Ashby v White and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser: Difference between pages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
 
huh?
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Requests for checkuser header}}
'''''Ashby v. White''''' (1703) 1 Sm LC (13th Edn) 253, is a foundational case in [[UK constitutional law]] and [[English tort law]]. It concerns the [[right to vote]] and misfeasance of a public officer.


==Outstanding requests==
==Facts==
<!-- ### Add new cases to the top of the list, directly below this line. Thanks! ### -->
Mr Ashby was prevented from voting at an election by the misfeasance of a constable, Mr White, on the apparent pretext that he was not a settled inhabitant.
----
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/KillAllSpammers}}
----
{{Clerk Request}} The request below seems malformed. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 18:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mod objective}}
----
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/200.215.40.3}}


==Declined requests==
At the time, the case attracted considerable national interest, and debates in Parliament. It was later known as the Aylesbury election case. In the Lords, it attracted the interest of [[Peter King, 1st Baron King]] who spoke and maintained the right of electors to have a remedy at common law for denial of their votes, against [[Tory]] insistence on the privileges of the Commons.
<!--put declined requests at the top of the list-->
<!--declined subpages begin below this mark -->


==Completed requests==
[[Sir Thomas Powys]] (c. 1649-1719) defended William White in the House of Lords. The argument submitted was that the Commons alone had the power to determine election cases, not the courts.
<!--put completed requests at the top of the list-->
<!-- completed subpages begin below this mark -->
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nintendoman01}}
----
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/KosherYid}}
----
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tellus archivist}}
----
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dar book}}
----
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JeanLatore}}
----
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Blue Bugle}}
----
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Puttyschool}}
----
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MDnews2u}}
----
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ}}
----
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MarthaFiles}}
----
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bambifan101}}


==Judgment==
[[Holt CJ]] was dissenting in his judgment in the High Court, but this was upheld by the House of Lords. He said at pp 273-4:


{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check}}
{{cquote|"If the plaintiff has a right, he must of necessity have a means to vindicate and maintain it, and a remedy if he is injured in the exercise or enjoyment of it, and, indeed it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy; for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal...


== Non-compliant requests ==
And I am of the opinion that this action on the case is a proper action. My brother Powell indeed thinks that an action on the case is not maintainable, because there is no hurt or damage to the plaintiff, but surely every injury imports a damage, though it does not cost the party one farthing, and it is impossible to prove the contrary; for a damage is not merely pecuniary but an injury imports a damage, when a man is thereby hindered of his rights.
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Non-compliant message}}

<!--Non-compliant requests should now be listed here, not on a subpage-->
To allow this action will make publick officers more careful to observe the constitution of cities and boroughs, and not to be so partial as they commonly are in all elections, which is indeed a great and growing mischief, and tends to the prejudice of the peace of the nation.}}
<!--non-compliant subpages begin below this mark -->


==See also==
*Protocol 1, Article 3 of the [[European Convention on Human Rights]], affirming the right to vote for the legislature.
*''[[Pender v. Lushington]]'', per [[Jessel MR]], a statement that a shareholder's vote is a right of property in [[UK company law]].
*''[[Watkins v. Secretary of State for the Home Department]]'' [2004] [http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2676/watkins-v-sshd.htm EWCA (Civ) 966], and on appeal to the House of Lords, [2006] [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd060329/watkin-1.htm UKHL 17] regarding legally privileged correspondence of a prisoner being interfered with.

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:English tort case law]]
[[Category:UK constitutional case law]]

Revision as of 18:00, 12 October 2008


    Read this first


    This is the place to request sockpuppet checks and other investigations requiring access to the Checkuser privilege. Possible alternatives are listed below.


    Requests likely to be accepted

    Code Situation Solution, requirements
    A Blatant attack or vandalism accounts, need IP block Submit new section at #Requests for IP check, below
    B Evading blocks, bans and remedies issued by arbitration committee Submit case subpage, including link to closed arb case
    C Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism with many incidents Submit case subpage, including diffs
    D Vote fraud, closed vote, fraud affects outcome Submit case subpage, including link to closed vote
    E 3RR violation using sockpuppets Submit case subpage, including diffs of violation
    F Evading blocks, bans and remedies issued by community Submit case subpage, including link to evidence of remedy
    G Does not fit above, but you believe check needed Submit case subpage, briefly summarize and justify

    Requests likely to be rejected

    Situation Solution
    Obvious, disruptive sock puppet Block, no checkuser needed
    Disruptive "throwaway" account used only for a few edits Block, no checkuser needed
    Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence" Such requests are rarely accepted, please do not ask
    Related to ongoing arbitration case Request checkuser on the arbitration case pages
    Vote fraud, ongoing vote Wait until vote closes before listing, or post at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
    Vote fraud, closed vote, did not affect outcome List at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
    Other disruption of articles List at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
    Open proxy, IP address already known List at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies
    You want access to the checkuser tool yourself Contact the Arbitration Committee, but such access is granted rarely


    When submitting a request

    • If submitting a new case subpage, use the inputbox below; if adding to an existing case subpage, see WP:RFCU/P#Repeat requests.
    • Choose the code letter that best fits your request. Provide evidence such as diff links as required or requested. Note that some code letters inherently require specific evidence.
    • When listing suspected accounts or IP addresses, use the {{checkuser}} or {{checkip}} templates. Please do not use this template in a section header.
    • You may add your request to the top of the #Outstanding requests section, by adding {{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/CASENAMEHERE}}. If you do not, clerks should check for pages in Category:Checkuser requests to be listed and will do this for you.
    • Sign your request.


