User talk:BlackCatKillsRat

October 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

You seem to believe that my goal is to engage in disruptive behavior here. If that were my intention, why would I announce my goals publicly and honestly? I have spent thousands of hours on this website dating back ten years now. In that time I've watched this website and its editors change considerably. Of greatest concern is that--especially in the past 5 years--I've watched openly political actors editing targeted articles with the intention of misinforming the public with non-neutral sources that they claim are far less-biased and agenda-driven than they actually are. I believe the response by administrators in the meantime has been inadequate because the problem is worse than ever. I finally decided to try my hand at pushing back against the use of openly non-neutral sources to corroborate clearly partisan claims. Is wikipedia not supposed to have a "mainstream" bias? Why are such heavily-biased sources so widespread in the citations on virtually any article about some figurehead of our current political moment? I just want this website to go back to the way it was when I didn't constantly see partisan claims, check the source, and immediately notice that the source had a pronounced bias toward somebody's ideology. And I get that there are biased sources who can still report real information. I fully understand that. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about organizations that have staked out a clear position because they stand to benefit if the public believes their side of the story, and are then cited as though they are neutral observers or arbiters when they aren't even pretending to be. I know there are people here who are deliberately citing these kinds of sources with the intent of misinforming people in service of their political agenda. I chose to be honest that I want to push back against this behavior in pursuit of wikipedia's mission. Would you have preferred that I not announce my intent? Are you the only person who's going to look at this appeal, or am I allowed a second opinion? BlackCatKillsRat (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This doesn't address the reason for the block (you're clearly here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, which is not constructive), and also indicates pretty clearly that this account is a sockpuppet. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:49, 21 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.

What account or accounts have you previously used to edit Wikipedia? ST47 (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]