Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118

Who should be considered an involved party?
My understanding is as follows: In this context, should the filing party, uninvolved admins, or informal mediator continue to be listed as parties? PhilKnight (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Erik9 - filing party
 * 194x144x90x118 - subject of the case
 * Scjessey - involved party
 * Dayewalker - involved party
 * SarekOfVulcan - involved party
 * PhilKnight - informal mediator
 * GTBacchus - uninvolved admin
 * FisherQueen - uninvolved admin
 * Jehochman - uninvolved admin
 * The list of parties is more for ease of clerking and administrative purposes at the beginning, throughout and after a case. Not only should it contain those who are on opposing sides, but those in the middle who are attempting to positively help the situation, whether that be uninvolved third party admins, mediators, editors etc. etc. They are coming from outside a dispute and its important to get views seperated from a content disagreement. Therefore being on the list of parties should not be considered indicative of improper behaiviour or be seen as a mark against an editor. Also it is worth noting that the list isnt exhaustive and therefore, not being on the list does not exempt an editor exempt from being brought into the case. Sedd&sigma;n talk|WikimediaUK 10:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You may if you desire add me to the list of parties. At present, I am the only one from the Chess WikiProject who has participated in this arbitration case (although I have informed both Krakatoa and Quale about the initial request and received support from both of them regarding my initial statement). The dispute at the related chess articles are clearly within the scope of this matter. A quick look at my statements so far and the evidence page will show that my stance is in direct opposition to 194x. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)