Contents
- (C) Dispute
- (A): asks infrastructure-admin about (possible) removal Dominik G of lists
- (A) ask (support) about all known email addresses of Dominik G.
- (infrastructure-admin): preliminary info R1 removed Dominik from a list
- (A): asks (Werner D) Who removed Dominik G on what authorization
- (A): asks R1: on which authorization he removed Dominik G.
- Werner D: regarding mailing lists, Domink G was only removed from cacert-se
- (A): reports results to C, asks C if the case should be continued or if he wants to change or withdraw the dispute as it does not look like there were further removals.
- (A): informs R1 about change of dispute
- (A): asks infrastructure to include all email addresses of Dominik G in the search
- (A): asks support why their last answer also included domains
- (infrastructure admin): no further removals found, a list of current subscriptions was provided, a list of substriptions from 2014-03-23 would be a lot of effort and take some time (encrypted)
- (A): reports to C that no further removals were identified, asks for reasons to provide C with the list of current subscriptions of the member
- (A): informs C about the idea to add Werner D as a respondent to the case, leaves option for comment
- (C): declares satisfaction with found answers, sees no need for further investigations
- (A) Informs R2 that he was added to the case
- (A) Thanks to infrastructure admins
- (R2) public counterstatement on cacert-board@lists.cacert.org
Parts in [ ] that are not references, are due to anonymization.
(C) Dispute
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 21:13:21 +0000 Dear Support, Me, Benedikt H, Member of the CAcert Community, Member of CAcert Inc. and Internal Auditor, hereby raise a case against the person who removed Dominik G from all mailing lists due to Werner D's email [1] without prior Arbitration case. Please handle this case with priority, because I see violation of CAcert's system of checks and balances. [1] https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2014-03/msg00009.html
(A): asks infrastructure-admin about (possible) removal Dominik G of lists
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 00:51:52 +0100 Dear infrastructure admis, I'm the arbitrator of a20140324.1[1]. The dispute was filed because someone mentioned officially that Dominik G was removed from all CAcert mailing lists. Please check the changes that were done recently in this regard. We need to know who acted to remove him from which lists. Currently I do not have all email-addresses from him, so it may be that we have to ask for an additional check of the same nature in the near future. Known email-addresses are: [anonymized] [anonymized] [1] https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20140324.1
(A) ask (support) about all known email addresses of Dominik G.
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 00:57:54 +0100 Dear support, I'm the arbitrator of the arbitration case a20140324.1[1]. The case is about a (possible) removal of a person from all CAcert mailing lists. To be able to check if he was removed from where, I need to know about all his email-addresses. Please be so kind and give me a list of all known email addresses of Dominik G[...]. Known email addresses are: [anonymized] [anonymized] [1] https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20140324.1
(infrastructure-admin): preliminary info R1 removed Dominik from a list
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 01:00:17 +0100 Dear Eva, as a preliminary info I can say that [R1] removed Dominik from the cacert-se mailinglist: [according log entries] I will have a closer look soon and will also provide you with a list of current active subsciptions, unless requested otherwise.
(A): asks (Werner D) Who removed Dominik G on what authorization
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 01:08:08 +0100 Dear Werner D[...], I'm the arbitrator of the arbitration case a20140324.1. The dispute was filed because you mentioned on the open board mailing list that Dominik G[...] was removed from all CAcert mailing lists. It was filed against "the person who removed Dominik G[...] from all mailing lists". As this person(s) are currently not known I have to identify the possible respondents. As you stated that there was a removal, please answer the following questions: - Who did remove Dominik G[...] from which mailing lists? - Who ordered said removals? - What do you know about authorizations for such removals as there was no arbitration case involved? [1] https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20140324.1
(A): asks R1: on which authorization he removed Dominik G.
Datum: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 01:20:52 +0100 Dear Michael T[...], I'm the arbitrator of a20140324.1. I hereby inform you, that you was identified as one of the (possible) respondents of said case. The status of the case is recorded at [1]. If you notice any missing or wrong information there, feel free to provide us your point of view. I'll skip the remaining formalities as you are a well known member of CAcert, and I happen to know that you have accepted CCA. The dispute was failed against "the person who removed Dominik G[...] from all mailing lists". At 2014 Mar 24 13:17:08 you have removed Dominik G[...] from cacert-se list. Please tell my on which authorization you acted when you did so.
