Talk:David L. Jones (video blogger)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Reasons for 10-Jan-2016 POV tag on article?

@Ronz:You've once again placed a POV tag on the article, indicating that you find there are significant neutrality issues. Please describe in specific, actionable terms what the neutrality issues are, so that they may be addressed. In-line tags may also be helpful, to point out exactly where the problems you find are located. --Tsavage (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Please stop disrupting this talk page. [2]. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Your edit summary for the POV tag reads: "no consensus for most of content, in violation of BLP" - per the template usage guideline, requiring a "satisfactory explanation," I don't find that explanation satisfactory.

• What exactly is "most of content"?
• What do you mean by "no consensus" absent of specific challenges to specific content?
• What exactly is in "violation of BLP"?
• Which text and/or sources do you find non-neutral, expressing bias/POV?

To refer to asking for clear, actionable reasons for an article tag as disruptive is kinda disruptive. Please explain the reasons for the POV tag in clear enough terms that they can be responded to. --Tsavage (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Reasons for recent POV tags

Ronz: You are repeatedly tagging and reverting removal of POV tags on this article, without reasonable explanation. You placed a POV tag on the new section, "Other projects," with the edit summary:

"restore tag - open RfC explains problems in μWatch - same problems in μCurrent as discussed on talk"

The open RfC does not address POV problems, however, a comment you made in that RfC under µWatch says:

"From the sourcing, μWatch appears worth noting, so we should include something. The current version appears undue, and its identifying reviews rather than using them as sources is unencyclopedic. It's unclear from the sources and discussions what was "released" and when, placing the Murph 2008 reference in question as to if and how it should be used. The proposed version has none of these problems, and can be easily expanded upon if needed"

Simply saying, "The current version appears undue" does not amount to a clear and actionable explanation of why you find there is a POV/neutrality issue, per the POV tag guideline, which says:

""You may remove this template whenever ... it is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given."

In the spirit of collaboration, I have instead placed a POV tag on µWatch, which is at least mentioned in the RfC, to give you another chance to detail your POV challenge. Once again, please explain your POV/neutrality issues in clear and actionable detail, so other editors can properly respond. --Tsavage (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I wrote "EEVBlog has much more prominence than anything else. It's not even close to any of the other projects. The number and quality of the sources clearly demonstrate this, EEVBlog is as notable or perhaps more notable than Jones. " In response, Tsavage struck out his proposal to make EEVBlog a subsection [3] and just made μCurrent and μWatch into subsections [4]. I made the assumption that these actions were made based upon an understanding of NPOV and proper prominence of information.

Tsavage, could you please explain why you struck out your proposal and made the edits that you did? --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Ronz: Huh?

• First, if you would like to challenge that edit, on the basis of sources or anything else, please do so directly, rather than ask me about it - are you asking because it is problematic, or because you'd like some insight into how I think, or what?

• Second, I didn't strike a proposal I made, I struck a query/objection I made to a proposal Tpdwkouaa made to use the word "projects" to describe Jones' various endeavors. Then, I used "projects" - with "EEVBlog" as a top level section, along with "Other projects," the relative promininence of Jones' various endeavors, in sources and in common sense, is made clearer. That's pretty self-evident.

• Third, relating directly to editing and discussion, your discussion style is difficult to work with: you expect a lot of other editors by not plainly stating your opinions, while asking them to list, explain, and figure out what your objections specifically mean - please speak plainly and provide detailed enough explanations for you numerous challenges so that they can be acted upon.

For example, what is your reason for the POV tag, in more clear and actionable detail than "appears undue"? --Tsavage (talk) 17:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your edit to the article in light of the discussion, hence my question. I'm going to focus on getting my question answered:

I'm asking about "UPDATE: I didn't fully register the idea of including EEVBlog under Projects. Maybe that could work, if Projects is seen out of the hobby world context - which this subject is in - and read neutrally." and [5].

Maybe it would be best to outline exactly what you were considering other than the final result. As I read it, you were discussing:

• Projects
  • EEVBlog
  • μCurrent
  • μWatch

Instead you created:

• EEVBlog
• Other projects
  • μCurrent
  • μWatch

Why not have all three as subheadings under "Projects" as in the first outline? --Ronz (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

"Why not have all three as subheadings under "Projects" as in the first outline?" A) Already clearly answered in my previous comment, see "Second..." B) Already suggested in my previous comment: "if you would like to challenge that edit, please do so directly." You seem to be fishing for something, when there is nothing plainer on Wikipedia than a published edit.

