User talk:Chris.sherlock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Phylogenetic Classification of Bony Fishes[edit]

I see you've created an article for the Deepfin classification. I suspect this might run into trouble with notability and independent sources, at least in the current state. You should add some independent sources referring to this phylogeny and its importantce. The statement that they consider their classification the most up to date classification is a bit of a red flag there. The people behind Fish Tree of Life would probably disagree. However, I agree with the general importance of the project.

I can help with a phylogeny if you want. I have all of the components of the phylogeny above order level on one of my user pages (see Comparison_of_Osteichthyes_divisions_above_Percomorpha so I can put together the main tree easily enough. I need to check the names as I was comparing with FotW and might have used their names to aid comparison.   Jts1882 | talk  18:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jts1882: Yeah, that’s probably something we can remove. However, it’s a massive project, sourced by a lot of papers. I stubbed it so we can at least get an initial article - anything you can do to help would be gratefully accepted :-) - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Common names[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Have fun editing fishes. I noticed that you reverted my edits to Betta antoni, in good faith, and simply asserted that "this is it’s common name". Fishbase shows no common names for this species and no common name is given by the IUCN, additionally I tend not to use the name field in Speciesboxes or automatic taxoboxes as it is normally redundant. If you have a common name which is cited then it should be in the body of the text; e.g. "Betta antoni, the Sanggau betta, is a species of gourami endemic to....". Also in Wikipedia common names of organisms are not capitalised unless it contains a proper noun so Sanggau betta rather than Sanggau Betta. Akar betta is used by Fishbase and the IUCN, and so is cited, and that should have been placed in that article as above, maybe even by myself. Thank you for your edits, I hope this is helpful and these are really very minor points, you will find most people on Wikipedia are helpful and willing to help if asked. Quetzal1964 (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I’ll find the reference to Linke. I notice you add name on the infobox when you don’t actually need to. I’ve actually been sourcing and creating the Betta articles, had it not been for me we wouldn’t have those articles, just putting this out there. As for the names being redundant, we are largely using the Latin taxon name in the article title, so it’s not redundant. It’s what we do on Betta splendens. P.S. I’m an old hand - been here since 2005. Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Genbank common name - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?id=1384556 - Sangau betta - Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@Quetzal1964: I fear I owe you an apology. My response was defensive and rude. I should have responded quite differently and much less aggressively. I hope you can forgive this rudeness. I am, unfortunately, a daily work in progress so I will strive to be more careful in future. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Chris, thanks for the apology. Quetzal1964 (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I'm not going to be drawn into an edit war by someone with your experience - I usually let ANI decide, although I generally abhor that noticeboard ruled by a gallery full of I-know-it-all Wikilawyers, but here's food for thought. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I don’t mind getting called out if I’m wrong. But for both Paola Ramos (journalist) and Jenee Fleenor they have no other external links and they extensively use Twitter. As for “wikilawyering”, I started WP:AN and I agree, it can be quite bad, but you accused an admin in good standing of misusing their tools, and then subsequently showed you weren’t prepared to follow reasonable steps to check if an article was notable before tagging the article with WP:PROD, and you rudely doubled down by saying it wasn’t your “job” to do so, and furthermore you told the admin their articles needed to be “controlled”. What makes it worse is you seem to feel that you don’t have to actively contribute to articles, as I can see you twice showed on talk pages you actually easily found references that showed subject notability "after you a-plied the PROD tagging, and then tried to blame the author that they should have done a better job and didn’t take enough effort. That’s completely against the principle of WP:AGF and you discouraged a great editor who actively contributes article improvement (not just link changes, wikignomimg and page patrolling, all important but also IMO in many ways more difficult than these actions) to the point where they felt they might just give up Wikipedia.
I am suggesting you should probably consider your actions on Wikipedia. FWIW, I appreciate your efforts also, but not at the expense of others and I certainly don’t like it when people make unfounded accusations against editors of very good standing, like the one I feel you targeted. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Let's not take 'AGF' to far, shall we? The decision to list your previous (or other) accounts on my talk page rather raised my curiosity. I would also hesitate to assume that all admins and/or former admins are/were entirely in good standing. I tried to keep the profile low on the request for feedback I made, but some of you seem determined to open cans of worms - Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Quite irrelevant. You asked me to disclose who I am, so I did. You need to be change the way you go about things. I don’t think I’ll speak about the other accounts any further. If you want to take it further, do so in the appropriate forum. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I won't be, unless you give me cause to. However, your comments at WT:NPR rather surprised me because your past, 'might' not be quite as illustrious as others may be led to believe. Indeed, my question to the NPP community was to deliberately AGF on one person's editing in 'very good standing' , without opening any old wounds. Either you are not aware of them or are choosing not to be. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
@Kudpung: I appreciate you looking at your own behaviour and reflecting on how you can make changes to ensure more harmonious editing, as well as reflecting on how you can better understand our policies and guidelines better. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
You certainly have an unusual manner of expressing yourself for someone with your history. There's a lot 2 hours of research turns up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
That sounds... ominous, and not a little threatening. I feel somewhat intimidated, so I have taken this to AN/I. I’m not sure why you are “researching” me, but this seems like stalking and harassment and I really don’t want to be intimidated any further. If you could disenage from my talk page, Kudpung, that would be appreciated as I think I will try to limit further interaction with you for a while at least. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom comment[edit]

