Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted biased sources in line with WP:NPOV, and now I'm "adding my personal analysis into article"? No, when you can explain the inconsistency here, then I will stop editing this article. Foreignshore (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Foreignshore You've been an editor here since 2008. You have no excuse for not understanding WP:NPOV and WP:RS. See WP:BIASEDSOURCES if you need a refresher. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have no excuse for not understanding how an encyclopedia can avoid bias. If you need a refresher, I suggest a look at the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Foreignshore (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please give the same warning to Davide. Foreignshore (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are the one blanking sections full of reliable sources. Davide King could easily argue WP:3RRNO EvergreenFir (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. "Reliable sources" that are news articles with clear bias are not reliable sources. Remember, this is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit with a NPOV policy. Foreignshore (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  EvergreenFir (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever your issues, deleting any mention of Orbán's illiberal democracy, which he himself adopted so at least this cannot be dismissed as an invention of "biased" sources, and democratic backsliding would clearly violate NPOV, in relation to "proportionately", as there are overwhelming sources to support it and would essentially equal to removal of several Orbán's related articles. As for the rest, the wording can definitely be improved, but outright removal is not the solution or an improvement. If your issue in particular is the mention of Donald Trump, it is not my fault, or Wikipedia for that matter, if reliable news sources published articles about it, making it a significant part of the election. By the way, very few non-biased sources exist, and I am generous. There is really no unbiased source, what matters is whether they can distinguish facts from fake news, and that their bias do not affect their reliability. That Orbán led an illiberal government is a fact (per reliable sources and the horse's mouth); the role of Trump can be debated, and that is what reliable sources do, but cannot be dismissed either. Just like if a pro-Trump right-wing government was elected and reliable sources would make note of this, I would add to the election that it was seen as a win for Trump. I am simply following the reliable sources in line with WP:RSP. Davide King (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Davide King @EvergreenFir Well Davide, first I was blocked by EvergreenFir, so that makes trying to argue this out rather moot. But thanks, you just made my argument for me: "Very few non-biased sources exist". Politico, Axios, the New York Times and their ilk "distinguish fact from fake news"? And of course, you have to mention Trump because you simply can't help it. I must say, you both played your hand well! Which doesn't surprise me, given the user boxes on your user pages.

Welcome to Wikipedia, "The encyclopedia anyone who has an obvious political bias can edit, while hiding behind the guise of 'fact' and pretending to be neutral while quoting news sources they believe are 'reliable' and 'distinguish from fake news'".

Foreignshore (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how my comment somehow prove you are right. It was precisely to show the absurdity of your claim against biased sources because of your absurdly (again) high standard as if we must always use non-biased sources (I am really curious about which are some sources you consider to be biased at all), so much for Encyclopedia Britannica! Politico, Axios, and The New York Times are considered generally reliable sources at RSP, not by me. That does not mean they are always "correct" or that they can do no wrong. Wikipedia is reporting what sources say, reflecting a consensus when there is one, not to reflect TRUTH or right great wrongs. Either way, you are deflecting. I offered you the opportunity to discuss changes, provide further sources in support of your arguments, or simply to improve the wording and reduce any real or perceived biases. I assumed good faith. Instead you went straight into political accusations and personal attacks.

Believe me, I really would like to not mention Trump, but he is clearly relevant as sources (again, not me) discussed him within the context of the election and because another user complained about it, so I simply thought one of the issue was how mentioned Trump in the article. Perhaps you have a wildly different understanding of what is bias, perhaps you think that mentioning the Holocaust in the Adolf Hitler lead (Godwin's law) is "biased" because it depicts him in a "negative" way. For me that is simply stating as fact what reliable sources consider to be a fact. That Orbán led an illiberal government (I say "government" instead of "regime" lest me you accuse of me something else too) is a fact in this sense. You completely removed this fact, which is supported by Orbán himself.

I have nothing to do with your block. I do not decide and did not decide. If you continue with personal attacks, you are just proving you are NOT HERE. Davide King (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Davide, I knew if I gave you enough rope you would hang yourself. ("Absurdity" and "absurdly" in one sentence, that's pretty good!) This really sums everything up: "not to reflect WP:TRUTH..." Truth isn't what you're interested in, but you contradict yourself by stating there is such a thing as distinguishing "facts" from "fake news"! Then you hide behind Wikipedia's jargon ("reliable sources"), what you consider "reliable", and Wikipedia's own rules (WP:RSP). And, "regime"--yes, as I pointed out, you keep showing your hand very well. And then comes what I've seen in 18 years of editing: "Ohh, you personally attacked me when I gave you every opportunity to discuss this!! You're deflecting!! You're WP:NOT HERE!!" Really, Davide--don't waste my time complaining about how I "attacked" you. Show some real conviction and courage and admit your biases and prejudices--they're easy enough to spot on your user page. Foreignshore (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And I knew that you gave the rope and I wanted to make you happy and have your "Gotcha" moment. :-) Again, if you actually read the useful links (that you dismiss as "Wikipedia's jargon"), you would have understood what I mean. But it seems you do not want to understand and just want to say how bad of an editor I am. This is what WP:TRUTH says:

The revised wording clarified that "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". That we have rules for the inclusion of material does not mean Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy, just as a court's reliance on rules of evidence does not mean the court does not respect truth. Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability. Wikipedia does not try to impose "the truth" on its readers, and does not ask that they trust something just because they read it in Wikipedia. We empower our readers. We do not ask for their blind trust.