(R1):provides his reason and authorization for the removal
Datum: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 05:37:56 +0100 Hi Eva, On 25.03.2014 01:20, Eva Stöwe wrote: > I'm the arbitrator of a20140324.1. I hereby inform you, that you was > identified as one of the (possible) respondents of said case. > I'll skip the remaining formalities as you are a well known member of > CAcert, and I happen to know that you have accepted CCA. > > The dispute was failed against "the person who removed Dominik G[...] > from all mailing lists". > > At 2014 Mar 24 13:17:08 you have removed Dominik G[...] from cacert-se list. > > Please tell my on which authorization you acted when you did so. Dominik posted an email that he resigned from some positions in CAcert. Especially he also resigned as Support Engineer. Part of this resignation process is of course to remove him from certain privileged mailing lists like cacert-se. So I acted on his own wish. I only removed him from this specific mailing list, not any other and certainly not all mailing lists.
Werner D: regarding mailing lists, Domink G was only removed from cacert-se
Datum: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 05:49:26 +0100 Hello Eva, > Dear Werner D[...], Why did you write to me only and not to the other people involved? As Dominik regards me as one of his favorite enemies and vice versa, I carefully refrained from doing any actions in this case. Even for normal emails he poured hate over me. > The dispute was filed because you mentioned on the open board > mailing list that Dominik G was removed from all CAcert mailing > lists. So I was told. It now seems false or incomplete. > It was filed against "the person who removed Dominik G[...] from > all mailing lists". As this person(s) are currently not known I have > to identify the possible respondents. Understandable. > As you stated that there was a removal, please answer the following > questions: > - Who did remove Dominik G[...] from which mailing lists? In the support ticket s20140323.79 [Support Member] [email of Support Member] wrote: > I have revoked [email-address of Dominik G]'s access to the support interface > on the main website. > I have revoked [email-address of Dominik G]'s access to OTRS. > I've revoked your access to the different (support related) > interfaces. (Mainly admin-flag on webdb & otrs.) If some of this is > in error contact me. I think someone told that Dominik was removed completely from Sympa but I cannot find any reference. > - Who ordered said removals? Domimik himself told: > I herby officially resign from the following positions inside > CAcert: > - CAcert Support Engineer - CAcert Co-Auditor - CAcert Infrastructure > Admin > I intend to retain my assurer status. > Please revoke any access rights from my accounts immediately. The last can be regarded as a catch-all, doesn't it? > - What do you know about authorizations for such removals as there > was no arbitration case involved? If a user orders some action and there is no hindrance, this usually is a sufficient authorisation. [informal information about activity at board level, not currently relevant for this case]
(Support): sends list of all email-addresses of Domink G - also includes domains
Datum: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 05:04:17 +0000 Hello Eva Stöwe, > Please be so kind and give me a list of all known email addresses of > Dominik G[...]. [email addresses] Überprüfte Domains [domain(s)]
(A): reports results to C, asks C if the case should be continued or if he wants to change or withdraw the dispute as it does not look like there were further removals.
