Talk:Rent control in the United States

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rent control in the United States article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

Urban studies and planning High‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Housing and Tenant Rights High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Housing and Tenant Rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Housing and Tenant Rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Housing and Tenant RightsWikipedia:WikiProject Housing and Tenant RightsTemplate:WikiProject Housing and Tenant RightsHousing and Tenant Rights
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Restore to stable version

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I requested this page be protected because an anon editor continually deleted content that had been included in the article for years despite being reverted by multiple others (and, from what I gather, may be evading a block). In between when I made the request and when the request was granted, anon came back and deleted the text again. I am requesting that the article be restored to the last stable version. Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is almost certainly Pedrote112 (talk · contribs) evading their block, yes. MrOllie (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie, a true vandal, the user that attacks other users, and acts as a custodian of this page, violating WPOV and maintaining a statement that was added without prior discussion on the talk page (read all discussion). MrOllie, a user who deletes scientific references. Who is MrOllie? Google to find out. 81.0.36.0 (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Such request is controversial. No consensus, read talk page and WNPOV. 81.0.36.0 (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I report that MrOllie is harassing me on my talk page. This user does not accept the fact that the statement was added without consensus and that there is no consensus on the statement. He considers that others vandalise wikipedia, not him. 81.0.36.0 (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you really think that I'm a vandal, WP:ANI is the place to report that. MrOllie (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also requested something similar here: User_talk:Daniel_Case#Rent_control_in_the_United_States ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 00:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this seems like a sticky situation. Pinging @Favonian: in case they weren't aware that @Daniel Case: overrode their decision to semi protect. This puts any admin reviewing this case in a tricky postion, as technically reducing it back to semi right now would be WP:WHEEL, but on the other hand Daniel, while being otherwise active, does not seem to have replied to the request on his talk page, so the WP:ADMINACCT clause on failure to communicate is also in play. To my eye I think a good case has been made here to reduce the protection, but for the above reasons I am hesistant to go ahead and do so. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that ... I missed the post on my talk page because it got sandwiched in during drama created by an editor being disruptive elsewhere (another example of just how deleterious to the project disruptive editors can be). I will take a look at this later. Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking another look, Daniel. I did notice the changed protection. Favonian (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar, to at least respond to some of what you posted on my talk page: If I had known that backstory I would have seen things differently. When we look at protection requests very often all we have to go on is what the report says. This wouldn't be the first time that what appeared to be a new dispute was, in fact, the continuation of an older one not immediately evident in the page history. (More arguments for why we should write some sort of guide for requesting protection (and, just as importantly, reviewing those requests). Daniel Case (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Thank you for the time and effort you put in as an admin! I'm fine with the article staying as it is until July 3, after which one of us can restore it to Wikipedia consensus.

From now on, I will use better edit summaries to try to give as much detail and backstory as possible, so that people like you who are asked to jump into a confusing situation and quickly adjudicate it can hopefully have an easier time understanding what is going on.

Question/request: Can we have the pending changes status on this article set to permanent? Like (I think) the Rent regulation article has been protected here [1]? Is the RfPP board the proper place to make this request (after the current lock expires)?

Reason: The same edit-warring has been going on intermittently for three years now on BOTH of these articles from what appears to be the sock-puppeting of a banned editor: Pedrote112 (talk · contribs) located in France/Spain/Morocco (same behavior and same edit summary complaints). Usually after 3 or 4 reversions by others they go away for several months, which is probably why none of us have asked for Page Protection before now. Thanks!! ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 00:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case Thank you for taking the time to consider different opinions. Hopefully this will lead to a reasonable resolution of a case that has been going on for more than three years and which began with the addition of the phrase in question, without prior discussion on this talk page.

To give more context, it would be good to read all the arguments given on this talk page, as well as here [2], and more recently at W:NPOV [3] 81.0.36.0 (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will be doing this ... we do have a holiday weekend coming up here in the US. Daniel Case (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case:: To try to make your likely hour of reading/discovery easier (unless you read faster than me), here's a summary:

On Rent control in the United States: Starting 2021-02-22T19:52:36: an IP editor, (193.52.24.13 - France location) whom I believe to also be the same as Pedrote112 (talk · contribs), and is likely the same IP in this discussion, started edit-warring, with this edit [4]

That editor did then "discuss" on the Talk page, here:

Talk:Rent_control_in_the_United_States/Archive_1#A_Philosophical_Reminder

Talk:Rent_control_in_the_United_States/Archive_1#On_"consensus_among_economists"

Talk:Rent_control_in_the_United_States#Copied_from_User_talk:193.52.24.13

On the Rent regulation article, this same IP started the same type of edits on 2021-03-26T16:26:28‎, but did much less edit warring there.

Talk:Rent_regulation#On_consensus_among_economists

Also see this discussion: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_89#h-Rent_control:_"on_consensus_among_economists"-2021-03-23T21:13:00.000Z

Another discussion on the same topic but started by a different editor then closed when that editor was blocked for some time for an unrelated reason: Talk:Rent_regulation#Contested_sentence_at_end_of_lead

Thanks! ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 20:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Daniel Case As you can see, one of the page custodians has restored the version that includes the disputed phrase, rather than the stable version that existed before the phrase was added without discussion on the talk page. Please review and decide as you see fit. I leave it to you to make up your mind about what is really going on here. 81.0.36.0 (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Daniel Case, thank you again for your interest on this issue, wondering whether any action is going to be taken here: see that the current version contains a non-consensual statement and a disputed phrase added without discussion on the talk page. 81.0.36.0 (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've discussed it for years at this point. MrOllie (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

with the result of no consensus, and on a sentence added to the article without being previously discussed on this page. 88.12.251.41 (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus need not be unanimous, and we don't count people evading their blocks at any rate. MrOllie (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Daniel Case (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is talking about unanimity, there is more than one editor who has disagreed with the claim in question -just read this talk page-. And NPOV recommended revising the article years ago. This article is a clear example of ideological bias, corruption and dishonesty by the handful of editors that follow the article. You all know it. 105.153.55.249 (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case, I don't think you've had time to intervene here. Do you realise how the custodians of this page continue to edit as they please, totally ignoring what was said on the talk page and the recommendations of years ago in NPOV? This site is clearly ideologically biased. 105.71.134.45 (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deactivating as protection has expired. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]