Hello, Chris.sherlock,

I just wanted to let you know that I moved a comment you made in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Kudpung to your own section and made a reference to who you were directing the comment to. In arbitration case requests, editors are asked to limit their posts to their own statement area. Feel free to respond to other editors as you will but place your comments within your statement. Thank you! Liz Read! Talk! 04:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: oops, sorry about that. It’s literally been over a decade I had anything to do with an ArbCom case! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
No problem. This happens with every case that quite a few statements. Liz Read! Talk! 06:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 28, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyokotalk 05:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Shortarse feelerfish[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Shortarse feelerfish at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration[edit]

Hi Chris.sherlock,

Thank you for your comment in the Arbitration discussion. I would like to be able to address some of the points that you have raised, and I expect that others will raise points of their own that I would similarly like to address. However, I am very new to the process of Arbitration and would like to ensure that I do this correctly as I feel that every other form of dispute resolution has failed. Could you please advise me on what happens next in the process? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17 it sounds like this all stemmed from an article dispute. My suggestion is if you have a specific issue, it’s best to take it to WP:RFC for comment. My best suggestion is that for somethings, like tables, it’s sometimes best to take a step back. I’ll keep an eye of ANI to see if things get brought up there and step in if this is at all helpful. - Chris.sherlock (talk)
Thanks, Chris.sherlock.
I feel that this is more than a simple content dispute, though. I was limited in what evidence I could present at Arbitration because of the 500 word limit, but I have countless examples of Tvx1's behaviour that I can present. I am, however, hesitant to say anything specific here because this is outside the formal Arbitration process. I definitely feel as if he is hounding me and doing it because he cannot go to ANI given the number of specious reports he has filed in the past. Even if it is not his intention to hound me, it is certainly the effect. I came to Arbitration because I want some lasting resolution and my last attempt at ANI failed miserably and I don't have much confidence in returning, knowing how Tvx1 operates. Again, I don't want to go into specifics here, but there is a clear pattern to his behaviour. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
That’s a bit unfortunate as the Arbitrarors can only go on what is stated. It might be worthwhile drafting it up in userspace and asking a ArbCom member to increase the limit. -Chris.sherlock (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Is there a way to close the existing Arbitration report so that I can re-write it and then file another one later on? One of the steps that I had to follow was to notify Tvx1. Now that I have done that, I know exactly what he will do—his argument will be that these are all bad-faith accusstions and that he was only ever following policy. He's very good at wiki-lawyering and will drag the conversation out for as long as he can. You linked to a discussion where he did not provide sources for his claim—he spent six weeks dragging that out, avoiding posting anything to support the claim. When I provided four sources that disproved him, he tried to argue that all four were too vague because they did not define the phrase "permanent numbers", effectively ignoring sources that were invonvenient to him. This is just one example of his behaviour, which I was going to provide if/when the Arbitration case was opened. As I understood it, I had 500 words to persuade Arbitration members to take the case and would then be given the opportunity to present more-detailed evidence. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Update: and he's already done it. It's exactly what I expected it would be: deny wrongdoing and try to turn the focus back on me. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Mclarenfan17 ArbCom disputes are notorious for this. Is there a way the two of you can reconcile? Also, what would you ultimately want from arbitration? Perhaps we could resolve things outside of ArbCom if we can define what the issue is and what you ultimately want to achieve... - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see a way that we can reconcile. We've butted heads for years, and at times that has actually been constructive because we have really been able to get into the issues and figure things out. But it has been a long time since that happened. Lately it feels like consensus "discussions" involving Tvx1 devolve into two factions emerging and repeating their positions ad nauseum until one side gives in and the other declares victory by default. I have never seen him acknowledge that someone else had the right idea, or compromise. You pointed out an instance where he should have provided sources; rather than doing that (or admit he did not have them), he dragged the conversation out for six weeks, disregarding reliable and verifiable sources that were inconvenient to him and then trying to argue that they really proved his claim after all that. And that was a dispute over car numbers, arguably the most superfluous element of the article. Everything is an argument with him and he refuses to back down. Look at his response in the Arbitration discussion: he points out my block history and clearly wants it taken into consideration, but he also wants the committee to overlook his own history. I haven't had a block in four years, but he had one six months ago. Mine is apparently evidence of a long history of disruptive editing that was never addressed, but his is the result of a vindictive and unfair admin. It's one rule for him and one rule for everyone else depending on what suits him. I know that sounds like a rant, but I'm trying to show that the relationship is, in my view, irreconcileable.