Why are you focusing on my struck comment? You can't argue with something that is no longer there.

If you're suggesting that EEVBlog should appear under a top-level "Projects" heading, I disagree. EEVBlog is the more prominent item, grouping it with Jones' electronic gizmos serves no purpose, and calling all of his ventures "projects," is subtly different than calling his other-than-main-ventures a "project." Leaving all items under self-titled heads, and letting the copy speak for itself, as it was, imo also works.

Meanwhile, please state clearly your reasons for POV tagging? --Tsavage (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

So you are saying the following answers my question? "Second, I didn't strike a proposal I made, I struck a query/objection I made to a proposal Tpdwkouaa made to use the word "projects" to describe Jones' various endeavors. Then, I used "projects" - with "EEVBlog" as a top level section, along with "Other projects," the relative promininence of Jones' various endeavors, in sources and in common sense, is made clearer. That's pretty self-evident."

So what policies is that based upon? --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

So what policies is that not based on? What is the purpose of trying to interrogate me - if you have a challenge for that edit, please make it in simple, direct words.

And, for perhaps the 18th time, what are your clear and actionable reasons for your POV tagging? --Tsavage (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to determine why you made the edit as you did. If it's not based upon any policies at all, then should it remain? --Ronz (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I finde these to be weird and disturbing questions: "then should it remain?" Is that really a question to me, a rhetorical question, or what? Why don't you just speak plainly?! "I'm trying to determine why you made the edit as you did" - I made it to improve the article, why else? If you have a problem with the edit, why don't you just say what it is?

Meanwhile, please explain the reasons for your POV tagging. If you keep refusing, should I request an administrative close on this thread - after all, it seems to be purely a procedural issue to do with POV tag usage, and not a content issue, since you haven't specified an actionable content issue? --Tsavage (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You have no idea what policies apply to your edit? --Ronz (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

How about the policy that says, "There is no need to read any policy or guideline pages to start editing." Whatever you're trying to get to here, it doesn't seem to have much or anything to do with content, or with the topic of this thread, which is, what are your reasons for your POV tagging? --Tsavage (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a BLP article. It needs to follow V, NPOV, and OR strictly. Does the edit follow V, NPOV, and OR strictly? --Ronz (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

This demand for a policy that explicitly allows a particular arrangement of headings is nothing but petty obstructionism. Per WP:MOS, Wikipedia uses headings the same way most English prose does. There is utterly no point in having just one H2 heading ("Projects") other than the lede and the references section - it might as well be "Stuff Jones does and has done". With nearly 1000 videos (most of them around an hour long), eevblog is obviously Jones' largest single "project". Ronz, you yourself claimed that eevblog is more notable than Jones, so why shouldn't eevblog be an H2 heading? After that, it is entirely reasonable to group his other efforts under a common "other" heading. Perhaps though that heading should be changed to "Designs and products" or some such. Although the parts list and microcode for the uWatch remains available Jones did sell it as a packaged kit, so "products" is fair there.

And, now, we have to go around this loop yet again re "improper synthesis". What a joke. There are two subsections each of which describes a product that Jones designed and marketed. The subject text is "Jones designed and marketed two electronic devices, a current testing tool and a scientific calculator watch." I would like to hear just how that is "improper synthesis" of two thoroughly referenced subsections that describe those two devices.

Regarding V, NPOV, and OR: Yes, the claims are verified by references; there is no OR; and there are no countering POVs that are not being presented in the article, so NPOV is strictly met also. Any other position is just more obstructionism from an editor who doesn't feel this article should exist at all. Jeh (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

But you're not addressing the decision of choosing between two options that were discussed:

Why is the structure of the second outline [6] preferable to the first outline [7]? --Ronz (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I most certainly did, in my first paragraph above. Jeh (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Ronz: That's been answered multiple times, now by two editors. And I don't see the relevance. And there was hardly a discussion. And it's up to you to challenge an edit with clear reasoning if you see a problem, not to hound other editors to explain themselves while asking nothing specific.

Jeh's suggested "Designs and products" heading is more directly verifiable and descriptive, without the hint of OR that calling these designs and products, "projects," may have. I will make that change.