Datum: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 09:28:00 +0100 Dear Benedikt, I'm the arbitrator of a20140324.1[1] We started the investigation of this case with a search for possible respondents of your dispute. As you have filed the dispute against "the person who removed Dominik G[...] from all mailing lists", all according persons need to be identified, first. We already asked infrastructure admins to look up mailing-list removals of known email-addresses of Dominik. (Because there is currently no one else who has direct access to this information.) The first inspection only showed a removal from Dominik from the support engineer mailing list. The acting person was Michael T., who was added to the lists of respondents of the case as R1. A more, deeper inspection will be done by infrastructure, today (if not ordered otherwise). Michael already responded that he acted because of the resignation of Dominik himself who included the request to remove all special rights and accesses he had because of the roles he resigned from. Werner also was asked for information about what he knows about removal from Dominik from mailing lists. He answered that he actually does not know about any further removals from mailing lists, than the support engineer list. It currently seems that his answer to your questions on the public board mailing list, that Dominik was removed from all lists was wrong. We now could proceed with an order to search for any deletion of any email-addresses from Dominik, to verify if there were further removals. Currently I do not think that this would give us much more results. But it would be needed to ensure that we have found all possible respondents for your dispute. Before I would order this, I want to ask you, if you want to keep up the dispute against further currently unknown persons who may have acted to remove Dominik from mailing lists, or if you would like to adapt or even withdraw your dispute. [1] https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20140324.1
(C): wants to continue with the case but with a modified dispute
Datum: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 14:01:03 +0000 Dear Eva, Thank you for your e-mail. Since I do not act in person but as attorney for the community, I would like to have a deeper inspection on all known e-mail addresses of Dominik removed yesterday, 2014-03-24 from all CAcert related mailing lists. I know that this will create some work and I apology for this. However, it is better to proof something wrong that is actually against the spirit of CAcert than to stop investigating. As an intermediate result, I'd like to see all mailing lists where he got removed from yesterday, no matter for what reason. Investigation on the reasons will be the second step. Reviewing my request yesterday, I figured out that it was not well thought and looks like a personal dispute against an unknown person. I now intend to change the way and make it an official investigation on "abuse of power". If we get a positive result, another dispute against the acting party might be opened. Therefore, I'd also like to change my dispute into: On 2014-03-24, Werner D stated in an e-mail [1] that Dominik G "is removed from all mailing lists." This action obviously happened outside an arbitration and might have two causes: 1) Dominik G asked for removal of all mailing lists (see [2]), or 2) Dominik G was removed by or on behalf of a single person or group of persons in CAcert. I would like to request Arbitration to provide me a statement about 1) all mailing lists Dominik G is currently subscribed to, and 2) all mailing lists Dominik G was subscribed to on 2014-03-23, or 3) if 2) is not possible, all removals of Dominik G on 2014-03-24. This is an official request in my role as CAcert internal Auditor on an investigation of abuse of power. An official report will be issued later. [1] https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2014-03/msg00009.html [2] https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert/2014-03/msg00024.html
(A): informs R1 about change of dispute
Datum: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 16:28:57 +0100 Dear Michael, The claimant of a20140324.1[a] requested a change of his dispute in said case. As the direction of the new dispute is mostly the same as the old one, the case will continue with this new dispute. Currently you will remain a respondent of this case. The new dispute is: "On 2014-03-24, Werner D stated in an e-mail [1] that Dominik G "is removed from all mailing lists." This action obviously happened outside an arbitration and might have two causes: 1) Dominik G asked for removal of all mailing lists (see [2]), or 2) Dominik G was removed by or on behalf of a single person or group of persons in CAcert. I would like to request Arbitration to provide me a statement about 1) all mailing lists Dominik G is currently subscribed to, and 2) all mailing lists Dominik G was subscribed to on 2014-03-23, or 3) if 2) is not possible, all removals of Dominik G on 2014-03-24. This is an official request in my role as CAcert internal Auditor on an investigation of abuse of power. An official report will be issued later. [1] https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2014-03/msg00009.html [2] https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert/2014-03/msg00024.html" [a] https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20140324.1
(A): asks infrastructure to include all email addresses of Dominik G in the search
Datum: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 16:45:45 +0100 Dear [an infrastructure admin], dear infrastructure admins, thank you for your effort. I'm sorry to tell you that I have some more work to do for you in this case. > I will have a closer look soon and will also provide you with a list of > current active subsciptions, unless requested otherwise. Please continue the search for the following email-addresses: [email-addresses of Domink G] I need an answer for the following questions: 1) Which CAcert mailing lists have a subscription of one of the above email-addresses? 2) To which CAcert mailing lists were there a subscription of above email-addresses on 2014-03-23? If you cannot answer 2) please give me a list of all removals from CAcert mailing lists for the above email-addresses since 2014-03-24 (including the date). If you detect any removals, please tell me who did them, as far as you can identify someone. If you consider it appropriate you may answer via an encrypted mail to the CM and me.