I think the issue here is his hounding me. He knows that I have a vision for what those articles can be, and he knows that I have been very influential in shaping those articles for a decade. I think he is deliberately trying to frustrate me as a way of punishing me for disagreeing with him because he cannot go to ANI anymore. His edit history shows his only contributions to these articles is in formatting and talk page discussions, and some of his posts contain glaring factual errors, which to me suggest that he does not have a real interest in the sport. What bothers me most is that other editors are starting to adopt his tactics.

As for what I want out of Arbitration, I want to be able to edit these articles without having to frame it in the context of "how will Tvx1 respond to this?". I felt that I had a very fair solution last year with a mutual TBAN: each of us would nominate a topic area that the other would then be banned from editing in. This would minimise interaction—and the potential for conflict—without resorting to a full IBAN. I would be more than happy to take on some kind of sanction like that provided that it was by mutual agreement. Tvx1 even agreed to it on principle, but then nominated a list of topics (I had envisioned one each), some of which I edited but he did not (which struck me as a further attempt to frustrate me). I would be still willing to do that provided that it was a) mutual, b) equitable and c) negotiated by a third party. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17 I am happy to have a look at articles in dispute. I have to warn you, my knowledge of anything automotive is incredibly limited - I can’t even drive a manual car. Perhaps, however, this might be helpful given I have no dog in the fight. Can you let me know what the articles are? And would you be willing to let Tvx1 to respond on this page - only fair because we are talking about him. I’d be happy to ensure that if things get heated that I try to dispassionately defuse situations.
What concerns me is that both of you are good editors. Both of you have had run-ins with admins, which can be disconcerting. For the record, I think it is very unfortunate that another admin described Tvx1 in less than respectful terms, I don’t think this is helpful for either Tvx1, or to bring it up with ArbCom, who are used to these sort of accusations and normally are mature enough to take them with a large grain of salt.
For mediation to work, however, both sides would need to be willing to compromise. I can already see one area you might want to consider compromising on, and that’s the tables dispute you were having. So long as any incorrect info is cleared up, it might be a sign of good faith to let this issue slide - I realise it may seem frustrating and to your way if thinking less than ideal, but it might at least allow progress to be made on other areas.
FWIW, I think Tvx1 dues seem to have made some comments that show he never meant to cause you pain in the project. I doubt you’ll always see eye-to-eye, but I’m pretty certain with a bit of forgiveness on both sides and some basic ground rules you two could at least edit more harmoniously together.
In terms of your block log - I have also gone off the deep end at times. I have had a sometimes spotty history on Wikipedia. Some people on Wikipedia literally despise me, so I know how it feels having past blocks brought up over and over. It’s not helpful and if I see they get brought up in future, I will speak up for you because really, none of us are perfect and our current editing should be judged not necessarily on ancient block logs but what we are doing now.
I’m encouraged that you have already considered ways to harmoniously edit. I’m pretty sure that if you we’re willing to give a little in good faith that a lot of the rancour can be put aside and this can be resolved amicably. You have to understand that IMHO it appears you both want the best for the project, but have differing views as to what this might be. I see no reason why this can’t be hashed out in a collaborative fashion if you can both assume the other party is working on good faith! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Can you let me know what the articles are?
To make this easy, let's say everything that falls within the scope of the rallying WikiProject. That would include things such as championship articles, individual events, rally cars and regulatory classes, teams and competitors. If it is somehow related to rallying, then the TBAN applies. I am happy for him to nominate articles withing the scope of a WikiProject as well (I expect he will nominate Formula 1). "Articles within the scope of WikiProject XYZ" is language that we have used before, so he should know what it means.
