all proposed
Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or vote to abstain.
Conditional votes for, against, or to abstain should be explained by the Arbitrator in parenthesis after his time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were enacted.
1) {text of proposed orders}
proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on
1) {text of proposed principle}
proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on
1) {text of proposed remedy}
proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
Four Aye votes needed to close case
Ta bu shi da yu, who presented the vast majority of the evidence here, and Netoholic have resolved their differences. As far as I can see, Netoholic has made no contributions in the last month that could be considered arbitable, and it seems to me that this case is now moot. I move to close, leaving the option open of re-opening the case if it flares up again in the future. - Ambi 00:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)