I'm not sure where to post this so I am posting it here and hopefully someone can respond.

The evidence section of the guide to arbitration states "Generally, evidence presentations should be kept to under 1000 words and 100 diffs, although some flexibility is tolerated."

Due to the fact that I'm addressing the behaviours of 3 individuals directly and as a group, it is impossible to do this within 1000 words/100 diffs and I need to request an allowance to make a larger amount of evidence available. I understand the need for readability so I have been drafting the material as 4 main sections with each section containing well defined subsections. I know long walls of text can become tl;dr and I am attempting to prevent that.

Currently I have about 80% of the evidence drafted and mostly edited as 3 main sections out of a total of 4 and rough counts with the unix wc and grep programs indicate that I have roughly 3200 words and 300 links. The largest portion of the links (~200+) are part of a well formatted table/timeline that documents much of the wikistalking and collusion behaviours.

I hope to have the remaining section completed, edited, and everything copyedited within the next few days but at present I'm having a difficult time typing due to pain in my hands. I have been working on preparing the evidence since Jehochman initiated the RFAR on November 7th as I realized it would take awhile to completely prepare everything due to the scope.

-- Tothwolf ( talk) 09:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I just realized my word count using the wc program is not accurate. It is artificially high because it measures anything (even wiki markup) between whitespace characters (including newlines). Because there are a lot of non-printable 'words' used in the table, I have no idea what the actual word count is, but I suspect it is closer to about 2000. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 11:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Tothwolf - If everything you post is relevant and succinct then considerable latitude is always given. The directive is mainly there to discourage TL:DR type rambling. Manning ( talk) 11:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply

But do please note that I cut a contribution from Miami33139 substantially this morning. Obviously we will take into account the circumstances you describe, but as Manning Bartlett says, succinctness and relevance will be vital. Dougweller ( talk) 22:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Right, that I understand. This is part of why the prep work is taking as long as it is. I'm trying to reduce any redundancy and condense everything as much as possible to avoid tl;dr while still keeping the documented behaviour in a readable format. The last several AN/I discussions have helped show me what works and doesn't work as far as presenting this sort of information.
What I have currently are four subsections, one for each of the three editors involved, documenting past and present behaviours. The fourth section covers all three editors as a group and also includes a well formed, sortable timeline/wikitable. Each of the three sections that deals with a specific editor often refers to the table in the fourth section for links and additional information.
I believe the first three sections are going to come out at around 2,500 words total (rough count with 'wc') and about 150-175 links and the table itself contains about 200 links, each directly related to these issues. Some of the material is also relevant to or connected with evidence I am sending directly to ArbCom due to possible issues with WP:OUTING.
I had planned to use collapse templates on the table so it was collapsed by default to take up less space. Would that be advisable? -- Tothwolf ( talk) 22:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I'll have to get back to you on this unless someone else beats me to it. Dougweller ( talk) 06:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I've just about finished my editing and will be ready to post this material very soon. Considering that the behiours of the editors involved are continuing as of this very moment, probably not a moment too soon either. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 06:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I have to ask you to keep it within the limits. It's better if you cut it than leave it to a clerk to cut it. Dougweller ( talk) 11:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply

However, you can email the excess public evidence to ArbCom and they will approve it for posting if needed. We will be looking at the amount of evidence presented by everyone. Dougweller ( talk) 12:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Doug, it can't be done. Everything is tightly integrated and connected together. Because I'm presenting evidence for what is in essence 4 cases combined into one, is is simply not possible to keep to 1000/100. If it is going to be unacceptable for me to show the full picture, then I guess these other editors have "won" their "game" and there is little point in me sticking around Wikipedia, as I stated in my opening statement. I'm basically ready to post this evidence, so we need to figure this out asap. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply

In addition, it is very likely that the evidence I've compiled would have in many other more simple ArbCom cases have been presented by multiple editors, with each editor contributing a different part. The patterns of behavioural problems from the three editors named have been long term issues for the community as a whole and I've not been their only target. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 20:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply

At this point I am going to say to post what you have and we will decide if all of it can be retained or if parts must be cut. MBisanz ^talk 21:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Alright. I'll make one more thorough pass through the material first and try to cut down anything else I can. I do feel the need to apologise in advance to all of the clerks and arbitrators who will be reading it because this is simply a lot of material for anyone to have to work through (and having spent the time to document and compile it, I know for certain that this really is a lot of material). If we do need to cut it down some, I would appreciate it if I could at least have some input on it because I am concerned that something that may at first seem unimportant may in fact be very important in the larger scope. For now I'll also keep the collapse templates on the timeline table I mentioned above. In viewing the drafts, I think they help keep the page length down and make things more readable. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 21:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply

If all evidence can be submitted/tweaked by friday utc, I an use friday/saturday est to review it and write a draft decision to post on the workshop. (ideally the voting phse will start before dec. 6) Wizardman 01:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Barring any new developments between now and then, I think I've covered everything on the current evidence subpage. I do have some additional material to send to arbcom-l (in addition to that which I've already submitted) and will take care of that soon. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 02:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply