| Revision as of 19:21, 12 February 2007 editMartinGugino (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,641 edits →The infamous non-win supreme court case← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:03, 23 November 2015 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,133,069 edits →ArbCom elections are now open!: new section | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == ] == | |||
| <!-- Because of their length or pertinency, some or all of the previous discussions on this page may have been archived. | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| If further archiving is needed, see ]. | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=691991546 --> | |||
| '''Previous discussions:''' | |||
| *]: | |||
| *]: | |||
| *]: | |||
| --> | |||
| <!-- | |||
| *]: | |||
| --> | |||
| ---- | |||
| == The infamous non-win supreme court case == | |||
| (The account below is factual as can be seen from the docket cite within. The names have been changed to protect the innocent. A broad inference of the actual identity will probably be accurate. I've left the article here because when you see a lot of rhetoric that may appear to have something to say remember this article and the reaction one editor had to it that it exhibited ''a pattern of deceit'' in the fictional party described.) | |||
| One can't help but notice the number of references to GW and his 4-3 trouncing in the Florida Supreme Court. He throws it up at us in nearly every other paragraph: | |||
| :"''...like what I did in court''," | |||
| :"''I was the most successful litigant on the "losing" side...''," | |||
| :"''ompare how well I did in court with the lame governor...''," | |||
| :"''I did better than Jeb...''," | |||
| :"''...and let me remind you that I got further than both Conigliaro and Bush combined, in my near win in court...''," | |||
| :"''and let's not forget that I played a central role in the Schiavo case, and, in some instances did better than the Florida Governor in court...''," | |||
| :"''... if my success in court was so great...''," | |||
| :"''...how does everybody think I got to where I am today with my near win in court?''," | |||
| :"''et's not forget that I came closer than the Florida Governor to having saved Terri in court...''," | |||
| :"''ace it: I came very close to winning in court in the most celebrated case of the century...''," | |||
| :"''... the fellow who almost won in court...''," | |||
| :"''...who exactly did better than me in court in trying to save Terri...''," | |||
| :"''...my achievement in court was ''better'' than that of the big players...''," | |||
| :"''...he who was not equaled in court in efforts to save Terri...''," | |||
| Those are just the ones I could find in a hurry. Almost every editor who has a talk page will have one or more of the same sort of self aggrandizing hooey. | |||
| I finally (I wish I had done it sooner) took a look at this ''celebrated'' and ''unprecedented'' court case and here is what I found (you can see for yourself by going to the page and search under SC03-2420): | |||
| Gordo filed a motion of habeus corpus and at the same time filed an affidavit of indigency (translation: too cheap to pay the fee). Unfortunately, Gordo didn't bother to find out the proper way to file and the court struck his motion, although they gave him ten days to refile properly. The next day Gordo filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority and an Appendix. The first was stricken because it didn't comply with court rules (a theme that will be repeated). | |||
| Almost a month later (and fifteen days late) Gordo filed his amended motion for habeus corpus, an amended appendix, a cover letter, and a motion for time extension. | |||
| On 23 Feb, 2005, the court denied the motion for habeus corpus due to failure to comply with the court's directed timetable and struck all related motions as moot. | |||
| Then Gordo filed a motion for reinstatement (one day late—what a surprise), which was also a concurrent motion for clarification, both of which were denied. | |||
| Gordo filed a motion for a stay pending review, a motion to expedite, and a motion to file electronically. The court granted the motion to file electronically but denied the other two motions because they had been rendered moot by the denial of the motion for reinstatement. | |||
| Gordo then filed a motion for clarification which was stricken as unauthorized. | |||
| Now if you had trouble following that, let me help. The court never considered the facts of the motion. They dismissed it as untimely. The only motion they actually considered (other than the insignificant motion to file electronically) was the motion to reinstate the motion for habeus corpus. That motion was the one the court turned down 4-3. | |||
| So comparing this case to Bush's appeal to overturn a decision of the Court of Appeals, is laughable. It's pure fantasy to draw any comparison at all. Hearings were held and facts were argued in the Bush case. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the appeals court. It was Bush's appeal for reinstatement that was overturned 7-0. | |||
| For Gordo to trumpet that he got farther or closer than Bush is pure nonsense. For icing on the cake, Gordo uttered this classic, "''...but probably they would not have even considered my case...''" Hello! They '''didn't''' consider your case. It got thrown out as untimely and improperly filed. | |||
| I just thought you'd like to know that it is a matter public record that Gordo is a legend in his own mind. ] 20:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I pretty much noticed that, and agree with you. His claim that he did "better than Jeb" I found a little "out of touch with reality" from the start, but we are all, almost by definition, out of touch with reality (to some extent). ] | <small>] • ] </small> 19:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Vote - I am tiring of mediation, and hope we fix the problem soon: This may work == | |||
| '''<u>Vote - I am tiring of mediation, and hope we fix the problem soon: This may work</u>''' | |||
| *Generic Updates Message to other ]: <font color=000099>I have imitated Uncle Ed's Q & A method and tried to augment it, and I have declared a tentative (minor) success on the first of seven questions I've presented, thanks to teamwork of many of you in the past, some named in that question. Most of all of other six "Vote on these" items are valid concerns, shared by all, even if we don't agree to the answers. So, I'm asking you all to review and vote on the lingering issues. Also, Wagon has suggested we get both guidelines and examples (role model was the term he used). We all know the rules, but I found one example of a controversial topic that simply shared the facts in a cold, dry method: The ] article neither supports nor opposes slavery: It is "just the facts." Thus, I hope the answers I gave to the questions I proposed were correct and just the facts, without an appearance of POV. '''"Have faith in me," I say (imitating Uncle Ed's similar claim), and I haven't failed yet -the one time I tried: In the http://en.wikiquote.org/Talk:Abortion and http://en.wikiquote.org/Abortion, I brought peace, so I expect my method will work here too.''' So, get on over to ], and vote, for Gordon's sake: ''I have voted, and'' '''''so can you.'''''--] 04:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)</font> | |||
Latest revision as of 13:03, 23 November 2015
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)