And would you be willing to let Tvx1 to respond on this page - only fair because we are talking about him.
I'm happy for that to happen; I expect it will help if everything is posted in the open.
For the record, I think it is very unfortunate that another admin described Tvx1 in less than respectful terms
Perhaps he could have phrased it better, but I think the spirit of the assessment was fair. I do think he misrepresents things and gets pedantic over policies, and his behaviour in the WT:MOTOR discussion was testament to that. If he wants others to produce sources, then he needs to produce them on request or admit he does not have them and move on. Likewise, he cannot just disregard sources he disagrees with—sources that are established as extremely reliable and would be accepted by any other editor—because it suits him. Until such time as he can learn how to compromise and acknowledge that others can be right and he is wrong, I cannot work with him. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I have no authority to implement topic bans unfortunately. I also don't think it would be the best way forward - I would much rather see the two of you reconcile. Tvx1 as this conversation involves you, can I get your input also? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm disappointed to hear that. It's going to take a lot for reconciliation to happen because Tvx1 needs to convince me that he is not trying to undermine me. I have laid out a way for him to start doing that in the past—by making content-based contributions to the articles in question—and he has either refused or ignored me. In the past few weeks alone he has done the following:
  1. Refused to provide sources when asked, or acknowledge that he did not have them in the first place.
  2. Insisted that other editors provide sources in support of their claims, then dismissed them when those sources were provided.
  3. Tried to justify using a source that was unreliable and unverifiable to make changes to an article, then suggested that because the claims made by that source were ultimately proven true, it was fine.
  4. Tried to use a source that was only published six weeks after his original claim to justify making that claim.
  5. Ignored the fact that the numbering system used in rallying is modelled on the system used in Formula 1 (a fact pointed out by the sources and with no evidence of any differences), a series where he has never raised any objections.
And this was over something as superfluous and inconsequential as car numbers. There is a clear pattern of hypocritical and argumentarive behaviour, and I have virtually no confidence in his ability to convince me that this will change. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I do understand how you may be feeling, however unless you can show some good faith in that you can accept that people can engage constructively and collaboratively, I'm not sure how much I can help. I do want to again emphasize, I appreciate your good work and your obvious interest and knowledge in the subject matter, and I can see that you have some pretty decent points. However, if you cannot be convinced that things can change and you can show a willingness to engage in any mediation it's just not possible for me to assist. I'd love it if you could though. I'm sure with some goodwill this could be resolved. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I think I can be convinced. And I have some ideas as to what Tvx1 can do to start convinving me. But I'm not going to detail them just yet—I want to hear what he has to say for himself first. I have a feeling that I know what that will be, and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now. But my trust in him is so low right now that this is all that I can offer right now. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Mclarenfan17 that is an encouraging sign :-) So long as you are willing to at least make an attempt, that would be great. Tvx1, would you be willing discuss this here? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I'm willing to take part in an attempt to work things out in a way to that prevents editing restrictions being imposed on us. As one arbitrator pointed out in the arbitration case, these are minor content disputes and to put it bluntly it would be stupid to have topic or interaction bans being imposed over this.Tvx1 16:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I am disappointed. This is exactly the sort of thing that I expected from Tvx1—to downplay it, claim that it's all being blown out of proportion and to misrepresent it:

As one arbitrator pointed out in the arbitration case, these are minor content disputes and to put it bluntly it would be stupid to have topic or interaction bans being imposed over this.

