Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Evidence

Word Counts
As a reminder editors are limited to 1000 words and 100 diffs. The following is a preliminary word count of the evidence sections; --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC) --Cameron11598 (Talk) 18:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - 296 words
 * - 226 words
 * - 131 words
 * - 1519 words (limit reached)
 * - 835 words
 * - 212 words
 * 525 words (limit reached)
 * 789 words (limit exceeded)
 * Updated --Cameron11598 (Talk) 14:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 's word limit extended to 1500 words by --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 's word limit extended to 1250 words by --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Littleolive oil
I really like the fact that you have a question section so arbs can talk to editors directly. I haven't see that before and think its an excellent idea. Thank you for that.Littleolive oil (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It was an idea that came out of the Rama case and is intended for further use in future cases. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 04:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Curly Turkey
I apologize for taking so long to post evidence—partly the sheer amount of material to work through, partly the difficulty in paring it down to the 1000-word limit, and partly life getting in the way.

I struggled to keep it within the 1000-word limit, and thus left out several sections of evidence entirely (on the removal of all maintenance tags, a couple more major cases of IDHT relating to BLP, Quebec, and "scandal", denial of evidence, and other behaviours). I can't help but feel what I've presented doesn't properly show the sheer extent of the behavioural issues on the article and at ANI.

A smaller issue—I've got 1000 words to present my evidence against several editors, while each of those editors has 1000 words to present their case against me (and it'll be against me and not Littleolive oil). I call it "smaller" because I doubt they'll use up 4000 words worth of substance against me, but it's an issue everyone should be aware of: the opposition has massively more leeway to make their case than I have. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Question: should I be signing each of the sections of evidence I provided? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer it but I don't think its strictly necessary --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The case I was trying to present was not that "people had different POVs"—that was meant to be background to the evidence that followed, and I'd intended to include more evidence of stonewalling behaviour, etc. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Given J.Johnson has been given the go-ahead to post 2.5× his allottment of evidence, will I be allowed to submit the rest of the evidence I mention above? "removal of all maintenance tags" in particular relates to J. Johnson's "timeline". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You can go up to 1500 words; I don't think you're close to the diff limit. Please be as concise as possible, and I appreciate that you've done so so far. Katietalk 12:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How do rebuttals work? Do they count towards the word count? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Anything posted under your section falls within your allotted word count. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 14:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand, though it's extraordinarily frustrating not to be able to respond to misrepresentations in others' statements. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * what word-count tool do you use? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * this tool. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've been using http://strategywiki.org/w/index.php?title=User:Najzere/edit_counter.js, which keeps giving me a different word count. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Pudeo
Echoing Pldx1's evidence section that, even with Curly Turkey's evidence, this case is looking like to be a no-show. So there were some problems with source attribution and people had different POVs? Those must be the most common issues in Wikipedia. Every recent American politics RfC has had far more issues even with the discretionary sanctions. Looking at Mr.Gold1's section, they are clearly a new editor and have no clear idea what they are supposed to do here.

This whole case does not make sense, unless the Arbs have already privately decided that Canadian politics will get discretionary sanctions. --Pudeo (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Safrolic
Sorry all, I've been dealing with a combination of real life and aversion to getting back into this dispute. I'm aware of the deadline to submit evidence and I'll have it in ahead of that. Safrolic (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by J. Johnson
I hereby request the consent of Arbcom to post ~1250 words in my evidence section. While I am only marginally involved in the article (only one edit), and not named by the filer, yet that one edit get me involved, and I believe I can offer relevant evidence in a useful format. This evidence consists of a timeline of a small editwar, with excerpts and diffs to relevant comments. These comments are a fair sample of the "instransigent behavior" at the heart of the case, and also illustrate some of the IDHT issue. The draft can be reviewed at User:J._Johnson/sandbox/timeline I don't believe it can be made shorter without loss of structure, clarity of context, and convenient linkage. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You can go up to 1250 words, but please be as concise as possible. Katietalk 16:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I have decided to take a somewhat different tack. I have included a link to the timeline in case anyone might find it useful. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

While I don't believe I need more time, I join Safrolic's request to allow a few more days for evidence. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)