User talk:RexJudicata
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
NOTE: If xxxxxxxx posts anything on this page, it will be deleted.
==Can I help out?== + I don't see what can be gained by a revert war. It's better to discuss things and come to a compromise. I'm going to ask some questions on the talk page, perhaps the answers to those questions will help stop the war and settle the article down. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 13:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Stop removing SqueakBox's comments
Please do not remove other user's comments, as it is considered vandalism. --cesarb 14:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dogposting is a violation of Florida Law, which is a higher authority than your Wikipedia rule. Any dogposting will be deleted. Rex Judicata 07:43, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Theresa:
The changes you made to the PWR distorted the meaning of Florida Law. For example, it is factually correct to state that the law is explicitly gender neutral. Please, I appreciate your npov desire, but the article is neutral and factually accurate. Thanks for your cooperation. Rex Judicata 14:27, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
- And if she doesn't cooperate? SqueakBox 14:29, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Cyberstalking, Harassment, & Dog Posting by SqueakBox
SqueakBox follows me around Wikipedia and vandalizes anything I touch. He tells the lie that I, Rex Judicata, am also Agwiii and has posted this lie in several places. I simply delete the lie. However, the very nature of Wikipedia encourages the behavior of people like SqueakBox. He claims to be a deletionist, but is actually an obsessionist and Cyberstalker.
Law enforcement on the Internet is a challenge for all countries, but we have seen some dramatic events with creators of denial of service, virus, spam, etc. being brought to justice. I am a resident of Florida, and have been an Internet Safety Activist for years.
By your actions you show beyond trace of doubt that you are Agwiii, SqueakBox 14:25, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
I have worked to help the passage of Florida 2003 Cyberstalking Law. Those administrators who believe in Wikipedia should question why behavior that is outlawed by Florida (and many other states and countries) would be condoned by Wikipedia. I suggest that this is the case - that Wikipedia allows cyberstalking, harassment and dog posting -- and that it is time for Wikipedia to change.
Questions and comments? Email me at RexJudicata@gmail.com
Signed proudly and accurately by Rex Judicata 14:21, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of Stalker Squeakbox
Any vandalism, dog posting, cyber stalking, and/or harassment by Squeakbox will be removed upon detection. Rex Judicata 14:32, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism
You labelled this edit "RV vandalism". Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism and explain to me exactly which clause of that definition it falls under. False charges of vandalism are the favourite thing POV warriors on Wikipedia like to throw at each other, and there's little that's more irritating. Noel (talk) 15:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!
- Your long screed is in no way responsive to this post. I made no statement whatsoever about your "stalking" charges against SqueakBox, nor about his claims that you and Agwii are the same person. Noel (talk) 08:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] your comments
It was CesarB and not me who pointed out your sockpuppetry. Being not notable is just how I want it. I don't write articles about myself or my activities at wikipedia. I have written no lies. Please don't remove my comments from now on or accuse me of vandalism or libel. It was you who impersonated me and threatened to see me deported to Florida. BTW in my opinion wikipedia is an open community, and what you call dogposting is actually a part of our openness. We don't have secrets here, as everything we do is recorded and open to public scrutiny, SqueakBox 15:51, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Sockpuppet allegations
You claim not to be Agwiii. Can you explain these 2 identical edits by Agwiii and by yourself. I look forward to your response, SqueakBox 16:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Your accusations
Look... I'm a neutral third party in this matter, and frankly, Squeekbox isn't doing anything wrong. Your edits were speaking from a certain POV, and you were reverting what he had changed. My suggestion is just to step back for a few moments and assess the situation. Is SqueekBox actually "stalking" you, or is he doing his job by keeping your edits NPOV? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 20:24, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] No Persons Names Shall Be Libeled Here
However, Squeakbox contines to post the lie (a lie in print is libel) that Dr. Walker was somehow involved in a court action that took away his parental rights. This is not a statement of fact, but is transparently disparagement by Squeakbox as part of his vendetta. Rex Judicata 14:11, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
you wrote. Yet This site, from which I got that information to put in the Grayson Walker article, linking the article as I did so, is whois registered to Grayson Walker, so what you are saying is incorrect, and clearly I was not committing libel. Please check your facts before making such accusations in future, SqueakBox 01:56, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
What the page www.IanWalker.org states is:
Mom put me in the home of my former Nanny. She was married to a convicted pedophile (child molester).
The Court Psychologist wrote that given Nanny's husband's "history of child molestation, it would appear to be poor judgment to allow (the minor child) to be cared for in (the Nanny's) home."
The Court did not stop this or protect me.
April 1996, I told Dad that Mom's boyfriend touched my genitals.