Meanwhile, you say, "This is a BLP article. It needs to follow V, NPOV, and OR strictly." which means handling POV tags without delay. You've been maintaining POV tags for weeks, without giving a clear explanation of what the problem is. Is that strictly following NPOV (or the tag usage instructions)? No, it is not. Another editor asked the same question just above: "I'd like to discuss the reasons why it [uCurrent], as well as the uWatch section, are flagged for neutrality issues. Based on the above conversation, it seems like these reasons have yet to be explained." Please explain in clear and actionable detail the reasons for your POV tagging of this BLP article. --Tsavage (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Sorry for trying to get a clearer answer. I've struck out last question accordingly.

My answer to why the second is better is because EEVBlog has much more prominence in the sources [8]. By giving EEVBlog more weight, we are properly following NPOV. Does this make sense? --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the second is better, and I believe I said approximately the same thing above. I'm not sure why you challenged that arrangement if you agreed all along.

As for NPOV... this is not a POV issue; it's just how headings are commonly used in prose. Where an article covers several different categories of information about the topic, It is reasonable to use upper-level headings for categories and lower-level items under those headings for specific examples. eevblog (production of online videos, and the associated web forum) is one kind of thing - social media - that Jones does. The uCurrent and uWatch designs are another kind of thing. Therefore they belong under a different upper-level head than eevblog does.

In fact I think we could add a "social media" heading and put eevblog and the AmpHour podcast under that.

However, your attempt to make this a NPOV is silly. Such subtle changes in headings do not express a significant POV (or a non-NPOV). A POV would be expressed by a phrase like "Jones has contributed materially to the education of electronics hobbyists and professionals all over the world", or "the uWatch was a piece of crap". Or for that matter by headings like "crappy products by Jones", or "world-saving products by Jones". Not by choosing one organization of headings vs another that is only slightly different.

And the fact that it took this long for you to explain that your reason for the maintenance tag was that the organization of headings was not (in your opinion) supported by the importance of the various subheads was simply obstructionism on your part. Had you explained that from the beginning it could have been fixed in seconds.

But, hey, if you can find in NPOV a reason to drop this silly issue and move on, and not restore that ridiculous maintenance tag, fine. Can we consider this section and this issue closed? Jeh (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems you're ignoring WP:WEIGHT completely. Given that my concerns are about weight, it's no wonder we're going round in circles about it. --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Your position is STILL confusing. Was the headings issue the reason for your last POV tagging of the new "Other projects" section (now "Designs and products"), or is it still something else, as of yet undescribed - if so, please describe your POV issue.

Also, I think you are confusing WP:WEIGHT with WP:BALASPS, balancing aspects. As was pointed out earlier, in detail, DUE applies to differing viewpoints, when all we have here is various products that verifiably exist. If you are concerned that too much prominence is being given to a relatively minor product, simply say that.

Meanwhile, since I placed the last POV tag for you, if there is no reason given for it being there, I will remove it. --Tsavage (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

If you're ignoring WEIGHT, which appears to be what's going on, then that could explain the confusion.

All I did was point out a specific edit that appeared to take WEIGHT into account, at least I justified it so. When I tried to figure out if that was what you were thinking, it seems I was wrong.

If you're are interested in working through the confusion, ask different questions to determine what others might be thinking.

If the case is that you disagree with WEIGHT or how I'm applying it, then follow WP:DR rather than assume because you don't understand then it must be wrong. --Ronz (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Honestly and literally, at this point, I have no idea what you are talking about. Not a good basis for discussion. --Tsavage (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Removed the POV section tag on μWatch. It's been two weeks, during which no specific, actionable reasons for the tag were given, in spite of numerous requests. It's a three-sentence, 70-word paragraph with eight citations, it should be simple enough to precisely specify the problem. --Tsavage (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have no consensus behind you, nor policy that I can see. Seems you just don't want others knowing that there is a dispute here, and so are trying to prevent the article from being improved. I suggest leaving the article to those trying to improve it. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

"Seems you just don't want others knowing that there is a dispute here" No need to get personal. You have FOUR RfCs going simultaneously, with ample opportunity to spread the news far and wide. And it's explicitly stated that POV tags are not to be used as badges of shame, and that there must be a satisfactory explanation for the tag, or it should be removed.

"you have no consensus behind you, nor policy that I can see" Not sure what that refers to. Consensus to remove the tag? I don't need consensus, the tag says it should not be left indefinitely, and that there must be a satisfactory explanation or the tag should be removed.

" I suggest leaving the article to those trying to improve it" Are suggesting that my numerous edits are worthless or worse? Are you trying to drive me away from the article? --Tsavage (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent "per RFC" changes; ending the RFC

ゼーロ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made several changes to the article "per RFC outcome".

