Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy/Evidence

=My unique problem, Guidance Requested=

I am trying to put together the evidence for my part in this Arbitration. When this Arbitration was accepted, I was taken by surprise in terms of how to persent this for you. (I had thought I would be able to tell my whole story in narration.) Anyway, I have been working feverishly to put together the Evidence in the format as is stated on the Evidence page. I honestly do seek to present this as best as possible for all Arbitrators.

The unique problem of my situation, though, is that the abuse I have endured for so many many months goes back to the end of last year. As well, the nature of the very crafty gaming the system to abuse me by the other party is best observed by seeing the complete story in its exact time-sequence. (While the other party is a Wikipedia process expert, I am only a topic specialist trying to offer my research and knowledge for the encyclopedia here.)

At the time I am writing this to you now, my DIFF-count in the Evidence is about 165 important DIFFs so far. (There are probably aout 10 more to go, unfortunately.) They really are important. Honest. They are currently all listed out in the template format in my Sandbox.

While I can see that I could remove a few of the DIFFs, it is my concern that reducing down to the 100 DIFF limitation is going to really present an incomplete picture. (The abuse has been very, very extensive and overall context is critical to understanding it all.) I genuinely do not want to overwhelm anyone. I also do not want to break any rules either. This 100-DIFF limitation is casuing a great hardship for me. So, I am asking what to do. Is there any suggestion for how I should proceed? Or, would it be acceptable if I completed the Evidence as I currently have and just use it, even if it is greater than 100 DIFFs?

I will be back after the weekend to work on it in my Sandbox.. Weekends are always tough for me. I hope to then start getting the Evidence officially placed. If any official person here can offer any guidance here before I get back, I hope to use that guidance when I come back next week. All help will be appreciated. Thank you. - Researcher 03:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

=OK to "Yield" DIFFs in DIFF-Count?=

As I explained above (and have not heard back yet), the 100-DIFF limit is posing a great challenge to get the needed Evidence to you. I have still been working on it. You can see the work I've been doing, in my Sandbox.

In this Wikipedia-process abuse case, though, there are a number of users who have been brought in to events, as well as many different events themselves. Each situation requires a number of DIFFs to present to you for effective and complete Evidence presentation. It is also very important to view all the DIFFs in their real timeline sequence in order to "see" the larger picture too.

I have considered just passing many of these DIFFs (that go over 100) to my AMA advocate. Then they could post those DIFFS in their Evidence presentation. However that could interrupt the flow of the chonology that I am trying to present to you in my Evidence presentation. It would make it more difficult for you to read through the larger timeline. If I could show the entire DIFFs though, it would reduce the total presentation to you, actually, because I would not have to back-track and repeat myself in certain discussions.

So, because my AMA advocate has saved space by using less than 30 DIFFS so far, is it possible for them to "yield the balance of their 100-DIFF count" to me? I got ths idea from the US Congress. When someone there needs more allotted time and another needs less allotted time, the one who needs less "yields back the balance of their allotment" to the other who needs more.

Could we do that here? Would it be acceptable for my AMA advocate to "yield back the balance of their 100-DIFF count limit" to me? That way, I could fully present all the vitally important information beyond the 100 DIFF-count limit. You would then get the the complete and actually more concise picture for making a decision here. - Researcher 20:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

=Items Still Pending in Preparing Evidence=

Within the limitations imposed do far, I have been feverishly working to prepare the Evidence in the best way possible. In order to keep Arbitrators informed, here is a quick list of issues that are still pending for us.


 * 1) Still waiting to hear back from official requests for IP investigations.
 * 2) Still waiting to hear back from official request for either the undeletion of, or the DIFFs of, the wrongly deleted Anti-polygamy article.   (I had archived it here, though.)
 * 3) Still waiting to hear back from Arbitrators' guidance on the >100+ DIFF limit problem in presenting Evidence.

One other issue I have is about where is the best place for the Polygamy Dispute Background page I had to create. It is an essential piece of background education for Arbitrators about the polygamy topic, anti-polygamists, and this dispute. Since I was unable to find anywhere in the Evidence page that allowed space for such essential background information, I had to create a page of its own, thorugh my own user-account. I link to it from mye official "Statement by party 1" but it might be better if allowed to be on some official arbitration page, maybe by itself. I would really appreciate any guidance on what would be best for me to do with this? Thank you.

While I wait to hear back from my AMA advocate again, I wanted to let Arbitrators know I am being very busy in preparing this Arbitration. My Sandbox shows the work and chronology of DIFFs that I have been preparing. I've also created a second page, "SandboxEditing," for trying to trim back the DIFF-count. I hope to get all thes items resolved quickly so we can proceed to the full Arbitration. Thank you for your patience and any procedural guidance you can offer. - Researcher 20:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions
We will probably made the decision in this matter based on a few diffs which show the nature of the dispute. It is to your advantage to briefly state your case and present a few diffs which strongly illustrate your contentions. Fred Bauder 21:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for replying. Your advice is well noted and I will be trying very hard. I really do wish this case was as easy to just do that. I really do.


 * In this particular case, the nature of the dispute is more clearly displayed through the entirety of the story. For this case, each DIFF contributes to a larger story as a sum total, but each one by itself might not provide enough information on its own for you to fully see ths story.  To explain the difference:


 * Arb. Situation Type A:
 * 5 DIFFs x 20%-contribution-strength = 100% story shown.
 * Arb. Situation Type B:
 * 200 DIFFs x 0.5%-contribution-strengh = 100% story shown.


 * If Arb. Situation Type B uses only 5 DIFFs exactly like Type A,
 * then the result is a disaster:
 * 5 DIFFs x 0.5%-contribution-strength = 2.5% story shown.


 * That disaster is what scares me, I am willing to admit. My situation is more of a Situation Type B case.  If I don't give you all the little DIFFs, you won't have the essential context or background.  I only want to help you see what really has been happening, I promise you.


 * I will be talking with my AMA advocate when they get back to see what they recommend. I will definitely be trying to follow your guidance.  If you have any additional suggestions, I will also very much appreciate them.  Thank you again for replying. - Researcher 23:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)