Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Evidence phase

Introduction to the evidence phase
Parties and other interested editors are encouraged to place evidence on the case's Evidence subpage, in the form of diffs demonstrating behavior along with explanations and context. Be clear and concise. The parties should be aware that argument is not evidence, and that thirty words and five well-chosen diffs may speak more eloquently than a 500-word diatribe.

Serious allegations require serious evidence, with each aspect of the evidence supported by illustrative diffs. An arbitrator or clerk may remove statements which are not adequately substantiated.

By default, submissions are limited to about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for named parties, and to about 500 words and about 50 diffs for all other editors. Editors wishing to submit evidence longer than the default limits are expected to obtain the approval of the drafting arbitrator(s) via a request on the /Evidence talk page prior to posting it.

Editors are expected to edit only within their own section on the evidence page. Responses to another editor's evidence should be placed in a subsection in your own section for rebuttal, or on the talk page. Note that extended arguments over the validity and interpretation of the evidence are rarely helpful to the Arbitrators.

How to submit effective evidence
Ultimately, the audience for evidence are the Arbitrators. While other parties and editors may comment and discuss the evidence, parties should submit evidence with Arbitrators in mind. There are two very important things to realize about the Arbitration Committee and its members:
 * 1) They do not have much time, and
 * 2) They care much more about product than process.

Almost everything below is a corollary of one or both of these statements.

Brevity
Evidence pages quickly become very long. Arbitrators do not have time to read or re-read very long evidence pages. Therefore, try to keep your evidence concise, direct, and clear. Trying to show every single instance of a given user being a problem may be less useful than picking a few clear and obvious example requiring little explanation and presented with minimal commentary.

Context
Provide the context for your evidence. Explain why the edits you cite are proof of your assertion: e.g., "edit X shows user Y disrupting consensus-building because ABC...".The more that the diff you provide directly shows what you allege, without an arbitrator having to read anything else, the better. For example, if you point to an edit that follows a month of heated discussion, it may not make sense to someone who was uninvolved. If there is better evidence for the same point, use that. Evidence requiring less explanation is more likely to be read, understood, and to be useful to the Arbitrators.

Background context
It is unlikely that all ArbCom members have already read about your dispute prior to the request for arbitration. For this reason, they are unlikely to know the history of the dispute, who advocates which point of view, who has a history of defending problem users, or if everybody who has ever dealt with a user recognizes them to be a complete lunatic.

Point these things out to them, with evidence.

If you mention to the Committee a user that the ArbCom has sanctioned, they may remember the user (if the same arbitrators in on the Committee), but may not remember particular details of the ruling or which POV that user was advocating. Therefore, write your evidence and proposals to help jog their memories, and don't assume that every time an arbitrator pulls up the evidence page they will have perfect recall of their past decisions.

Mistakes to avoid
ArbCom is typically pro-Wikipedia, generally considers that the Wikipedia method works, that Wikipedia is on the whole a successful project, and that admins are generally trustworthy. They explicitly choose any outcome that results in Wikipedia working better.

Therefore, arguments opposing Wikipedia's basic principles, suggesting a massive cabal of rogue admins, or holding the process to be an end in itself will not work.

Arguing about flaws in the arbitration process is usually a waste of time and will make arbitrators look dimly upon you.

Pettifoggery is likely to create prejudice against your cause, as a person who can win on the merits of their case will probably not resort to wikilawyering.