Per wp:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs, the participants may mutually agree to withdraw the RFC, but no "involved editor" may close an RFC and decide on a conclusion, . WP:CLOSE concurs, stating

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, not just admins.

(emphasis is in the original.)

It would be kind of tough for ゼーロ to argue that he's "uninvolved". I am accordingly reverting ゼーロ's changes. Jeh (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. ゼーロ can't expect to participate in and close an RfC.

Looking at the RfCs at the 30-day mark, there appears to be minimal outside participation:

1. Batteriser: 2 uninvolved editors

2. μWatch: 1 UE

3. Industry reception: 1 UE

4. EEVBlog: 3 UE (and wider consensus for use of YouTube stats is found with Template:Infobox YouTube personality)

Given the tiny turnout, a total of seven comments from a total of four uninvolved editors, across four RfCs, and the fact that six out of seven of the reasons are simply personal opinion, not policy-based arguments, there doesn't seem to be enough participation to determine any sort of meaningful consensus. The RfC was poorly formed, and the results appear to follow from that. --Tsavage (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Why does anyone care who's involved vs uninvolved, beyond closing? --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a question of additional participation. Four editors have been involved in a continuing general content dispute for several months, if we simply want an administrative close, there are many sections, with detailed PAG-based arguments, for which a close could be requested, we don't need an RfC for that, and that would help settle things on a broader level than choosing between arbitrarily selected alternate wordings for entire sections. Especially in a case like this, with a small number of editors, roughly equally opposed, an RfC is used to get fresh eyes on a situation. The "uninvolved" isn't critical, it's simply shorthand for what I just said.

For my part, I continue to refrain from taking things to noticeboards and calling RfCs, because I am trying to resolve matters on a local level, without drawing in other editors and wasting their time on issues which I believe have little merit. So far, we've been to DRN and held four RfCs, all with no clear resolution. If there were clear-cut, actionable issues with the content you want removed, there would be more indication of that already.

Broadly citing PAGs - BLP, SOAP, ADVOCACY, UNDUE, POV - without explaining in clear, actionable terms what the specific problems you see are, down to the word or sentence and source, is what is necessary to work through the type of general objection you seem to have. Remember, you previously stubbed the article, and just stubbed it again (and self-reverted), so your position on just about the entire article is clear, you don't believe most of it should be here. Therefore, to work through that extreme position, you have to be specific and go line by line, which, despite many requests to, you have not done. --Tsavage (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I acted because the bot ended the RfC after 30 days. 30 days is the normal limit. Do you want to re-open the RfC? Since you are unable to reach a consensus with other editors, how would you suggest proceeding? Clearly we don't want to go back to edit warring, but you never seem to suggest any solution other than "do what I say, because I'm right". ゼーロ (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

So, per this edit's summary, user ゼーロ edits from IP address 86.2.115.144.

As, apparently, he did here when he !voted "delete" in the AFD. An AFD created by, and of course supported by, ゼーロ. Jeh (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of content

A significant number of content deletions have been committed over the past several days that appear to contravene the WP:VANDALISM policy, specifically, WP:SNEAKY:

"Sneaky vandalism: reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages"

Also note, this article is being actively improved: please do not remove content, instead, check sources carefully, and use inline tags if you feel there is a sourcing or other problem so that issues can be addressed. For further guidance, refer to the WP:PRESERVE section of our editing policy, which clearly and in great detail indicates that content removal is a last resort. --Tsavage (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Please follow BLP and get consensus for inclusion, not that I'm agreeing with any of the edit-warring going on here. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You're conflating issues. Vandalism and good-faith BLP objections are mutually exclusive. If an act of vandalism happens to affect something that may also be a BLP issue, that is simply coincidence.

Content objections should be stated in specific, actionable terms, to allow other editors to consider and respond, and content deletion is a last resort, except in extreme cases, such as where there is legal jeopardy. In the context of this article, removing non-controversial items such as "can be built from off-the-shelf parts" or "was created on X date" cannot by any stretch be considered extreme content needing immediate removal, by BLP or otherwise. --Tsavage (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

BLP places the burden on those seeking inclusion. If there's no consensus for inclusion, the material should not be in the article.

