You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring, as you did at DJ Ashba.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

The page in question was edited to reflect a change in Ashba's marital status, with the source being Ashba himself posting about it on facebook. A random user decided that source wasn't good enough and tried to change it, so I reverted the page back. Why is this considered controversial? It shouldn't be, it is a verifiable source. I linked to the facebook page in question and 2 articles about the divorce. A third user decided the 2 articles weren't needed, the facebook post would be fine, however FlightTime took it upon himself to declare I was in an "edit war". @Bbb23 Downzyisaliar (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You can blank whatever you want on this page other than declined block notices like this one. You were most certainly edit warring; once you are doing that, the content of your edits are irrelevant -- the edit warring itself is the issue. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:33, 24 April 2025 (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.

Downzyisaliar (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To the reviewing admin, the "third user" noted in the above appeal is likely me. I believe that a review of my posts to this talk page that have been blanked, as well this discussion on my talk page, demonstrate that at no point did I think Downzyisaliar's use of sources were "fine".-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you had removed Blabbermouth and MetalSludge, however left the facebook post in question. That is where all of this originated - Ashba posts this on FB, other sites report on the post and link to the post, and so I update the Wiki to reflect the change. At no point in time did anyone in the talk page tell me not to use Blabbermouth. So the fact that you left the facebook sources show that you do in fact agree that Ashba himself is a reliable source. Unless you're disputing that?

I blank my talk page because I didn't want discussion of the article here, it should have all been on the talk page. I don't like having things on my talk page. Downzyisaliar (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Downzyisaliar: Well, this is how Wikipedia works, discussion, collaboration, it's a community working together, maybe Wikipedia is not your cup of tea. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]