Before: Arbitrator BernhardFröhlich (A), Respondent: CAcert (R), Claimant: Michael R (C), Case: a20111204.3

History Log

Original Dispute, Discovery (Private Part) (optional)

EOT Private Part


Account Problem


Intermediate Ruling 1

One of the witnessing Assurers (Assurer 2) is a CAcert Arbitrator himself and has extended access to this status page. Therefor any party of this Arbitration may request a copy of the private page of this Arbitration anytime to avoid any advantage in information.

Assurer 2 must not use his extended access to modify this status page or the private page directly.

Munich, 2011-12-07

Intermediate Ruling 2

It looks like something broke down with C's account. It may be caused a software bug or a handling error by the SE. Since the account cannot be found in the SE console a handling error by the user is improbable.

To try to track down the problem I hereby order the Critical Admins to execute a set of ad-hoc SQL query:

Munich, 2011-12-20

Intermediate Ruling 3

According to the ad-hoc queries C's account is marked as "deleted". No reason could be found why this should be so. The account has not been anonymized, as it would be in a proper Account Deletion Procedure, so it is quite easy to restore most of the account data by using another ad-hoc statement.

Therefor I order the Critical Admins to execute the following statements:

Of course Critical Admins are encouraged to point out potential problems before executing the script, if they should see any.

In addition to executing the statements Critical Admins shall provide relevant logfile entries to help tracking down the cause of this problem.

Munich, 2012-01-04

Ruling in main issue

Based on the reliable statements of two Assurers and the statement of the account owner I give the following ruling:

The Date of Birth in the Claimant's account shall be changed by support according to the claim. No reduction of Assurance Points or Experience Points is considered necessary.

The Arbitrator reserves the option to issue a warning against Assurer 3 and Assurer 4, depending on future responsiveness and cooperation, in a followup ruling.

The issue of the email-dispute resulting in the temporary account deletion shall be further investigated, and followup rulings will be given if necessary.

Munich, 2012-01-05

Followup Ruling 1

To find out the originator of the email dispute execution of the following ad-hoc query is ordered:

Munich, 2012-01-05

Note: For future uses the primary mail address of the CLAIMANT table should also be selected to reliably identify the account...

Followup Ruling 2

From the collected information it seems that the email dispute has been initiated by accident.

The initiator of the "email-dispute" shall be notified about what happened, and shall be educated of the "email-dispute" function. Since no malicious intent is perceived, no further penalty is considered necessary.

Munich, 2012-01-06

Precedence Ruling


What is a minor difference?

A minor difference is a mismatch which can be easily overlooked and is not changing the data significantly. Typical examples include:

Process for Support


Munich, 2012-01-17


Caselist where precedence ruling was applied

Similiar Cases

Arbitrations/a20111204.3 (last edited 2016-06-27 10:31:38 by PietStarreveld)