the RfC, not so we can debate it here. Keep your arguments for the RfC proper, and please keep your personal attacks to yourself. Even better, respond to the request for mediation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/David_L._Jones ゼーロ (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Current version: "On September 17, 2015, the Sydney Morning Herald published an article reporting on an upcoming battery booster product, the Batteriser, and controversy surrounding the claim that it could extend battery life by up to eight times. Dave Jones published at EEVBlog a detailed 40-minute theoretical 'takedown' of Batteroo's claims without having the product.. The CEO of Batteroo, the San Jose tech startup behind the Batteriser, stated that "every single one" of Jones' points was wrong, indicated that legal action against Jones was being considered, claimed that Jones had no formal electronic engineering credentials, and alleged that Jones was in the employ of Duracell (a claim that company denied). Three electronics and battery storage experts interviewed for the article concurred in finding the product claims of 8x battery life extension, misleading.^[1]

Earlier, on September 2, 2015, the EEVBlog channel received a number of "dislikes," which Jones alleged was an attempt to demote the rank of a second video criticizing the Batteriser—it was later discovered that other YouTube channels with videos critical of the Batteriser were similarly affected.^[23][3] A researcher at Dell SecureWorks noted that the majority of the dislikes arrived "all at once in massive spikes that did not correlate with an increase in the number of views to the videos being disliked," and explained that dislike spam is a way to manipulate YouTube's view recommendation system.^[3]"

Proposed version: "In mid 2015 Jones published a video blog disputing the claims made by the manufacturer of a then unreleased battery life extender, the Batteriser. Batteroo, the company behind the product, refuted Jones' arguments and published a number of demonstration videos in response.^[1] Jones' videos received a number of "dislikes," which he alleged was an attempt to demote the their ranking. ^[24]"

Here's another question: Could the phrasing of this question be any more loaded? Why don't you also propose this: "Should the article include text that's in clear violation of BLP, NPOV, etc.?" No, of course not. The disputes have always been over interpretation of those policies - whether the text violates them. Jeh (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

So improve it. I'm trying to ask questions about the specific edits that are in dispute. Maybe the question could be differently phrased, but at some point the arguments will have to be re-stated. As an alternative I suggest including a copy of the current text and my proposed one, and any other proposals people have. ゼーロ (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I improved it. But I don't think these points should be ignored in the RFC - that is, I think the Commenters should be specifically asked about these issues and to evaluate the proposed text on these bases. It seems to me that at least 80% of the disputes over the content are over issues of BLP, NPOV, and SOAP or PLUG (the latter two mostly as part of NPOV). Furthermore I think all editors agree that these P&G should be followed; we disagree on their interpretation. I think it is a fair summary to say that you and Ronz favor more strict interpretations, while Tsavage and I disagree. Can we just express these concerns in a sort of a header section that applies to all of the alternate versions of the content? Jeh (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It's impossible to encapsulate the arguments in an RfC question. I was hoping for some input, not a vote, so I can only really suggest things that make the RfC less bad. To that end, I added another question. ゼーロ (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Current version: "In 2008, Jones released the µWatch, a scientific calculator watch in kit form,^[5] which he designed as a replacement for his defunct Casio CFX-400,^[6] the last available scientific calculator watch since 1985.^[7]Engadget "^[8] and bit-tech"^[9] published positive reviews. The µWatch may be built from off-the-shelf parts following DIY instructions. It has a 16-bit processor and 64K of flash memory, and uses open source software.^[9][10]"

Proposed version:' "In 2008 Jones published open source plans for the "µWatch", a scientific calculator watch in kit form,^[5] which he designed as a replacement for his defunct Casio CFX-400,^[6]"

ゼーロ's notes: Puffery removed. You can still buy modern scientific calculator watches on AliExpress/eBay, so the statement about the CFX-400 being the last available since 1985 is clearly nonsense. There is no need for too much technical detail here, interested parties can check the uWatch site. The Engadget and Bit-Tech sites seem to be based entirely off the primary source, and the authors don't even have the watch on hand. Filler at best. ゼーロ (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

ゼーロ: For any of this to work, you have to stick to PAGs.

• "Puffery removed." You've frequently cited "puffery" which I assume is per WP:PEACOCK where the section is named "Puffery," however, that applies only to stuff we write, not to quotes, as is clearly illustrated at that guideline. See also the comment about this, from last night at 23:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC) on Talk:David L. Jones. (If this is your own use of "puffery," please find some other word that doesn't confuse itself with actual PAGs.)
• "There is no need for too much technical detail here" Which technical detail - if it is the CFX-400 watch, that is background on the design, explaining part of the reason Jones developed the watch. "Technical detail" in this discussion would be something that an average reader might not understand in context - there is none of that here. This is clearly explained in the editing guideline, WP:TECHNICAL.
• "the statement about the CFX-400 being the last available since 1985 is clearly nonsense" - Check your sources: at the time Jones released his watch, sources say no-one was manufacturing calculator watches, the CFX-400 being the last - your Ebay reference does not appear to refute that, at best, it is poor quality original research that refers to 2015, not 2008. We are striving to be comprehensive in our coverage: when we cover a product design, detail about how the design came about is a basic component of that coverage. Going to policy: WP:V says: "...content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.1 When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view."
• "The Engadget and Bit-Tech sites seem to be based entirely off the primary source" - These are independent secondary sources discussing a product, not primary sources. Otherwise, not clear what you mean - that these seem to be written from the watch site, if so, who cares, they are the reliable sources, it's not up to you to decide how reviewers do their jobs. We are simply recording information, with attribution, that was published in reputable media. And again, see WP:PEACOCK for a clear example of exactly this usage (including review quotes).
• "the authors don't even have the watch on hand" - More arguing that sources are wrong - we go by sources, and unless something is documentably wrong by appearing differently in at least equally reliable sources, it's what the source says. Your opinion as to what a product reviewer at a reputable publication needs to perform a review is irrelevant. See also the WP:V excerpt in CFX-400, above.

You can't hope to argue these points if you are not actually adhering to PAGs and sources. --Tsavage (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I could respond to all these points, but I won't be sealioned. Detailed arguments and responses can wait for the RfC. If you have another proposed text or question, post it. ゼーロ (talk) 09:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Sealioned? This is a Talk page discussion intended to come to agreement on proposed content for the RfC - how do you expect to accomplish that without actually discussing the proposals? On what basis are editors supposed to be commenting on them? --Tsavage (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of falling for your trap... I think you may have genuinely misunderstood the format here. Instead of arguing with me, try adding adding some notes of your own to justify the version you wrote. Try to keep it brief, or I'll edit it to put my version first and your notes will be TL;DR for most editors. ゼーロ (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no clearly defined format to misunderstand, from what I've read so far in terms of setting up this RfC. And my versions of these content items are already in the article, or in the article history, so what is the additional process here? If the idea is for all involved editors to come to an agreement on any form of the content for an RfC, then we'd already have agreement and there'd be no need for an RfC. Are we supposed to be agreeing on versions that we all disagree with equally? Given your steering of this RfC, and comments like "I won't be sealioned," "falling for your trap," and your previous suggestion that I am the BLP subject, can you make your full objective in editing David L. Jones clear, so that I can reply accordingly? --Tsavage (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)