Claiming edits are vandalism is disruptive. I suggest you refactor and WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you concentrate on constructive, collaborative editing, with clear communication of your concerns. There is obviously a communication issue. You created four separate RfCs that were so vague, they lead nowhere. You keep placing POV tags on the article, without explaining what the problem is. I am completely at a loss to understand your specific issues with the article, all I can make out at this point is that you have a general "BLP problem." Please make your objections understandable. --Tsavage (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that BLP doesn't place the burden on those seeking exclusion. --Ronz (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Tsavage, please stop being disruptive to the editing process. You can escalate to moderation if you like, but this constant passive-aggressive arguing is not helpful. ゼーロ (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC) ゼーロ (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Article at BLP Noticeboard for input on POV tag

The article is posted at BLPN for input on possible neutrality issues, per the POV tag currently in place. A temporary notice has been placed at the top of this Talk page. --Tsavage (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is simple. You think removal of poorly sourced information is vandalism. However BLP requires it be removed, and consensus is required for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

First, poor sourcing doesn't equate with bias and a non-neutral POV. Second, attempting to indicate poor sourcing with an umbrella POV tag, on an article with 25 or more individual citations, completely fails.

For sourcing issues, the thing to do is specify each instance, with content and source, and, as discussion here has not been productive, RSN is the logical next stop for that (and this has already been discussed).

The POV tag remains unexplained, and should not be there. --Tsavage (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Please stop disrupting this talk page [9]. --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't engage him Ronz, you are being sealioned.

A general comment on the months-long running content dispute and PROMOTION

There seems to be an underlying theme to much of the seemingly interminable stream of objections to the addition of content, and that is that it's all somehow PROMOTIONAL (WP:SOAP). I believe the editors involved are attempting to interpret the concepts of advertising and promotion far too restrictively, in a way that violates our neutrality policy by seeking to limit information without good reason.

Consider that David L. Jones meets our notability requirements (WP:GNG) precisely because he is successful at what he is doing. His coverage reports on his success as a vblogger, entertainer, product reviewer, electronics instructor, product designer. All of the sources are based on his doing well, not poorly. Even the Batteriser controversy material concerns Jones as a critic and consumer advocate, a watchdog, not a wrongdoer.

It then stands to reason that we will be reflecting the positive information about his work found in sources. This is integral to fair and balanced coverage: indicating how and why Jones' and his work are well-regarded.

For example, noting that several reputable electronics publications concur in finding that a certain Jones' watch design has high nerd/geek appeal, is decidedly NOT any sort of advertising or puffery, it is providing basic contextual information that speaks to why the product is being reported on, in explaining why it is noteworthy.

In fact, Jones' notability has been explicitly established (via AfD consensus), and it follows that anything that speaks to Jones' life and accomplishments is considered noteworthy and should be included, in order to provide comprehensive, fair and neutral coverage (WP:NPOV), provided that it's well-sourced and neutrally presented, using attribution and/or quotes whenever it seems wise for clarity.

A general evaluation of the amount of space given to various subtopics, relative to overall article size, should allow for maintaining in-article balance of different aspects (WP:BALASPS). This must, of course, be reasonably interpreted as well. For example:

• in a mature article, EEVBlog is clearly of primary importance, while, say, the μWatch is relatively much less so (based on common sense and amount of coverage), so two paragraphs on EEVBlog and eight paragraphs on μWatch would probably be imbalanced (reasonably, a mature article is one that appears well-filled out in all areas, or at least, has had no substantial edits in several months);
• in a new article being actively expanded (the case here), where subtopic coverage may amount to a very few sentences each, such balance issues likely can't be found - so long as all items are clearly sourced, regardless of reasonable differences in amount of coverage, balance should be fine (per BALASPS), with the assumption that there is more to follow for all subtopics.

In all cases, per policy, content deletion should be a last resort (WP:PRESERVE): well-sourced material deemed excessive for one article (e.g. giving the impression that one subtopic is relatively more important to the main subject than it is) should be folded into a related article, or a new (daughter) article should be created.

Allowing the article to develop for a period of at least several weeks to several months, is the reasonable course (WP:EDIT), with any sort of detailed, critical overall evaluation taking place after that . That's imo what policy suggests. --Tsavage (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Sealioning again. It's all been said before, everyone has stated their opinions. Stop flogging a dead horse. In fact, please read WP:DEADHORSE. ゼーロ (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

All: please remember to adhere to the requirements of both WP:SIGN and WP:CIVIL. Per WP:SIGN, "Any posts made to the user talk pages, article talk pages and any other discussion pages must be signed" (emphasis mine). Unsigned comments remaining after a few days risk being tagged with the {unsigned} template & details from the page edit history, as outlined in WP:UNSIGNED. 58.161.251.98 (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@ゼーロ: This accusation of "sealioning" is just a way of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la la la, I can't hear you." As such it would appear you are withdrawing from the discussion, which means you're leaving others to determine consensus. Satisfactory answers have not been given to Tsavage's or my arguments, but you and Ronz continue to remove content and nuisance-tag the article even though there is no consensus for those actions.

