Dear Non Curat Lex

According to Wikipedia " The criterion for validity of a legal rule in such a society is that it bears the warrant of the sovereign and will be enforced by the sovereign power and its agents." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_positivism

You are using the term "legal rule" to describe "Laws and organizations charged with regulating judicial conduct may also impact pro se litigants. For example, The State of California Judicial Counsel has, through published materials addressed the need of the Judiciary to act in the interests of fairness to self-represented litigants. [5] The California rules express a preference for resolution of every case on the merits, even if it requires excusing inadvertance by a pro se litigant that would otherwise result in a dismissal. (While this creates double standardyour unsupported unflagged statement), The Judicial Counsel justifies it based on the idea that "Judges are charged with ascertaining the truth, not just playing referree... A lawsuit is not a game, where the party with the cleverest lawyer prevails regardless of the merits."[6] It suggests "the court should take whatever measures may be reasonable and necessary to insure a fair trial" and says "There is only one reported case in the U.S. finding a judge's specific accommodations have gone too far".

Do you mean that "the court should take whatever measures may be reasonable and necessary to insure a fair trial" "will be enforced by the sovereign power and its agents."?

Why are you describing my insertion of the following 13 citations as "controversial edits" and what difference does it make that it is controversial? Wikipedia is supposed to be able to deal with controversial subjects such as presidential elections.  Did you find the references to be inaccurate?  Why exactly did you delete the following?

"The wording " which requires a judge to “accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding . . . the right to be heard according to law.” is used in many state codes including Alabama,  Canon III a 4 http://www.alalinc.net/jic/docs/cans2006.pdf  Idaho, Canon III a 7http://www.judicialcouncil.idaho.gov/code.pdf  Indiana, Canon III b 8http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/jud_conduct/index.html   Kentucky,  Canon III a 7 SCR 4.300http://www.sunethics.com/kycodejudconduct.htm  New Jersey,Canon III a 6 http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules/appendices/app1_jud.htm#P29_2525, NevadaCanon III b 7 http://www.leg.state.nv.us/CourtRules/SCR_CJC.html Wisconsin  SCR 60.4 g http://www.wicourts.gov/sc/rules/chap60.pdf.Pennyslvania,  Canon III a (4) http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/207/chapter33/chap33toc.html Virgina,  Canon III a 7http://www.courts.state.va.us/jirc/canons_112398.html#canon3  Rhode Island,  Canon III a 7 http://www.courts.state.ri.us/supreme/jtd/code.pdf  Washington State,Canon III a 4 http://www.cjc.state.wa.us/Gov_provision/code_canons.htm' West VirginiaCanon III a 7 http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/JIC/Codejc.htmUtah,  Canon III b 8http://www.law.uh.edu/Libraries/ethics/Judicial/judiccanons/canon3.html 

Why did you insert the qualifier "while this creates a double standard" and not flag it?  My understanding is that all a court will do is make sure the rules are understood.  As clear in the reference, if a complaint should be dismissed because of statute of limitations, for instance, there is no difference between the results based on whether it is filed by a lawyer or not.

I see no Wikipedia justification for your choice to delete the state judicial canons, even if Risker and Arthur Ruben also want them deleted.

By saying that the state judicial canons are "controversial edits" you are admitting that they are "relevant".

Just what are you threatening to do "as appropriate action" because I flagged your unsupported statements and reinserted the 13 references to the state judicial codes?