March 1997, Dad wrote to State Senator Ken Jenne. A Special Investigator of the Florida Department of Children and Families investigated Dad's letter and found the facts in Dad's letter were correct. In his words, "Your letter is 100% straight."
October 26, 1998, the 5th District Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court and my Dad's rights were restored.
December 1997, the Court gave an ex-girlfriend a DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDER against Mom's boyfriend, Dan because of incidents after he married my Mom.
There have been numerous violations of visitation and telephone contact orders.
Some of the other violations of shared parental rights include the following:
Mom had me diagnosed as having ADD and put on Ritalin without telling Dad.
Mom moved me from school to school and never advised Dad.
Mom took me for an MRI of my BRAIN without telling Dad. Mom changed my Dentist and did not tell Dad. Mom took me for oral surgery without telling Dad. Mom bought me a 60 mph motorcycle for my 8th birthday in August 2001 without telling Dad. Mom has taken me out of the state without telling Dad. Mom has taken me out of the country without telling Dad.
I was baptized at the First Methodist Church in Melbourne in 1992. Mom has not taken me to church since she locked Dad out of our house.
I used to see my Grandparents at least once a week. My Grandparents had to hire an attorney to see me because Mom tried to end my grandparents' rights to see me.
My Grandfather got cancer in 1997 and died in 1998. Mom kept me from seeing my dying Grandfather during his last Thanksgiving and Christmas.
In 1995, Dad was my primary care giver. Mom worked full time in Maitland, 100 miles away.
Today I get to see my Grandmother 4 hours a month.
Today I don't get to see my Dad or talk to him on the telephone.
My Dad and my Grandparents have spent over $250,000 in legal fees, in an effort to enforce Dad's rights as my father and for them to continue to be a part of this life.
Why would my Mom keep me away from my dying grandfather?
Why would my Mom keep me in contact with:
an alcoholic, cocaine addicted woman found by the court to be dangerous to her own children? a convicted pedophile? a former pimp? a violator of a domestic violence restraining order?
Why would the Court allow such things to take place, against the recommendations of its own Psychologist and Investigators?
My Dad keeps fighting for me and his rights to be my Dad.
Is this fair? Is this justice? Is this right?
Can you help us?
July 29, 2004. The Judicial Qualifications Commission finds Judge Allawas guilty as charged in the Notice of Allegations.
Little Squeak, obviously you cannot read or understand the English language, for that page says nothing of the kind. What it documents is the Mother's putting the minor child with an alcoholic, addict, and pedophile. It seems that you are taking the side supporting having children in contact with child molesters.
Why would you support pedophilia?
I am not supporting any paedophiles. All I know about Ian's case is what I have read in your article. What exactly of my edits re this page to Grayson Walker do you disapprove of, or where do you think I got it wrong? SqueakBox 16:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
If you review the recent behavior of Squeakbox, you will see he has stalked Rexjudicata on Wikipedia, and made changes to any page edited by Rexjudicata. He has claimed that Agwiii and Rexjudicata are the same person. They are not.
In that case why do both act in an identical manner, using obscure terms such as dogposting. We can always do a sockpuppet check, though the evidence is already overwhelming, SqueakBox 16:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Squeakbox has written on the Parents Without Rights page that Grayson Walker has had his parental rights taken away by the court. This is not true. Beyond that, it would be impossible for Squeakbox -- in Honduras -- to have access to private records of a Florida family law case. The fact that he would write such a libel shows his intent is to harass and not contribute.
It is important to note that Squeakbox knows nothing of these topics, and the sole purpose of his changes have been to harass Rexjudicata. As Squeakbox is an "old" member of your clique (aka Wikipedia community), he rallied his friends for support and they joined him.
You cannot prove such a ridiculous, and untrue, assertion, SqueakBox 16:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Your code of conduct notwithstanding, the fact remains that the behavior of Squeakbox is a violation of the Cyberstalking Laws of Florida, many other states, and a growing number of other countries. Your Wikipedia S.O.P. is in conflict with these laws, and that should give you pause. Why are your members allowed or even encouraged to break the laws in a growing area of International regulation?
The reality is that I hjave broken no cyberstalking laws, SqueakBox 16:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
If you can get past the fact that Squeakbox is "allowed" to make edits -- as are all Wikipedians -- and examine why and what he has been editing in his attack on Rexjudicata, you see that he has used your rules as a vehicle to harass Rexjudicata. The choice is yours -- ignore the stalking and harassing by claiming the rules permit Squeakbox's behavior -- or look at the unethical behavior of his stalking.
Not all wikipedians are allowed to make edits. People can be blocked and banned from editing Wikipedia (see Rhobite below), SqueakBox 16:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Consider what we call the ethics transparency test. Ask, "Could I give a clear explanation for the action, including an honest and transparent account of my motives, that would satisfy a fair and dispassionate moral judge?" Squeakbox's behavior fails this test.
