Jim Burton

Appeal

I have decided after some time, to appeal my indefinite block. Jim♥Burton 13:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jim Burton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

A few months ago, I was blocked without warning, with the justification of "pattern of pedophile advocacy". I found this justification highly insulting and inaccurate, and in retrospect, assume that most administrators would too. So first, I shall dismiss other, more "respectable" reasons that may have been put forward for my blocking. One commonly used justification is that the user was a SPA. This justification was used against User:dfpc, who was indeed a pedophile advocate, but a neutral, possibly even self-effacing type of editor. This justification should never be used in banning any editor, as there is no blocking policy associated with it. The documents just tell us to be vigilant yet non-prejudicial. Whilst it may be true that my focus on the politics of sexual consent and child sexuality was almost absolute, and may have been highly embarrasing for some, the only way that it is going to bring the encyclopedia into disrepute, is by having attention drawn to it by labelling and retroactive administration (this can be seen on at least two informational wikis, Wikisposure and E.D.).

Others may criticise my character. Whilst I may have been passionate, demonstrative and some would say, absolute in my stances, I have always respected policy and process, and have actively built consensus on many articles and discussions before taking action.

I shall now move back to the actual justification for my blocking. I feel that now the mist has cleared, it may be easier for administrators to see how my block was made in error. This "pattern of pedophile advocacy" charge basically goes back to my editing focus (whilst centered on similar topics, in my opinion, I was radically neutral in style) and a discussion on Jimbo's talk page, where I defended the rights of Pedophiles to self-identify on Wikipedia. Now, this is not pedophile advocacy, as such. It is merely an extension of my belief that whoever you are, and whatever you are attracted to, you should be able to contribute to this resource. With men who are actually threatening to rape a child, this may be different, but that is not my definition of a pedophile. As I explained in a private discussion with Jimbo, the issue regarding myself is rather simple, in that I am passionate when it comes to equal rights involving any group.

As a side note, I also find it rather clumsy that the administrator blocked me shortly after my private discussion with Jimbo (which resulted not in my blocking, but in me agreeing to cease my arguments on his talk page). Had I not been someone of such strong character, I may have disclosed details of this private (as agreed by both of us) discussion in the heat of the moment. Just to be clear, this side note is not a veiled threat.

So I ask some neutral, uninvolved admin to take a good look at this undebated, unforewarned and indefinite block. I hope that even if their conclusion is for some reason that a more liberal block would have been appropriate, they will take into account "time served", as my block log reveals.

Waiting in hope,

Jim Burton

Decline reason:

Your block was originally for pro-pedophile advocacy, and was made by a member of the arbitration committee acting in an official role. This means that an administrator is unable to lift the block on their own accord. Per long standing precedent with blocks of this kind, all block appeals must be made directly to the arbitration committee by email (arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org), so I must therefore decline this request as we are unable to process such a sensitive matter on-wiki. — Ryan Postlethwaite 16:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• I would strongly recommend you to appeal your block to the Arbitration Committee; failing that, you can try contacting Jimbo Wales or the Wikimedia Foundation. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I was aware that a few bans that followed mine were treated in a similar way, although my talk page was never locked. I did contact the arbcom after it was suggested as one solution, although they never responded. Hence my appeal here instead. Jim♥Burton 14:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Mike - especially as the ban was issued by an ArbCom member. If you would like someone to post your appeal on WP:RFAR, just say so here; if you prefer you can email arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org with your appeal. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be difficult for one admin to handle this request without carrying a heavy burden. If unblocked, there will be debate. If block is kept, why is one admin's opinion sufficient as this request would be removed from the board and possibly not seen by anyone except those who watchlist this user (which may represent a biased statistical sample). Will seek AN advice. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me from the unblock reason that Jim hasn't changed at all. Surely advocating the right of pedophiles to self-identify in such a vehement manner on a publicly watched page like Jimbo's, basically saying he wouldn't take no for an answer, as well as editing the main space in a very POV SPA way, explains the block. If he were to come back admitting it isn't okay to defend endlessly in wikipedia the right of pedophiles to self-identify (see WP:NOT) and that he wanted to edit non-pedophile articles I would strongly support lifting the ban (which is against disruptive editing, not t e editor himself) but Jim appears to want to be unblocked to pursue exactly the same path as before. There is an extremely heated debate at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Adult-child sex right now and unblocking Jim and then having him rushing off to participate in said debate would be extremely unhelpful to the heat in that debate, indeed I wonder if it is that debate that has inspired Jim to ask to be unblocked at this particular time. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, SqueakBox. I was not aware of this recent debate that you just pointed me to, but of course, I would be happy to take part in it, if I were unblocked in time. There are so many new names in the debate. I think that by "extremely unhelpful" you may in fact mean "not compatible with my POV", but who knows, we're well accustomed to these small but mighty rhetorical wars, are we not?

As for your claims, can you please point towards anything that would suggest I wouldn't take no for an answer, or that my editing lead to unbalanced passages or articles? I feel that this was one of the major problems with a near-majority of editors which included yourself, and that was primarily why I edited stricken articles such as Pro-pedophile activism so much. If I am to be unblocked, I would probably continue to edit these articles, and a few more that I have ventured into reading since I was banned. But for me, this is really of no weight, as the decision should be taken over the style of my editing as opposed to what I edited. If the latter is a guide to affiliation, I would be (as I am) banished like Tom O'Carroll, and you (as you are not) would be treated like some edgy Bill Andriette figure. Jim♥Burton 20:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Jim. I think if you were to be unblocked I would happily discuss these issues at greater length but until then I wont be looking for the diffs in Jimbo's old archives etc. I would also point out that if you created another account and just edited non-pedophile articles that I am not sure anyone would want to prevent you doing that, I certainly wouldn't. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks to Ryan for making the nature of this block clear. As arbcom have been privately unresponsive, I think that I shall have to pursue the WP:RFAR course of action suggested by Stifle. I would appreciate if one of you could start that process rolling for me. Jim♥Burton 19:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jim Burton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Now that the above issue has been clarified, I would like to pursue an unblock via the RFA route. As arbcom have failed to respond to my previous appeal, I feel that the last resort is to file a RFA. As the previous refusal was a technical issue, I wish to carry the above mentioned reasons forward, and will explain them at length if required.

Decline reason:

Given the general nature of response from admins, and my own intuition, I think we are dealing with a ban here, not just a block. The instructions at WP:BAN and Wikipedia:Arbitration are pretty clear that you should request arbitration by emailing an Arbitration committee member or an Arbcom clerk. Generally, people are unblocked for arbcom cases only after those cases are accepted and opened. Look here for a list of active arbitrators. Mangojuice^talk 20:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Jim, this appeal has to take place off wiki (sorry, I should have made myself clear to you up above). Email the arbitration committee, and if you feel like you've got no joy via that route, try emailing Jimbo again with an appeal. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hanging Basket Tree

An editor has nominated Hanging Basket Tree, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanging Basket Tree and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Lindsay Ashford (activist)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Lindsay Ashford (activist). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindsay Ashford (activist). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Anti-pedophile activism

I have nominated Anti-pedophile activism, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-pedophile activism. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ~ Homologeo (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)