Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy/Evidence

message: 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)
thread_title: My unique problem, Guidance Requested

message: 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)
thread_title: OK to "Yield" DIFFs in DIFF-Count?