User talk:Jim Burton

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

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,

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)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

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)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.