Your opinion is clear: you don't think the article should exist at all. So much so that you not only started the most recent AFD, you also voted for deletion under one of your IPs as well as under your new nick. No wonder you were so incensed when IP !votes were discounted. Given that you are an SPA and, where that !vote was concerned, a sockpuppet, I don't think you should be participating here at all. I suppose sticking your fingers in your ears and singing la la la is close to that, but then don't expect to have any influence on outcomes. Jeh (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Jeh, I don't think you're implying my comment was another meatpuppet/sockpuppet, but to be clear to everyone else: I have never previously edited/posted on this subject under any name or IP, am not associated with anyone who has previously edited/posted on this subject under any name or IP, and beyond being a very occasional reader of DLJ's forums & watching this page since its inception, have no prior connection to the subject or anyone else involved at all. I'm simply a long-retired editor who only commented to remind people that un-attributed comments can & will be attributed to them.

I hope that's clear to everybody, and I hope I haven't derailed what little consensus there is. 58.161.251.98 (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

My comment was entirely directed to ゼーロ's and was not intended to refer to yours at all (as I indicated with the ping). Jeh (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jah: I've provided my responses to all Tsavage's points before. Sorry if they don't satisfy you, but you can't force people to participate or simply tell them they are no longer involved. If you feel that there are genuine issues then you should escalate them, as was previously attempted. Otherwise you are just going round in circles trying to sealion other editors away from the article. ゼーロ (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You've provided responses, but you haven't answered the points raised. And now you're just stonewalling. Jeh (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite. Which points are unanswered? ゼーロ (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Temporary answer: It's long past what should be my bedtime. I'll reply "tomorrow". Jeh (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(More) removal of new content

Ronz You've reverted the following, with the edit summary, BLP vio, no indication this is at all encyclopedic - SOAP.

Describing his YouTube audience, Jones says, "I learned pretty early on that the reason people watch me is not so much to learn stuff. I don't just do how-tos. For some reason, they find me entertaining, whether they find my comments entertaining, or they find my delivery entertaining. I think more than half of my audience watches for the entertainment value. It's nerd entertainment."
Edit summary: "EEVBlog: added quote from Jones describing his view of his YouTube audience"

This is a well-considered use of a quote, reflecting the subject's opinion of his own work, that could be misrepresented or misconstrued if paraphrased. And it adds critical depth to the article, where a reader might otherwise get the impression that Jones' EEVBlog is just about soldering irons and electronics technobabble for geeked-out project builders.

Please explain specifically how this quote violates WP:BLP, and why it should be considered WP:SOAP. It is using a reliable source to quote the subject on his opinion about his work, and there is wide consensus for this use of quotes. For example, how does this instance differ from the following, taken from a similar YouTube peronality article for a much higher-profile subject:

Five years later, PewDiePie recalled, "I knew people were big at other types of videos, but there was no one big in gaming, and I didn’t know you could make money out of it. It was never like a career that I could just quit college to pursue. it was just something I loved to do. And here we are five years later and it’s exploded." PewDiePie

In order to challenge material, you have to describe the problem in clear, actionable terms - referring to entire pages and sections of PAGs is not sufficient to allow discussion. Also, what is "unencyclopedic"? Other than an unfortunate passing mention in a WP:V footnote, the only occurrence I could find is in an essay, under WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, which suggests: Saying something is "encyclopedic" or "unencyclopedic" are empty arguments. Unencyclopedic means "not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia", which is synonymous with "should not be included" or "I want it deleted". Please reply. --Tsavage (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

References

See WP:NOT, which is what you referred to when you brought it up here.

As for the rest, there's nothing that hasn't been discussed. --Ronz (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The post you link to only comes back here: I will take this to a noticeboard when it is clear what the specific, actionable challenge is. It is disruptive to keep removing content without reason. There are at least a dozen or two diffs, all the same, where you remove content and supply no specific reason. If editors could just remove any content they disliked, with a broad wave at a policy or guideline page, and then have it remain excluded while other editors try to figure out what the problem is, or revert and get into an edit war, we'd be doomed. After nearly four months, this is shaping up more and more as a behavioral issue, as you simply refuse to be straightforward with your reversions and umbrella tagging.