(A): asks support why their last answer also included domains
Datum: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 17:02:08 +0100 Dear Support, dear [support engineer], I only asked you to provide us with a list of email addresses of a member. As I included a reasoning why I explicitly needed to know about email addresses, I have to ask you, why you also provided us a list of domains of the member, which are no use for the search that we need to do. As this was not requested by arbitration this may be considered as a privacy breach. Please explain yourself in this regard. (The acting support engineer was [name of support engineer].) Am 25.03.2014 06:04, schrieb CAcert Support: > Hello Eva Stöwe, > >> Please be so kind and give me a list of all known email addresses of >> Dominik G[...]. > > His main email address is [email address] > > Weitere überprüfte E-Mail-Adressen [snip] > > Überprüfte Domains > [snip]
(infrastructure admin): no further removals found, a list of current subscriptions was provided, a list of substriptions from 2014-03-23 would be a lot of effort and take some time (encrypted)
Datum: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 21:11:34 +0100 Dear Eva, Am 25.03.2014 16:45, schrieb Eva Stöwe: > Please continue the search for the following email-addresses: > > I need an answer for the following questions: > 1) Which CAcert mailing lists have a subscription of one of the above > email-addresses? The only email address I could find in the lists system listed above is [primary email address]. I filtered all emails by the string [a string] and did a manual inspection and this was the only address matching from 8 results. Also by gut feeling, I would not match the other results to Dominik G[...]. > 2) To which CAcert mailing lists were there a subscription of above > email-addresses on 2014-03-23? Currently there are the following subscriptions. Past subscriptions possibly could be identified by accessing a backup. This would require some effort, which I do not consider worth it (info can be constructed from the below) and I am afraid I will not be able to do so during the next two weeks. [personal reasons] mysql> SELECT list_subscriber FROM subscriber_table WHERE user_subscriber=[primary email address]; [result of query] > If you cannot answer 2) please give me a list of all removals from > CAcert mailing lists for the above email-addresses since 2014-03-24 > (including the date). The only removal I can identify from the logs in the requested time frame is the one I sent before: [log-entry] Unsubscriptions initiated by the user would not be included. > If you detect any removals, please tell me who did them, as far as you > can identify someone. See above log message.
(A): reports to C that no further removals were identified, asks for reasons to provide C with the list of current subscriptions of the member
Datum: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 21:53:24 +0100 Dear Benedikt, I got an answer from infrastructure admins for my questions regarding the subscription and removal of those from Domink at all CAcert mailing lists. > I would like to request Arbitration to provide me a statement about > 1) all mailing lists Dominik G is currently subscribed to, and > 2) all mailing lists Dominik G was subscribed to on 2014-03-23, or > 3) if 2) is not possible, all removals of Dominik G on 2014-03-24. I will answer 3) one directly: Only the already known one (Michael removing him from cacert-se) could be detected by a more complete search. 2) is hard to answer as an access of a backup would be needed. This would take some effort. The acting infrastructure admin informed me that he would not have time to do so within the next two weeks. I currently do see no need to inspect this further, as the only additional information that could be found by doing so, would be unsubscritions done by the member himself. Even as I requested and was provided with an answer for 1) I want to ask you for a reason, why you think you need this kind of information, before I disclose it to you.
(A): informs C about the idea to add Werner D as a respondent to the case, leaves option for comment
Datum: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 07:48:49 +0100 Dear Benedikt, I would like to include Werner D[...] to the respondents of a20140324.1. My reason is that as the mail that was the source for your dispute was created by him, he is already involved in the matter of the case. It should be in the interest of every possible respondent to be included in a case as soon as possible, because have some special "rights" like being informed about changes of the course of a case. So from the view of arbitration it is in the interest of Werner to add him to the lists of the respondents. And one of my first tasks as arbitrator is to identify the parties of a case. As you are the claimant I give you the chance to comment on this. But as the case is evolving fast, I would not like to wait much longer with my decision, so the time-frame for your response will be short. On the same thought I have to ask you, if you consider this case only to be about removals from mailing lists or if other access or right removals of Dominik may be included. If this is the case also Joseph S. and Marcus M. may be possible respondents.
(Support member): answers As question, why also domains were included in the last answer from support
Datum: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 08:47:15 +0000 Hello Eva Stöwe, > I only asked you to provide us with a list of email addresses of a > member. As I included a reasoning why I explicitly needed to know > about email addresses, I have to ask you, why you also provided us a > list of domains of the member, which are no use for the search that > we need to do. That I am not so sure. Domains are the base of email addresses. So you could stumble over more email addresses which you now better can assign to Dominik. > As this was not requested by arbitration this may be considered as a > privacy breach. If you regard it this way, I will never again cooperate with you. I cannot bear that you twist things and blow them out of all proportions. 1. I had the good intention to make your work easier and more comprehensive. 2. It is internal to Support and Arbitration. All Support people and some arbitrators are ABCed, and the remaining arbitrators I regard as trustworthy and authorised to handle delicate data as well. Aren't they? So this information went only to people that are sufficiently authorised. Therefore I don't see any privacy breach. > Please explain yourself in this regard. (The acting support engineer > was Werner.) Are you satisfied with this answer?
