Talk:Parents without rights/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I'm going to rewrite this to maintain Neutral point of view. For reference, it is not acceptable in an article about a pressure group to report the group's views as though they were facts. So statements like "Standard visitation is unnacceptable" is not neutral. It may be unacceptable to the groups, but others may find it very acceptable. Remember our job is to report on what the group believes, not convince people that it is right. DJ Clayworth 14:39, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article does not report the group's position as fact. It very clearly states the simple position of the group. For example, when the paragraph states "they find standard visitation unacceptable," this is not the equivalent of making a general statement that "standard visitation is unaccceptable". Agwiii 00:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

that while they were competent to send men and women into outer space, removed as self evident who were outraged to removed as POV did not consider them competent to be active Father and Parents, much less removed as POV opinion

You misunderstand the statement. It is the Courts of Florida that found these engineers and scientists to be incompetent as parents and not worthy of a parental role in the lives of the children. This is not POV by Parents Without Rights, but since our legal system is based upon precedent and case law, it is a statement of law in Florida. I know this may not make sense someone who has not attended law school, or who is not a lawyer, but that is because the system does not makes sense. Students in my family law seminars have the same problem, so don't think it's just you! Agwiii 00:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Florida Court makes the mother the custodial parent in 90% of all cases, with the father the non-custodial parent in the remaining cases. Although the Florida Court often grants the father visitation, they state this "turns the Father into a visitor in the lives of his child(ren)". removed as not relevant to this article. it should be put in another article about Florida legal processes or whatever In Troxel et vir. v. Granville, 530 US 57, 67 (2000), the United States Supreme Court affirmed that parenting is a fundamental right protected by the United States Constitution. In Troxel, the court wrote: removed for the same reason, --SqueakBox 21:28, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

TO: SqueakBox Your political bias and social perspective are very clear and they are not Neutral point of view. I ask you to stop your POV and Political vandalism of this article. Your edits are hijacking and sabotage - please stop. Agwiii 00:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Corrected some minor grammatical and typographical errors. Agwiii 00:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't try to mislead on this page. Explain your edits here or don't do them, --SqueakBox 00:48, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

If you remove my edits from here again I will report you. What is my political view? --SqueakBox 00:57, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Stop dog posting. Stop cyberstalking me. Stop harassing me. You know nothing of this subject and your edits are solely for the purpose of harassment. If you remove my edits from here again, I will not only report you, but I will file charges against you for cyberstalking -- a felony under Florida FS 784. Agwiii 15:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • "...Florida's Family Courts did not consider them competent to be active Father and Parents" False. --Wetman 15:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To: Wetman. What is your problem with this statement of fact? This is what the Florida courts say to Fathers 90+% of the time. Only rarely do the courts award either rotating-custody or equal-custody to Florida parents. In how many way can you say the Court found the Fathers to be incompetent to be parents? Agwiii 15:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article says mothers get custody of the children 90% of the time but doesn't say what proportion of that is the result of voluntary agreement between the mother and father. I can see critics of this countering that most of the time the husband voluntarily allows his ex-wife custody. Does anyone know the figures on this? If this movement is criticized on these grounds, it should be noted in the article. Rhesusman 22:01, 10 June 2005 (UTC)

I have toned the POV down a bit. The real problem with this article is that it was written by Grayson Walker aka User:RexJudicata and User:Agwiii as a POV promotion of the organisation, SqueakBox 00:27, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

Cyberstalker SqueakBox At It Again

The real problem is the cyberstalking and cyber harassment of SqueakBox who is an infamous dog-poster that vandalizes the pages of those who do not agree with him. Wikipedia is the perfect environment for the cyber stalker and cyber harasser. Rex Judicata 12:43, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

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.

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 13:42, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Let's try and come to a compromise

Instead of revert warring, we could try backing up statements with evidence. For example " It was founded in 1991 by a group of Rocket Scientists and Engineers let by Dr. Peter Wilson, NASA's Director of Shuttle Payloads on Kennedy Space Center" This statement is either true or false. If it's true, please provide a source for the information. Otherwise it shouldn't be in the article. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 14:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

However, Squeakbox contines to post the lie (a lie in print is libel) that Dr. Walker was somehow involved in a court action that compromised 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)

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 02:16, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Statements Of Fact

The fact that Dr. Peter Wilson was the NASA Director of Shuttle Payload is common knowledge on KSC, and does not require evidence any more than the fact that George Bush is currently our President would require evidence. Rex Judicata 14:08, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