Perhaps there were no authoritarian, illiberal, and democratic backsliding issues in Hungary under Orbán, but that is not the way analysts, experts, and other observers and commentators see it. So your removal of that sourced content violated both WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:NPOV because they were a significant issue of the topic. It is not my fault or Wikipedia if the media and election observers focused on this or that. Again, you falsely said "what you consider 'reliable"' when if you actually clicked on the link I provided, you would see there is a list of sources that are considered by the community as a whole (and not by me) to be "generally reliable", "mixed", "generally unreliable", etc. As for regime, again I even said I avoided saying that (even though in common parlance and in other talk pages I always used it a neutral way to mean a long-tenured government that underwent significant changes, such as the "System of National Cooperation") precisely because I expected for you to take advantage of it and have your "Gotcha" moment and I was not wrong.

So I am the one who is deflecting, not the user who blanked sourced content, engaged in an edit war, and refused to have a discussion with the other user to see if a compromise could be reached or if wording could be improved, additional sources reducing any real or perceived bias? I am still waiting for your proposal (I guess you simply want to blank that section) and your list of non-biased sources. You also made a rant about how bad Wikipedia is and how all users are political biased. English is not my first language but is that not the definition of deflecting?

Well, you literally accused me of being incapable of editing Wikipedia because I am too biased, and you even have the audacity of saying that I should not be offended? "Show some real conviction and courage and admit your biases and prejudices--they're easy enough to spot on your user page." Now this is really something. I think that when someone goes to look at the user page is a loss, they have no argument. It is funny because my user page literally include a quote that "one should not ever ask an editor to recuse themselves from a discussion on the basis of userbox content", which is what you did, and that to claim that "a person's POV makes them incapable of serving the neutrality goal of Wikipedia" (in your own words, "The encyclopedia anyone who has an obvious political bias can edit, while hiding behind the guise of 'fact' and pretending to be neutral while quoting news sources they believe are 'reliable' and 'distinguish from fake news'" is to make "the false claim that some people are inherently neutral. Such a person does not exist. EG: centrism is an ideology."

I even have "None (anarchism)" at "Politics" just to make a pun with "None (atheism)" at "Religion". As for the other quote, is there anyone other than extreme right-wingers who think "involuntary, coercive forms of hierarchy" are good or that does not want individuals to "engage in cooperative, mutually respectful relations"? If your problem is that those two phrases respectively link to "Anarchism" and "Left-wing politics" is only because I took each wording from these pages. Note that it also say "when excessive differences in status, power, and wealth are eliminated", which even the Right could agree with. Indeed, it is biased to think that only the Left cares about inequality. I just want everyone to be free, that must be so bad!

Finally, if you actually read the useful links I provided you, you would have found there is no contradiction. Wikipedia is not about reflecting the "ABSOLUTE TRUTH", it is about reporting the views of sources, which may well be wrong (for example, they may be wrong about Orbán but that is what they say). In practice, contrary to what you seem to believe, generally reliable sources are reliable for a reason and are often accurate or truthful (I am not saying that is the case for Orbán or the topic at issue). You do understand the difference between the Associated Press or Reuters and Breitbart News? The first two are generally reliable news agencies that can distinguish facts from fake news and conspiracy theories, the other was literally a fake news and conspiracy theories website. Oh, remember that biases go both ways. Unlike what you did with me, I am not accusing you, but by applying the same standards you used against me, one could easily accuse you of being a supporter of Orbán who wants to whitewash anything negative about him and his governments. Davide King (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2026 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Your reason here EvergreenFir, see above. Would you like to be a truly consistent and unbiased Administrator? Foreignshore (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem to be trying to justify your edit warring, not tell us why it was wrong. This does not depend on your ideological views. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2026 (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.

A WP:CIR block might be in order. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir, I almost have to thank you, and Davide, for exposing Wikipedia's true colors--see my reply to Davide above, and his statement "very few non-biased sources exist." He is right, and that makes my argument for me. If you were truly consistent, you would have already recognized this. And now you propose a "competence block" after you yourself pointed out that I've been editing since 2008? But of course, one can't question an Administrator. Welcome to the real Wikipedia! Foreignshore (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TRUTH - The mission is to neutrally reflect reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]