* 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 [[https://community.cacert.org/board/motions.php?motion=m20161119.4|m20161119.4]] and [[https://community.cacert.org/board/motions.php?motion=m20161119.3|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 [[https://issue.cacert.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=371578|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 ## == Private Part == * '''Link to Arbitration case [[Arbitrations/priv/a20150825.1|a20150825.1 (Private Part)]]''' ## ==> INCLUDE SECTION BOT <> ## <== INCLUDE SECTION EOT ==== 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 }}} ## You may remove unneeded sections at your discretion... == Discovery == == Elaboration == == Ruling == == Execution == == Similiar Cases == || [[Arbitrations/a20YYMMDD.n|a20YYMMDD.n]] || [[Arbitrations/a20YYMMDD.n|]] || ---- . CategoryArbitration . CategoryArbCaseOthers