(C): declares satisfaction with found answers, sees no need for further investigations
Datum: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 12:05:46 +0000 Dear Eva, Thank you for your e-mail. >> I would like to request Arbitration to provide me a statement about >> 1) all mailing lists Dominik G is currently subscribed to, and >> 2) all mailing lists Dominik G was subscribed to on 2014-03-23, or >> 3) if 2) is not possible, all removals of Dominik G on 2014-03-24. > > I will answer 3) one directly: Only the already known one (Michael > removing him from cacert-se) could be detected by a more complete search. Okay, for this case the removal reason is clear. No further investigation needed. I will close and document my case with only a recommendation towards board to be careful with hasty reactions. > 2) is hard to answer as an access of a backup would be needed. This > would take some effort. The acting infrastructure admin informed me that > he would not have time to do so within the next two weeks. > > I currently do see no need to inspect this further, as the only > additional information that could be found by doing so, would be > unsubscritions done by the member himself. > Since you gave me an answer for 3), 2) is not needed. > Even as I requested and was provided with an answer for 1) I want to ask > you for a reason, why you think you need this kind of information, > before I disclose it to you. There is only a need of 1) in combination with 2) (then - now check). I don't need this information for anything else and it does not need to be disclosed. Thank you for your work, Benedikt ps: feel free to add all other respondents from the initial case to the responder list.
(C): AYE to add Werner D as respondent to the case
Datum: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 12:06:55 +0000 > Dear Benedikt, > > I would like to include Werner D[...] to the respondents of a20140324.1. > My reason is that as the mail that was the source for your dispute was > created by him, he is already involved in the matter of the case. AYE > > It should be in the interest of every possible respondent to be included > in a case as soon as possible, because have some special "rights" like > being informed about changes of the course of a case. > > So from the view of arbitration it is in the interest of Werner to add > him to the lists of the respondents. And one of my first tasks as > arbitrator is to identify the parties of a case. > > As you are the claimant I give you the chance to comment on this. But as > the case is evolving fast, I would not like to wait much longer with my > decision, so the time-frame for your response will be short. > > On the same thought I have to ask you, if you consider this case only to > be about removals from mailing lists or if other access or right > removals of Dominik may be included. If this is the case also Joseph S. > and Marcus M. may be possible respondents. I don't see any need for this.
(A) Informs R2 that he was added to the case
Dear Werner D[...], I'm the arbitrator of a20140324.1. I hereby inform you, that you were added as respondent R2 to the case. The status of the case is recorded at [1]. If you notice any missing or wrong information there, feel free to provide us your point of view. I'll skip the remaining formalities as you are a well known member of CAcert, and as far as I know have accepted CCA. I assume that you are familiar with the CAcert arbitration system. You were added as respondent to the case because one of the mails you wrote recently[2] was the reason for the claimant to file the dispute. Because of this you should be considered to be involved in the case. I want to excuse myself that I only now came to the decision to add you to the case. At the beginning it did not look likely that you would be needed in this role. But the case evolved fast with some unexpected changes. As the case was created no 48 hours ago, the actual delay is not long - even as the case shows already a lot of activity. [1] https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20140324.1 [2] https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2014-03/msg00009.html
(A) Thanks to infrastructure admins
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 21:23:17 +0100 Dear [infrastructure admin] , dear infrastructure admins, thank you for your work in the a20140324.1. It was quite helpful to solve the case. > Past subscriptions > possibly could be identified by accessing a backup. This would require > some effort, which I do not consider worth it (info can be constructed > from the below) and I am afraid I will not be able to do so during the > next two weeks. [personal reasons] There is no need for this. The data you could provide was enough to answer the dispute.
(R2) public counterstatement on cacert-board@lists.cacert.org
Hello Dominik, I wrote to Benedikt: > In the meanwhile he is removed from all mailing lists. This statement was wrong and I apologize for it. Someone told or wrote that you was removed from mailing lists, which I interpreted wrong and didn't verify carefully enough. The truth is, you have been removed on your own request from the mailing list cacert-se@lists.cacert.org but not from other mailing lists.