Now, you're also ignoring the discussion around THIS removal, for example, with wider consensus for inclusion of quotes like this, demonstrated by the PewDiePie example (and there is no shortage of examples). This latest reversion of new content is not "already discussed."

A clear and actinoable reason for deletion would be something like: "This is promotional content, per WP:SOAP because ______" or "This violates the WP:BLP rule that _____, because ____________." Then, it can be more usefully taken to a noticeboard. --Tsavage (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Please stop disrupting this talk page. [10] --Ronz (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Ronz, please stop characterizing entirely reasonable requests for clarification and details as "disrupting this talk page". You're just stonewalling. Jeh (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

See WP:IDHT and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. --Ronz (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

By refusing to satisfactorily answer reasonable requests for your specific reasons for deletion (and this is not the first time) you are effectively making it impossible to satisfy BLPREQUESTRESTORE. You just keep saying "BLP vio, SOAP, NPOV", ad infinitum, even after replies to you have quoted "chapter and verse" as to how these PAGs are not being violated. Which is why I say you're stonewalling, while you accuse others of IDHT. Jeh (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense.

If something new comes up, I'll reply.

If something that hasn't been discussed extensively comes up, I'll reply as I did with the clarification of what "unencyclopedic" means.

There's nothing new here. Much of BLP, including BLPREQUESTRESTORE, is being ignored, and that's not new either. --Ronz (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Ronz: re this link you posted above: [11] You are now linking to OTHER PAGES rather than simply replying where asked, and the comment you linked to (at BLPN), which I guess is supposed to indicate that you answered question here, before it was asked, over there, is still...absolutely vague. That link says:

To clarify the misrepresentation: "No specific, actionable details have been given to my satisfaction" (emphasis added) Editors have repeatedly stated that the sources provided simply are too poor to carry the weight that other editors would like. The solution is to either find better sources or trim the content to what is properly supported. Of course, BLP says such material should be removed. It appears some editors simply are not satisfied with following BLP's burden on finding consensus for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's imagine that's not referring to an umbrella POV tag, and apply it here to your removal of a paragraph. Are other editors, like myself, supposed to gather that that means you object to the source? And what's unreliable about the source: it is from an dedicated chapter interview with Jones, in a book of interviews, from a reputable publisher - what is your specific problem with that source for the content in question? If that's your issue, give me an answer and we'll take it to RSN.

This is WAY beyond civil editing. You and the one other editor are simply doing anything you can to limit content and drive away other editors - at this point, there are dozens of diffs over several weeks to indicate a clear pattern. --Tsavage (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Content in text duplicated in infoboxes and captions

Since ゼーロ is repeatedly removing material from the body text because it is also in the infobox, let's put that to rest here.

There is absolutely nothing redundant, or contrary to PAGs, about repeating items appearing in text in supplementary material. In fact, this is generally the way to go: the body text should be complete on its own (for reasons including readability and accessibility through various devices), while an infobox summarizes key details, and a caption provides material sufficient to explain the image.

• On Wikipedia this has wide consensus through usage in numerous articles: Simple tests: Typical infobox info for a BLP, such as name, nationality, date of birth, and so forth, naturally appear in the article as well as the infobox. In sports articles, game stats and the like appear in text and infobox. In movie articles, box office, release date, etc, appear in text and infobox. Captions for objects covered in an article repeat the name of the object and additional description that also appears in the text.

That an even mildly experienced editor would ignore such a mountain of obviousness, before and after being informed of the same, and continue to remove the same material over and over ([12], [13], [14]), while claiming a bona fide editorial reason, is clearly involved in simple vandalism, by removing content for no good reason but to affect the quality of the article or to satisfy some other personal whim. This is in addition to reversion/edit warring by that basic definition.

Please stop. (Editors agreeing or disagreeing, please weigh in.) --Tsavage (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Except WP:NOT and NPOV that is. Again, we've been over it before. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

As usual, how do those entire pages of policy specifically apply here? We have not been "over it before" - where? --Tsavage (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Tsavage, please stop. Your constant assumption of bad faith makes dealing with you impossible. This after previously doxing editors. Fix your attitude or don't expect further replies from me, and please top re-posting the same stuff that has been rejected multiple times by multiple editors. ゼーロ (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

[[15]] covers the same concerns as do the discussions statistics. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The poorly framed discussion you refer to concerns whether to include YouTube stats in the article, and does not deal with text vs infobox, and that was decided by the wider consensus of having well-used infobox template that includes those stats.