You know perfectly well that this is not about a minor content dispute. This is about the fact that every single interaction with you ends up like this. A dispute over car numbers is simply the most representative example of your behaviour. Now, as Chris.sherlock pointed out, you should have provided sources to substantiate your original claim. You did not. You either ignored it or refused to provide them. The discussion should have ended when I provided four sources that disproved your claim. So that Chris.sherlock is aware, those four sources are: the FIA, which governs motorsport worldwide; wrc.com, the official website of the World Rally Championship; and Autosport and '"Speedcafe, two of the most reliable third-party sources that are regularly used across the motorsport WikiProject. And yet, you still insistent that these sources were vague. I'd like to point out this excerpt from the Autosport source:

The FIA confirmed the WRC would follow Formula 1's lead and allow drivers to carry permanent numbers at the October meeting of the World Motor Sport Council.

This source draws a direct link between the numbering system used in WRC and that used in Formula 1. You regularly edit Formula 1 articles, and yet you have never objected to this idea of "permanent numbers" being used there.

We then skip ahead to 16 January when the Monte Carlo entry list was published. And yes, it did show that two drives (Loeb and Katsuta) had changed their numbers from 2019. You presented this as proof that you were right all along. However, that entry list was not available at the time that you made your original claim, and it only proves that two numbers changed. It gives no context as to how that number change came about. You argued that they are "seasonal numbers" and that each number is only reserved for a year. How does the Monte Carlo entry list prove this? It doesn't. And to further complicate matters, you made the following claim:

Because in the case of WRC, in the past crews would often use different numbers at different rallies. Now the numbers are fixed for the entire season. The rules make it very clear that they are seasonal numbers. They tell is clearly what "permanent" means in this case.

This is factually incorrect. From 1994 to 2019, numbers were assigned based on each team's finishing position in the previous championship—the same system that Formula 1 used prior to 2014. You also assert that "the rules make it very clear that they are seasonal numbers. They tell is clearly what 'permanent' means in this case". Except that they don't. This is what Article 26 of the Sporting Regulations say:

26. SEASONALLY ALLOCATED COMPETITION NUMBERS
26.1 MANUFACTURERS
P1 drivers may request a specific number provided that the application is endorsed by the FIA and the Promoter. Number 1 may only be chosen by the World Champion driver of the previous season. Requested numbers may not be greater than 99.
26.2 OTHER DRIVERS
Competition numbers shall be allocated rally by rally, according to the provisional classification of the Championships concerned.

The only place the phrase "seasonal numbers" appears in the regulations is in the title of Article 26. The body of the regulations uses the phrase "permanent numbers", which is also used by the four sources I mentioned earlier. Furthermore, if you Google the phrase wrc "seasonal numbers", the only two hits you get are the WT:MOTOR discussion where you first made the claim and the WP:NORN discussion where I pointed out that this was original research. And yet, you continued to insist that you were somehow right on 18 January, twisting one of the sources to show how it really meant that you were right all along. You even went out of your way to say the following:

Crucially none of your sources actually talk about "career numbers" or "numbers being fixed for their careers".

Now, I acknowledge that I had initially used an improper term to begin with. I said "career numbers" when I meant "permanent numbers", which I acknowledged and sought to correct. Crucially, I did this before your post on 18 January. Why did you continue to use the phrase "career numbers" after this when I had a) corrected myself and b) I felt it was pretty obvious what my intended meaning was?

At this point, I think Tvx1 needs to do something to demonstrate that he is serious about reconciling. I think of two things that he can do; I'll give him the choice as to which one it is:

  1. He can provide the source(s) that he used to justify his original claim about "seasonal numbers"

OR

  1. He can acknowledge that he never had those sources in the first place and explain himself and why he is apparently free to ignore existing sources that, in another context, he would readily accept

