This page is a historical document of Jim Burton's Wikipedia user page, considered an operative factor in his blocking from that site on 17 May, 2007.
Articles concerning myself and my opinions in relation to editing
1. Who is Jim♥Burton, what does he do?
I am an editor who lives in the south of England. Most of my edits concern sexology related articles, especially those concerning child sexuality and minor-attracted sexuality. I attempt to maintain neutrality and accuracy on these hard to moderate articles.
2. Child sexuality & pedophiles - a moral panic
There is curretly very little polite discussion regarding these issues - with many members of society far too ready to advocate the silencing or even the deliberate humiliation of others who find themselves sexually and even romantically attracted to the 'wrong' age. As well as opposing any person or group which intends to remove basic civil rights from the minor-attracted, I also oppose the many myths that are pedalled about "children's" innocence and sexuality (or lack thereof) - illogical oddities of our time that will one day be laughed at, when powerful people stop witholding important information from others, or even constructing falsehoods.
Personally, I communicate with pedophiles on a regular basis, and speaking from experience, I can assure others that they are ultimately like any other people. They only make up a small fraction of child sex offenders, being on the whole, perfectly capable of staying within the law - even if they don't agree with it. The pedophiles that I know show no signs of psychopathy or mental disorder; some even making excellent Wiki editors and admins! The assertions that I make here are not only backed up with anecdotal evidence, but in formal studies and statistics provided by academics, law enforcement and even endorsed by organisations as high (and supposedly anti) as the British Home Office.
Although I make sure not to push this point of view in my editing, I believe that being in the thinking minority as opposed to the largely blind majority helps me avoid such partisan editing.
3. Editing pedophilia, pedophile activism, etc: current problems
Aside from the obvious anti-pedophile vandalism, these important and controversial articles are under constant attack by good faith editors who are blind to their very poor realisations of objectivity. Some of these editors believe that the articles should actively take a values position alongside the "majority" of people in society, as opposed to staying free of judgements wherever possible.
Some have proposed that articles such as 'Pedophile Activism' should include huge criticism sections that better reflect the proportion of people who advocate the opposite (even though the outspoken POV is the subject matter). Some editors have trouble even discussing changes, repeatedly blanking and/or merging articles despite what the majority think. I aim to raise the numbers of opponents to such editors, whilst convincing them to act in more constructive ways that will help our resource prosper as an icon of objectivity.
4. Pedophilia: Jim♥Burton's Criteria for a good editor
After observing various changes to the collection of related articles, I have came to the conclusion that in general, only the following user types are capable of editing these articles in compliance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy.
- People who have a respectably high degree of academic knowledge on this subject AND/OR a flair for witholding their POV.
- Pedophile or counter - age of consent Activists
I would suggest that anyone who wishes to edit these articles should assess themselves with these guidelines, and if they do not comply, find a very good reason to edit otherwise.
5. Contact Jim♥Burton
I am available at firstname.lastname@example.org. Please drop me a message on my talk page after sending mail, as this will hasten my reading of it.
Quotes of mine which sum up my ethos
1. Concerning child sexuality, intergenerational love or any related topic
"Pedophiles have a primary sexual attraction towards children, but this does not mean that they want to 'have sex' (whatever that is). In fact, some pedophiles claim that despite enjoying the idea of fondling a prepubescent child, they feel that the practise is naturally disruptive and harmful, and thus wouldn't engage in it themselves".
2. Concerning society
"Whilst different social minorities fluctuate in and out of fashion, the one timeless constant that remains is the group of poor fools who follow fashion to the point of distortion and curse the folk devils to the point of unreasoned hatred".
3. Concerning editing
"Primarily, I'm not here to argue at all. What I am here to do is make sure that opinions are not needlessly inserted into articles as fact, and that dissenting opinions get a fair hearing on articles designed to make them known".
"And in what way would simply stating that something is not racist make me, in turn a racist? Maybe I feel that burning all pregnant women on a spit is not mysogynistic, but even so, I may believe that all other options are right".