No, George Bush is better known than Peter Wilson, SqueakBox 14:10, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Wrong. Dr. Wilson is MUCH better known at KSC -- where I work! Rex Judicata 14:18, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
It's not common knowledge to me (I'm english and no nothing about this topic). If I doubted the George Bush was the president I'm sure you would very easily be able to prove that he was. That's all I am asking for here. A press statement by the group, or By Wilson, or a newspaper article - that sort of thing Theresa Knott (ask the rotten)
The rule does not make sense. If someone else claims the title, let them provide the proof. Rex Judicata 14:17, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

You cannot bring your persoanl experience into wikipedia. the onus is on you to prove you weren't making it up to make the group lookm better or more important, SqueakBox 14:20, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

WE cannot have a discussion if Rex blanks my comments, SqueakBox 14:16, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Rex please stop doing that right now. No one has the right to touch other peoples comments. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 14:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Usually verses often

What percentage of fathers get visitation rights? (A number has got to be better than either of these words) Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 14:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Theresa:

A right is something that cannot be taken away, other than by due process of law, such as our inalienable right to life and liberty. A priviledge is something that may be limited or controlled, such as a driver's license. Neither fathers nor mothers can get visitation rights, for they already had inalienable parental rights. Rex Judicata 14:37, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Who says that (other than yourself)? SqueakBox 14:39, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
You missunderstood my question. What I am asking is, instead of me putting down that fathers usually get visitation and you putting down fathers often get visitation, we could put down a number instead 72% of fathers get vistitation or some such thing. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 14:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unhelpful wording

This needs tweaking "They discovered that while they were competent to send men and women into outer space, that Florida's Family Courts did not consider them competent to be active Father and Parents, much less have custody of their children, when their marriages ended in divorce"

Firstly sending up spacecraft is nothing like raising a child. A skill in one area has no reflection on ability in other areas. Secondly unless a judge actualy states that divoced men are incompetent to be an "active Father and Parent" we can actually state that this is the view of the court. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 14:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course the Judges never have claimed such a thing, only Rex and his followers do that. he wants to raise the status of his organization here, SqueakBox 14:37, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Rex's first act was to remove a ciomment of mine "I have toned the POV down a bit. The real problem with this article is that it was written by Grayson Walker aka User:RexJudicata and User:Agwiii as a POV promotion of the organisation, SqueakBox 00:27, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)". This is beyond the pale. I have rights here too. Please can he be stopped for his persistent vandalism and breaking the 3RR rule here. He is only interested in his POV, regardless of the disrespect this shows to others, SqueakBox 14:54, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

You certainly have the right to have you comments left alone. I'm offline for a couple of hours now, but i'll check when I come back on tonight. Hopefully your words will have been left alone, otherwise I will deal with it. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 15:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Interesting that you defend stalker squeakbox's right to have his comments left alone, but ignore the removal of my comments. Rexjudicata

Sockpuppet allegations

Rex claim not to be Agwiii. Can he explain these 2 identical edits by Agwiii and by RexJudicata. I place it here because both have edited here and Rex is denying he is Agwiii. I look forward to his response, SqueakBox 17:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet allegations SqueakBox and stalker allegations SqueakBox

The fact that I read all of the prior edits and restored one that had been vandalized by you only documents your vandalism and interferrence in topics which you have zero knowledge. Rexjudicata 13:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)


DO NOT REMOVE THE TALK SECTION BELOW. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.176.193.185 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Richard aka SqueakBox

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

The point Rex misses is that all his edits are obsessive about SqueakBox, whereas not all SqueakBox's edits are involving Rex. I have certainly not done anything unethical or illegal nor am I cyberstalking Rex, SqueakBox 18:24, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
FWIW Wikipedia is actually very much in line with modernm legal and ethical practices relating to cyberstalking. All edits here are open to public scrutiny. What could be more open than that? Cyberstalkers cannot lie about their actions because every edit is recorded. IP addresses are recorded. This way the cyberstalker cannot act in secret. Self policing is done by administrators (who are just like us) and having noticeboards, SqueakBox 22:25, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Vfd

This talk page is under Vfd. Does Rex want to put the article under Vfd but cannot because it is protectede. A talk page cannot be the subject of deletion without the page itself being deleted, SqueakBox 18:03, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/r/Talk%7EParents_without_rights_Archive_c08d.html"