I think that's a pretty reasonable request for starters. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's keep this away from blame, it's not going to help anyone. Tvx1 can you supply a source for your assertion that permanent numbers are "a number that a driver only uses for one season"? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Do you mind if I tweak that a little bit? This was the original claim, which was made on 22 November:
Having taken another look at the sources in the article, as well as at the sporting regulations, I'm no longer convinced that these drivers/crews have chosen career numbers. Neither the sources, nor the regulations mention "career numbers". They all actually talk about season/seasonal numbers. It seems like they only reserve a number for the duration of a season. While it is likely that crews will pick the same numbers over multiple seasons, we can't really be certain of that.
I have highlighted the most relevant part. This is in direct response to Article 26 of the Sporting Regulations, which I posted above. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
That's fair. The normal way I'd suggest dealing with this is to raise an article RFC. Did anyone raise one previously? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
If Tvx1 had produced a source, then an RfC would certainly be valid. However, there are four sources which refute his claim, all of which were raised in the WT:MOTOR discussion and are used in the 2019 championship article without problem. They are:
  1. The FIA is the governing body of international motorsport. They are the only ones with the power to make or change rules.
  2. wrc.com is the official website of the World Rally Championship.
  3. Autosport is the most widely-used third-party source for motorsport.
  4. Speedcafe is another reliable third-party source. It is not as widely-used as Autosport, but still good.
All four of these specifically use the phrase "permanent numbers". The Autosport source also specifically compares the numbers used in the WRC to the system used in Formula 1 (where Tvx1 is a regular editor and has never challenged the concept of permanent numbers). If Tvx1 had provided a source that detailed his idea of "seasonal numbers", then the next step would be an RfC to discuss whether or not his source could supersede the provided sources. But without a source, there should not have been any contest over the sources describing "permanent numbers". Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Chris.sherlock, for start I really would like to understand why this dispute is still being treated as me vs Mclarenfan17. I would really want to kindly request you to actually take a thorough look at the |the discussion at WT:MOTOR. You will see that it was actually an extensive discussion with multiple participants and I was not all the only participant disagreeing with Mclarenfan17.
Now for my participation, the source I provided when I initially voiced concerns that we couldn't be certain that these numbers would all remain the same from what they were in 2019, was indeed the World Rally Championship Sporting regulations (specifically point 26 on page 38). There the concept in itself is named "seasonally allocated numbers". That should really be a no-brainer. It would like to point here that my point my claim was never "permanent numbers are a number that a driver only uses for one season". My point was that there was reasonable doubt that they all would automatically stay the same fore there entire careers.
Mclarenfan17 did indeed provide 4 sources they insisted that supported their stance. However, all of the participants in the discussion independently reviewed these sources and repeatedly pointed out that they did not conclusively support Mclarenfan17's stance. There were three reasons for that. Firstly, all the sources deal with the 2019 season and none refer to 2020. Secondly, none uses the word career. Thirdly, one of them (the Autosport source) literrally mentions "this is the number driver XYZ will use this season.
So the group of editors including me agreed that it would have been a better approach to omit the numbers until such time that actual 2020 usage of numbers was confirmed. This seemed like a proper prudent encyclopedic approach to us. After all the numbers were not a vital part of the article at that point. Mclarenfan17 however refused to agree to this. And I really wonder whether it would've killed them to accept it. Because we knew that this new information would be published sooner rather than later (the first rally of the season happened last weekend) the RFC wasn't really mentioned, because that would have initiated a typical 30-day process on an issue that would have come to a natural solution in a shorter timespan.
Indeed the entry list for the first rally of 2020 was published on 13 January (and second rally's entry list fourteen days later) and confirmed some crews using different numbers than they had in 2019. That did bring somewhat of a natural end to the discussion and we have now been listing numbers of crews who not yet entered a 2020 rally as "TBA". Though Mclarenfan17 kept repeatedly reinstating the affected numbers with the numbers used in 2019 on multiple occasions ([1], [2]). They did eventually stop and since there really hasn't been any controversy surrounding that content in that article.Tvx1 01:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It would like to point here that my point my claim was never "permanent numbers are a number that a driver only uses for one season".

Except that this is what you said:

They all actually talk about season/seasonal numbers. It seems like they only reserve a number for the duration of a season.

You cannot argue both things.

My point was that there was reasonable doubt that they all would automatically stay the same fore there entire careers.

Doubt based on what? Your interpretation of the regulations. When you were asked to provide sources, you either ignored it or refused. I provided sources that clearly outlined the use of "permanent numbers" and you dismissed them because they did not define the phrase (though ironically, they never mentioned "seasonsl numbers").