I can explain every action I have done. I have done nothing here without legitimate purpose. What is the legitimate purpose of this and this? SqueakBox 16:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Consider what we call the ethics Golden Rule test. Ask, "Would I like to be on the receiving end of this action and its potential consequences? Am I treating others the way I’d want to be treated?" Again, Squeakbox's behavior fails this test. If Rexjudicata had behaved as Squeakbox did, he would have gone to all of the substantive pages that Squeakbox edited, and made changes to them -- this did not happen. Instead, he posted his complaint about being cyberstalked and erased harassing comments made by Squeakbox on his page.
The choice is very clear. You may intervene and stop the unethical, stalking behavior of Squeakbox, or you can stand behind a technical interpretation of your rules, ignoring the fact that they permit unethical and illegal behavior. This is not about suggesting that Squeakbox or any other Wikipedian stalker be prosecuted, but about the fact that your rules are increasingly out of step with both ethics and laws. Philanthropists and investors are very careful about such issues.
[edit] legal threats
Rex,
Wikipedia has a policy of Wikipedia:No legal threats. If you are seriously considering legal action against the Wikimedia Foundation, please stop editing immediately and contact them directly. If you are making empty threats, please stop. Empty legal threats are not civil, and they are not conducive to dispute resolution within the site. If you continue to make legal threats against other users and against Wikipedia, you will probably be blocked from editing. Rhobite 07:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
I have a policy of no threats, whether legal or otherwise.
Pointing out the unethical and/or illegal behavior of Squeakbox is not a threat. A threat would take the form of "If you do x, then I will respond with y." I am simply pointing out how Wikipedia's rules condone unethical and illegal behavior. Only following rules (orders) is not exculpatory.
Rex Judicata 07:53, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Accusing another user of libel and violating a cyberstalking law is a legal threat. You've been warned about the policy now, and it's your choice whether to continue your threats or change your behavior. I urge you to please make the right choice. Rhobite 08:04, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
The only clearly illegal edits in this case are this and this. If you pump the IP address into Google you get this cached version [1], note the reference to Spam & Kook Killers are Us, the company Rex admits to working for on his user page. Here, in another cached version, we see this is actually Grayson Walker, with a connection to this, which I used in the Grayson Walker article, and which is whois registered to Grayson Walker. So it appears to me clear that it was Rex who was impersonating me. Calling me a paedophile, from a new IP address, is typical of his past behaviour on other sites. I would welcome a police investigation of this case, as I believe the facts speak for themselves. SqueakBox 16:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Your threats to pervert the course of justice in Honduras
I received this threat today from User:RexJudicata aka User>Agwiii (who is blocked) in my blog here:
- As you know, my business involves export/import, primarily dealing with Brazil and Nicaragua. I will be traveling soon, and I have discussed our friendship with my associates in Nicaragua. I was pleased to discover how much they know about Honduras and its culture. It is with great distress that I read of your machete attack, but Richard, you are right. It probably was "animosity towards you as a white guy" as you wrote in your blog, since there are so few in Honduras -- perhaps less than 1% of the population! You should be more careful! You know you cannot trust the local police. Honduras is one of the poorest countries and the police will do almost anything for a few lempiras or American dollars. They say you can buy justice here in the US - just look at OJ or MJ. At least in La Ceiba, the price of justice is a bargain! I will be seeing you soon. RexJudicata.
This translates into Spanish as:
- Como sabe, mi negocio es importar y exportar, primaramente con Brasil y Nicaragua. Pronto me voy a viajar, y ya discutí nuestra amistad con mis colegas en Nicaragua. Me dio mucho gusto discubrir cuanto conocen de la cultura Hondureña. Me dio mucho lastima leer sobre su machetazo, pero tiene la razón, Richard, probablemente era porque usted es un gringo, como usted escribió en su blog, porque hay solo pocos blancos en Honduras--tal vez menos que 1% de la población. Debe cuidarse más. Usted sabe que no pueda confiar en la policía local. Honduras es uno de los paises más pobres del mundo, y la policía haría casi cualquier cosa por pisto, por unos dólares o Lempiras. Dicen que aquí en Los Estados Unidos uno pueda comprar justicía - pues, mire a OJ or MJ. Al menos en La Ceiba el precio de la justicía es una ganga. Nos vemos pronto. RexJudicata.
Please stop threatening me in any way, SqueakBox 17:28, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
This site has become famous for its revisionist lies. Tell a lie often enough, and some people will believe it.
Stop theatening me and stop telling lies about me. Signed Rex.