    After submitting a request


    Privacy violation?

    Indicators and templates   (v  · e)
    These indicators are used by Checkusers, SPI clerks and other patrolling users, to allow easier at-a-glance reading of their notes, actions and comments.
    Case decisions:
     IP blocked  {{IPblock}}  Tagged  {{Stagged}}
     Blocked but awaiting tags  {{Sblock}}  Not possible  {{Impossible}}
     Blocked and tagged  {{Blockedandtagged}}  Blocked without tags  {{Blockedwithouttags}}
     No tags  {{No tags}}  Blocked and tagged. Closing.  {{Blockedtaggedclosing}}
    Information:
     Additional information needed  {{MoreInfo}}  Deferred  {{Deferred}}
    information Note:  {{TakeNote}}  In progress  {{Inprogress}}
    Clerk actions:
     Clerk assistance requested:  {{Clerk Request}}  Clerk note:  {{Clerk-Note}}
     Delisted  {{Delisted}}  Relisted  {{Relisted}}
     Clerk declined  {{Decline}}  Clerk endorsed  {{Endorse}}
    Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention  {{Selfendorse}} CheckUser requested  {{CURequest}}
    Specific to CheckUser:
     Confirmed  {{Confirmed}} Red X Unrelated  {{Unrelated}}
     Confirmed with respect to the named user(s). no No comment with respect to IP address(es).  {{Confirmed-nc}}
     Technically indistinguishable  {{Technically indistinguishable}}
     Likely  {{Likely}}  Unlikely  {{Unlikely}}
     Possible  {{Possible}}  Inconclusive  {{Inconclusive}}
    no Declined  {{Declined}} no Unnecessary  {{Unnecessary}}
     Stale (too old)  {{StaleIP}} no No comment  {{Nocomment}}
    crystal ball CheckUser is not a crystal ball  {{Crystalball}} fish CheckUser is not for fishing  {{Fishing}}
     CheckUser is not magic pixie dust  {{Pixiedust}} magic eight ball The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says:  {{8ball}}
     Endorsed by a checkuser  {{Cu-endorsed}}  Check declined by a checkuser  {{Cudecline}}
     Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)  {{possilikely}}


    Outstanding requests


    Can we get a quick WP:DUCK ruling that User:AnarchistAssassin is the same editor? Brand new person edit warring over same stuff on same article. DreamGuy (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

    The directions below do not work -- wouldn't need a checkuser for such an obvious case and that page is locked anyway so I can't add the notice. DreamGuy (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)



     Clerk assistance requested: The request below seems malformed. -- Avi (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)



    Declined requests

    Completed requests











    I'm not sure if I'm going about this the right way, but I believe a rangeblock is in order to stop this ongoing problem, and a combination of analysis of the suspected and confirmed socks of this user, along with some checkuser evidence would probably be the way to determine exactly where to block. These are the suspected, although a great many of them admitted to it, so they are actually confirmed. These are the other confirmed socks, I believe some of them were already investigated with checkuser. As a non-admin, I'm more or less in the dark about exactly how rangeblocks are done, but clearly there is a serious problem here, and there is a definite pattern to the IP addresses used by this banned user. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


    IP/A

    Requests for IP check

    • Vandal and attack accounts may be listed here for the purpose of identifying and blocking the underlying IP address or open proxy. Requests to confirm sockpuppets of known users should be listed in the sockpuppet section above.
    • If you already know the IP address of the suspected open proxy, list it at Wikipedia:Open Proxies instead.
    • Use === Subsections ===; do not create subpages.
    • List user names using the {{checkuser|username}} template. Add new reports to the top of the section.
    • Requests may be acted on or declined according to the discretion of the checkuser admins. Responses will be noted here. Specific evidence of abuse in the form of diffs may be required so as to avoid the impression of fishing for evidence.
    • Answered requests will be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check/Archive for 7 days, after which they will be deleted. No separate archive (other than the page history) will be maintained.


    Non-compliant requests

    NC

    Requests that do not follow the instructions at the top of the page will be moved here. Common reasons for noncompliance include:

    • Did not cite a code letter, or cite more than one code letter.
    • Did not cite any supporting diffs if the code letter requires diffs.
    • Included IP addresses.

    The specific deficiencies may be noted with Additional information needed. Cases which are corrected may be moved back to the pending section. Cases which are not corrected will be deleted after 3 days.

    Please note that meeting these three criteria does not ensure that your check will be run. The checkusers retain final discretion over all cases.