That did bring somewhat of a natural end to the discussion and we have now been listing numbers of crews who not yet entered a 2020 rally as "TBA".

But it did not prove your original claim. You could only demonstrate that some of the numbers had changed.

I think it's pretty obvious at this point that Tvx1 never had any sources to back up his claims—but for whatever reason, he cannot or will not admit it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Tvx1 and Mclarenfan17, this is a lot to absorb. Let me read through this. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Mclarenfan17 baring in mind I am not a subject matter expert on the topic, but for the article 2020 World Rally Championship it does look like they only allocate seasonal numbers for the drivers, with the exception of #1... I read the regulations you pointed to and it states that:
P1 drivers may request a specific number provided that the application is endorsed by the FIA and the Promoter. Number 1 may only be chosen by the World Champion driver of the previous season. Requested numbers may not be greater than 99.
So it looks like they may request the same number, but they don't get the number guaranteed, except for number 1 which is reserved by the World Champion driver of the previous season. Also, as Tvx1 said, it appears in 2020 that some drivers got allocated a different number, so that indicates the numbers only get allocated for the season. For instance, Sébastien Loeb driver number in 2019 was 19, and in 2020 it is now 9... that does not seem like a number someone has all their career.
That looks fairly cut and dried - but I may be missing something.
Tvx1 apologies if it looks like I've singled you out, that was not my intent. The only reason this has come about is because of the issues that you and Mclarenfan17 may have been having. My general approach here, and I should have made this more clear, is to first work through the specific issue, as this will help me work out what is actually going on. I hope this is OK! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I did look into this a little further - so it does seem that a few news reports have said that drivers can have permanent numbers, but the rules actually say they can request their numbers and if the FIA and the promoter approves them they can use them. So this looks like it is done by convention, and it only started in 2019. I looked through the 2019 and 2020 rules and regulations and I couldn't find anything about permanent numbers. Mclarenfan17, could you point to which rule you are referring to? This might help clarify the matter.
That said, I have to say that I believe that you are taking things way too personally. I have had a chance to look into this dispute more closely and I'm afraid I cannot see any evidence of you being harassed unfairly. I do see a content dispute, but as Tvx1 says, many editors disagreed with you. What I'm about to say I fear you may not like, but on Wikipedia we must make decisions on consensus. The key part of this policy is the following:
Limit article talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy. If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change. Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions. Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated.
When I checked the discussion on Wikiproject Motorsport I saw thoughtful discussion... and then a dispute blew up and derailed this discussion. Tvx1's only real mistake I can see is when he wrote "Too bad it isn't your judgment to make. Attacking the contributors isn't going to help you in any way in this discussion. Seems like I have plenty of credibility with the other participants here." I think this was unfortunately phrasing, but in a way he was correct. You were unfortunately in disagreement with a majority of editors - not for no reason but because they had decent and valid arguments. I cannot say I was surprised that SSSB got frustrated with both of you, things got personal and were not helpful.
My suggestion is that the best way forward for both Tvx1 and Mclarenfan17 would be to both stick to the factual points (which I have to say, I can see that Tvx1 actually has made an attempt to do) and not make any more allegations against each other. I think it was probably not wise for Mclarenfan17 to take his dispute to ArbCom. I suspect if they do in fact take the case - which I think they won't, and they don't have to as it's not at all clear to me that it should have gone straight to ArbCom and there are many other ways of resolving disputes - then what might happen is that they will look at the conduct of all parties and it may not work out so well for either side. It might, as it so happens, also be the case where they look at the conduct of a particular party and decide to make a decision you might not like.
Mclarenfan17, though it pains me - I think the best thing you can do is withdraw the ArbCom complaint, stop focusing on the actions of editors and realise that if there are multiple editors making reasonable arguments against your own that it would be best to accept the overwhelming consensus and move on with other editing endeavours. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's disappointing. I'm not challenging this consensus, but rather Tvx1's conduct. I feel that he has clearly a) made claims that were not supported by reliable sources, b) ignored multiple reasonable requests to provide these sources and then c) hidden behind a different source, one that did not fully prove his claim, as a way of avoiding accountability. There is no way that this behaviour is acceptable, and giving him a free pass will only normalise it. The content of the numbers discussion was never the point of Arbitration—Tvx1's behaviour was. And every single discussion involving him is like this. He only ever observes Wikipedia policy when it suits him, but insists everyone else follows it to the letter.

