User:Tamzin/Arbspace word limits

De jure, the word limit in all arbspace venues that have one is 500 words, except for the evidence phase of an accepted case, in which it becomes "about 1,000 words" for named parties. In all venues, parties may seek extensions. There is no formal upper limit, but as a rule of thumb, extensions to 150% the limit are almost always granted, while anything above 250% is unlikely to be. In the SmallCat dispute ArbCom case, the Committee declined an extension to 2,000% but granted one to 500%, which may be the highest extension ever granted.

De facto, outside of a formal ArbCom case, as long as an initial comment doesn't exceed the word limit, arbs, clerks, and admins often do not police subsequent comments that bring a user to within the 100-200% range, or will allow a retroactive extension without much fuss, especially if the user is a party to the case. They may also allow some leeway for portions of comments that aren't part of the person's argument, such as quotes. Personally, when I'm a party, 150% is around where I would ask for an explicit extension rather than an unspoken one.

No, you cannot cite this section as a defense if someone holds you to the de jure limit. All leeway past that point is discretionary, and arbs/clerks/admins are allowed to be strict if they want.

Part of this is writing advice, and it's advice that coincides with what makes for an effective comment anyways: Be concise. Avoid saying the same thing twice. Use pleasantries and buffering phrases sparingly; they add up. Avoid excessive use of quotes. Leave most of that to diffs, saving quotes for the real oomph moments.

:{{cross}} {{!xt|While I'm not one to worry too much about some profanity from time to time, I do think, with all due respect, that User:Example's comments to people at Talk:Article have been greatly excessive, and that they ought to know better than to speak that way. Their recent comments have included "None of what you are saying makes sense. You should not be commenting so much in this thread" [//#], "I am an expert in this field. I have written multiple scholarly articles in it. You likely lack even a high school degree. Go away" [//#], and "Back the fuck off you whiny little idiot" [//#].}}

:{{tick}} {{xt|User:Example has recently made a series [//#] [//#] of progressively incivil comments at Talk:Article, culminating with the gross personal attack "Back the fuck off you whiny little idiot" [//#].}}

And part of this is social and rhetorical advice: You are before ArbCom or AE to convince the arbs or admins. You are not there to convince the other parties. If the other parties were going to agree with you, you probably would not have landed in arbspace. Engaging in back-and-forth with other parties makes you look argumentative and conveys very little of substance to the arbs or admins. If you and another party each respond to everything the other says, you will have exponential growth and blow past your word limit very quickly, leaving yourself having to ask for extensions when actually important things happen like someone proposing a sanction against you.

Instead, focus on the arbs or admins. If they have a concern, address that. Engage with their critique and try to be part of the process of reaching a consensus.

:{{cross}} {{!xt|User:Example says that I personally attacked them when I said that they were harassing me when they falsely claimed that I had misrepresented their previous comments about the exchange on my talkpage in which I accused them of hounding. It is not a personal fact to call harassment harassment. Wikipedia policy defines "harassment" as "a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons". This pattern is repeated. The things Example has said are offensive. I do believe that I am a reasonable observer, and if Example thinks otherwise, that is further harassment. And yes, this behavior obviously intentionally targets a specific person, me. Furthermore, as I explained before, they have a long history of denying accusations of harassment, which constitutes gaslighting, a recognized form of emotional abuse.}}

:{{tick}} {{xt|@Admin, thank you for asking. I do not think Example and I are able to work together constructively, as the long history between us shows. While I believe I've made the case for a block here, yes I would be okay with a 2-way IBAN if that is the consensus.}}

There is some room for limited engagement with other participants. Concrete rebuttals and new evidence have their place, but you can usually be brief about it.

:{{cross}} {{!xt|User:Example has claimed that I "had never edited that article until today," after they edited it. This is a bald-faced lie and part of their long-term pattern of misrepresentations. I did edit it, once, five years ago [//#], after I read an article about the topic in The New York Times. If they are willing to lie about this, what else will they lie about?}}

:{{tick}} {{xt|It is not true that I had never edited that article before today [//#].}}

As discussed above, you do not always need to formally request an extension. If you do expect to go past the normal grace window, just explain, briefly, why you need more words. You can specify a length, or not; if you don't, you'll probably get an additional 25-50%.

:{{tick}} {{xt|Could I please have an extension to address the claims User:Bystander has made below? Thanks.}}

Once you have had such an extension, or if you blew way past your limit and got told to stop commenting, you may have a harder time getting extensions. In many cases this may be a blessing in disguise: Saying too much often makes you look worse. But in some cases you may really need to say something, for instance to request a modification to a sanction that's been proposed against you. In such cases, be clear about what you want to say, without going into so much detail as to do an end-run around the limit. Be clear that you will be brief.

:{{cross}} {{!xt|I would like to request an extension so that I can respond to User:Admin's TBAN proposal. I don't really think that I did anything wrong, but I understand that a TBAN is likely to pass, so I would like to suggest that the scope be changed from "Weather, broadly construed" to just tornadoes. The reason for this is that no one has presented any evidence that I have been disruptive on articles about blizzards, and that's the only other kind of weather event I edit about.}}

:{{tick}} {{xt|Could I please have an additional 100 words to suggest a modification to User:Admin's proposed sanction? Thank you.}}