Furthermore, as already made clear in your linked discussion, similar articles, about "YouTube" personalities, such as PewDiePie, include stats in both article and infobox.

Your linking to material that fails to support your non-specific objections appears to be an attempt to create the impression that the current issue was already dealt with, when clearly it was not. The Ronz and ゼーロ effectively tag teaming efforts to delete content without presenting good reason is a problem. --Tsavage (talk)

Please stop disrupting this talk page with bad faith accusations and dismissals of policies and discussions that disagree with your point of view. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Which policies, Ronz? If you're complaining about a NOT violation you need to be specific as to which item in NOT. There are many.

Anyway, how does a statistic that's in an infobox suddenly violate NPOV or NOT by also appearing in the article prose? That is a ludicrous notion. If the prose in question had included language like "an amazing 800+ videos" that would be one thing, but that's not the case here. Are infoboxes imbued with some sort of automatic "assume NPOV" shield? Nonsense. This deletion is just another attempt by Ronz and ゼーロ to delete the article a little bit at a time. Jeh (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

[16]. --Ronz (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The diff you linked does not address my questions. Please answer - which items in NOT, and why is something that's ok in an infobox suddenly not-ok in prose? Your declining to answer is not a compelling argument for your case; rather, it looks like abandonment. If you think I'm being disruptive, take it to AN/I. Jeh (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

PewPewDie is a red herring. His stats are integral to his article and notably, being one of the top YouTube users. Jones has a relatively small channel and properly framed the stats reflect that. ゼーロ (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, as we've already discussed. We've no secondary or independent sources that demonstrate any encyclopedic value, any encyclopedic context, nor any due weight. --Ronz (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Continued removal of "off-the-shelf parts"

ゼーロ has repeatedly removed an item, "off-the-shelf parts," claiming that it unsupported in cited sources. Support is easily found in the source, nonetheless, the citation was updated to allow foolproof verification, and removal continues. The version last removed [17]:

"... off-the-shelf parts."

The further challenge, in the edit summary, ...clearly the PCB is not a standard part, is a personal conclusion which has no place in overriding the source, which states entirely off-the-shelf - irrelevant here, but additionally disruptive, the conclusion is wrong, of course hobbyists fabricate their own boards, something which the editor would know if they understood the subject, as the PCB claim requires they do.

Please read citations properly, don't use personal opinion as grounds for challenging content, and stop your disruptive reversions. Also note, fixing or inline tagging and discussion before deletion, and stating that the editor believes the material is not likely to be verifiable when deleting, are all recommended by policy (WP:CHALLENGE). --Tsavage (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Tsavage, take your own advice and read the sources. None of them use the phrase "off the shelf parts". Perhaps you could quote the bit you think substantiates your claim?

In fact, the primary source contains the files needed to make your own PCB (out rather have it fabricated for you, since most people don't have equipment to make precision double sided PCBs). It states that you need this PCB, and that it was available to buy in limited quantities that Jones had custom made. If you really want I can scour the forum for a reference where he mentions who made the PCBs for him. ゼーロ (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Read the citation. The "off-the-shelf" quote is there with a link to the source. Your obstruction now includes requesting help in reading a citation - nice. I don't have any interest in your personal PCB board-making research. --Tsavage (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Tsavage, your incompetence is getting very tiring now. Firstly, the source with the quote "off the shelf components" wasn't in any of the sourced used when I edited. Secondly, you will note that it says "components". Not "parts". There is a very important difference here, because in electronics "components" has a fairly specific meaning. In other words, the source says exactly what I said it does - there are many off the shelf components, but not all parts are off the shelf. If you want to put the quote back, it needs to clarify this for non-technical readers.

If you don't understand these terms perhaps it would be better if you refrained from editing technical parts of the article. ゼーロ (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't lecture, especially when you don't seem to have a good grasp of the subject.

• First, the citation was exactly as above in your last two reversions, [18], [19], so you either made statements without verifying it first, or simply made it up.

• Second, components = parts, per Make: magazine, also Jones' himself, additionally quoted in Make: - see the citation. So how much more wrong can you be?

• Third, you're deleting content while ANNOUNCING that you could fix it to your satisfaction by changing one word, going against WP:PRESERVE and WP:CHALLENGE.

This amounts to another instance of WP:SNEAKY vandalism, deleting content under the pretext of making valid edits. (BTW, out of curiosity, did you change your username last September, just before the AfD you created for this article?) --Tsavage (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)