• Case Number: a20150825.1
• Status: init
• Claimant: Marcus Mängel

• Respondent: EvaStöwe

• initial Case Manager: UlrichSchroeter, at 2016-11-20 EvaStöwe disclosed dispute based on DRO decision m20161119.4 and m20161119.3 (and explicit request from DRO at board meeting at 2016-11-19)

• Case Manager: name case manager
• Arbitrator: name arbitrator
• Date of arbitration start: 201Y-MM-DD
• Date of ruling: 201Y-MM-DD
• Case closed: 201Y-MM-DD

• Complaint: Dispute to remove EvaStöwe as arbitrator / case manager from all running arbitrations cases in which I am involved

• Relief: TBD

Before: Arbitrator name arbitrator (A), Respondent: EvaStöwe (R), Claimant: Marcus Mängel (C), Case: a20150825.1

History Log

• 2015-08-25 (issue.c.o): case s20150825.73

• 2015-09-07 (iCM): added to wiki, request for CM / A, sent notification to (C), (R)
• 2015-09-09 (C): requests high priority processing

• Link to Arbitration case a20150825.1 (Private Part)

EOT Private Part

Original Dispute

• > Dear Sirs,
  > 
  > 
  > I file a dispute to remove Eva Stöwe as arbitrator / case manager from
  > all
  > running arbitrations cases in which I am involved is that I lost
  > confidence
  > in her work as arbitrator and the respect to her as arbitrator due to
  > the
  > following reasons:
  > 
  > 
  > - She is quoting wrong after some talks to her. Therefore I will only
  > communicate with her either written or with a witness of my choice.
  > 
  > 
  > - She continuously missuses her power or claims that she has to power to
  > act
  > that she does not have the right of. Latest on Saturday:
  > 
  > She quoted that has the have the power by board to remove Benny Baumann
  > as
  > Software assessor. While she stated this at least 4 other persons
  > addition
  > to myself were present. I was quite surprised to hear that as I did not
  > see
  > any motion about this. A verification with Jürgen showed that he advised
  > her
  > not to rule any decision with effects on CAcert personal.
  > 
  > Later I heard that she correct her statement, but I did not hear this
  > correction myself.
  > 
  > 
  > From my point of view this behavior is not acceptable by a CAcert
  > Arbitrator.
  > 
  > 
  > - She continuously imposes in public that people working for CAcert do
  > not
  > know what they do and that they interdentally work against CAcert. Last
  > occurrence in the mail thread about the "Development of an integrity
  > checker" on the board mailing list
  > https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2015-08/msg00017.html
  > 
  > This is not the expected neutral and unprejudiced behavior that you
  > would
  > expect from a CAcert Arbitrator.
  > 
  > 
  > - She does not respect her own statements. 
  > 
  > 1. On a meeting with her about various subjects on Saturday we talked
  > about
  > an ABC of a triage member. Benedikt asked her what she will do when the
  > ABC
  > - process will be suspended by arbitration. She stated here in this case
  > the
  > ABC about the triage member will be delayed until the ABC process is
  > active
  > again.
  > 
  > On Sunday she claimed that she will not stop the arbitration case for
  > the
  > ABC. 
  > 
  > I cannot accept from any arbitrator that he is not standing to his own
  > words.
  > 
  > 
  > 2. In another arbitration case she claimed that a dispute should be on
  > the
  > dispute list for at least 24 hours before an arbitrator or case manager
  > should pick up the case and that an arbitrator should not be nominated
  > before that time. To my knowledge she did not respect her own wishes the
  > latest ABC case.
  > 
  > How shall I respect an Arbitrator who seem to measure differently
  > according
  > to his needs?
  > 
  > 
  > - She disturbed the test of the new root and escrow routine in a not
  > acceptable manner.
  > 
  > She entered the room and stated that she has the urgent need to speak to
  > one
  > of the persons observing the process right on the spot. When the person
  > refused to leave the room with her as he wanted to observe the process
  > without missing any step. She claimed that she as Arbitrator has the
  > right
  > to talk to anybody right on the spot if she says so.
  > 
  > When she was asked whether there is an urgent threat of life or of the
  > integrity of CAcert systems she neglected this question. She disturbed
  > the
  > session for more than 10 minutes. Afterwards the team needed some time
  > before they were able to continue the work on the new root and escrow
  > routine.
  > 
  > This not respecting the work of others is neither according to our
  > "Principles of the CAcert Community" nor to normal good behavior.
  > 
  > 
  > - She tried to force me into a meeting with her about a running
  > arbitration
  > case without respecting my wish of an independent witness of the meeting
  > of
  > my choice.
  > 
  > She stated she as Arbitrator can define that a board member who should
  > attend the meeting too would be enough as independent witness.
  > 
  > I insisted on an independent witness of my choice but she did not follow
  > my
  > formal objection and continuously was arguing that she as Arbitrator has
  > the
  > power to rule this.(The reason for the wish of an independent witness of
  > my
  > choice is given in the first bullet point.)
  > 
  > From my point of view this is not the way how a CAcert Arbitrator should
  > handle cases.
  > 
  > 
  > As English is not my native language please ask for a German explanation
  > if
  > anything is unclear.
  > 
  > 
  > best regards
  > Marcus Maengel

Discovery

Elaboration

Ruling

Execution

Similiar Cases

---

• CategoryArbitration

• CategoryArbCaseOthers