User talk:Mbutu Collins

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).

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

Request reason:

Why is your go to move to block me rather than address the fact that you're using lying cherry picked sourcing, and that your "trusted editors" are violating NPOV and pushing false material? Surely this is of greater seriousness? Mbutu Collins (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Try again. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Where have I attempted to disrupt the project? My contributions were to highlight violations of NPOV. My intention is absolutely the improvement of the project, and nothing I have written is contrary to this. Mbutu Collins (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 22:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Again you accuse me of disrupting the project. This is entirely false. My contributions address cherry picked sourcing that misrepresents the opposing POV through strawman arguments. It uses a false strawman definition of race, "single genes" and "hard boundaries" which is applied nowhere in taxonomy. All of this was addressed hundreds of years ago by Darwin and Blumenbach, and their simple ancestry based definition continues to be used to this day. However this definition is entirely absent from the article. This is a serious violation of NPOV. The editors who seek to ban me are hostile to the race concept because that's a fashionable leftist piece of pseudoscience. That's fine but they should not suppress opposing material that contradicts them on a website which puports to be a neutral encyclopedia. The point being, I am not seeking to disrupt the project, but improve it. My point is correct and cannot be countered, so their only recourse is to ban me. So you can choose whether to have a dishonest biased article which violates NPOV, or to unblock me and allow them to address my points. Mbutu Collins (talk) 08:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. MER-C 11:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Talk page access revoked. This doesn't address the sockpuppetry at all, it's just a rant. --Yamla (talk) 10:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]