The conversation in question should have been over when I provided the four sources. If Tvx1 wanted to re-open it when the Monte Carlo entry list had been published, that would have been fine. But in the period between the four sources being introduced and the entry list becoming available, his conduct has been appalling and this conduct needs to be addressed. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

You are focusing on Tvx1 when in fact I can see a number of people who disagreed with you. Unfortunately I cannot agree that Tvx1 has done anything wrong in this case. All I can suggest is that you recognise that you are fixating on one person and that it does appear to me that you are arguing against consensus. Until you can acknowledge this, I’m not sure there is much more I can do in this mediation. I even checked your own sources and can clearly see what they are saying, and they do t seem to agree with you. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately I cannot agree that Tvx1 has done anything wrong in this case.
I agree it's unfortunate because now all that he—or anyone else—has to do is ignore WP:RS if observing it is inconvenient and drag things out until another source comes along.
The articles I provided cited the numbering system used in Formula 1 and made a direct comparison between the Formula 1 system and the WRC system. Tvx1 is a regular editor of Formula 1 articles and has never questioned or challenged the concept of "permanent numbers" there. The idea that he suddenly does not understand it in the context of the WRC beggars belief, but if he genuinely does not understand it in the different context, then he probably should not be editing those articles in the first place. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I read the rules myself and they definitely talk about seasonal allocation, the rules state that the drivers apply for their numbers and they are ratified by FIA and the WRC. This indicates that the permanence will be fine through convention, but is flexible enough that at times they may vary the numbering. I think you need to bow to consensus, and I think it would be best to stop making things so personal. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Steve Gibson (computer programmer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Symantec
Windows Metafile (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Steve Gibson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

New message from Narutolovehinata5[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Chris.sherlock. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Shortarse feelerfish.
Message added 10:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Women in Red[edit]

Hi there, Chris.sherlock, and welcome to Women in Red. The percentage of biographies about women is now in fact 18.25% — not good but rather better than 14%. Thanks for your two recent articles on headmistresses. For future women's biographies, you might find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

You'll find links to missing articles on our Redlist index. Those about Australia include Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Australia and User:The Drover's Wife/womenbios (which you seem to have found).--Ipigott (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Ipigott thanks! That is very helpful. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I'd long forgotten about that page! It was a combination (I think) of all the women in the ADB who didn't have articles plus some notable Australian women I thought of who also didn't have articles (and a few organisations etc). I've long-abandoned it, so you are very welcome to add to it, move it to your own space and take it on, move it to a WIR subpage somewhere, or do anything else that might make it useful! WIR is a great project, seems like a good fit for you! The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Please stop closing the discussion at ANI that you brought. I removed your closure yesterday, and I removed your partial closure just now. If you want to suggest some kind of closure in the thread itself, you're welcome to do so, but you cannot be the editor who actually closes it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Bbb23 that’s a bit surprising. Can you point me to the guideline or policy that states this? I might be a bit rusty, but it was never my intention to prevent an editor from closing their own complaint after they escalate it to ArbCom, and certainly it never occurred to me that if the person feels that the issue needs to be closed would not have the ability to close it.
Incidentally, rolling back the change with not even an edit summary doesn’t give me an indication of your intentions. Just saying. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I thought you meant this edit but it appears it was someone else. Apologies. Still would like to know the guidelines or policy on this matter. Looks like you are making stuff up. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

My apologies[edit]

I'm not sure how I erred but I mistakenly ended up using rollback on one of your edits that I didn't mean to revert. I'm sorry, it was unintentional. I rollbacked myself on the edit and I just wanted to say it was a mistake and I apologize. I only noticed that I had done it when I went to look at my own list of contributions and saw that I had made the mistake. Liz Read! Talk! 18:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Liz it’s ok, thank you for letting me know. That makes sense now :-) can you redirect it if you haven’t already? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Knowing nothing of motor sports myself I was impressed and humbled by the amount of time you dedicated to resolving this dispute in a diligent and calm manner: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chris.sherlock#Arbitration I hope it can now be settled between the relevant parties and they both feel more at ease. TFJamMan (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
TFJamMan thanks! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)