Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Workshop and analysis phase

Workshop
The Workshop allows parties, the community, and Arbitrators to analyze the evidence, offer suggestions about possible final decision proposals, and receive feedback. Parties and editors should keep a few things in mind when writing workshop proposals. Failure to link a finding of fact to evidence and/or a remedy to a finding of fact is a common mistake. This mistake will mean that arbitrators normally do not give much consideration to the proposal, and can, in some cases means the proposal is removed completely. It also does not reflect well on the person who proposed it.
 * 1) Be aware of the kinds of proposals that have been offered in prior similar cases.  For example: the Arbitration committee does not make content rulings, so a proposal that "The article Fooberries will be restored to my version of 12 August 2023" is a complete non-starter.
 * 2) Principles highlight the key applicable provisions of policy, procedure, or community practice and, where appropriate, provide the Committee's interpretation of such provisions in the context of the dispute. Proposed principles should be grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  Don't offer proposals like "Topical experts should be given special deference" or "Editors do not need to cite sources when writing about themselves." Suggesting a principle from a past case can be particularly effective, as arbitrators often try to re-use principles rather than write new ones.
 * 3) Proposed findings of fact (FoF) should be supported by evidence on the /Evidence page. You are expected to link to the applicable sections of the /Evidence page, and to include a few of the best diffs, to illustrate each aspect of the finding of fact.
 * 4) Proposed remedies should be supported by the findings of fact. A proposal to ban User:Example from editing requires substantial evidence that User:Example has violated community editing norms. Do not submit a proposed remedy, unless you can also point to a proposed finding of fact, either from yourself or another editor, that supports it.

Although each workshop proposal includes space for comments by the Arbitrators, parties, and others, the workshop is not a vote, nor is it a debate. Casting a "vote" of support for your favorite proposals is less informative than a brief comment of why you think it is a good proposal, while getting into an argument with another party in the case is less useful to the Arbitrators than a concise explanation of why you agree or disagree with a proposal.

Not every case will have a workshop phase. In some cases, there may be additional restrictions placed on the workshop as well (such as no proposing remedies). Occasionally, arbitrators may put up their own workshop proposals for feedback and giving feedback about those proposals can be particularly helpful.

Analysis
This is intended to allow editors to do detailed explanations of evidence that has been submitted. For instance, if an editor has submitted a single diff that is part of a much longer conversation it can be useful to explain how it fits in to the larger context of the conversation. All analysis should directly mention specific evidence that is being analyzed. While there are normally not word limits for analysis, shorter well crafted analysis is normally more effective than longer more comprehensive analysis. While there is also space for discussion of analysis, prolonged debates about analysis are often less helpful than having contrasting well stated positions and letting the arbitrators judge how much they agree with each.