193.52.24.13

February 2021

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Rent control in the United States, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring.

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 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 ~~~~}}.  -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked for editing a wikipedia page that uses an opinion poll as the second entry in a descriptive article.

I am required to initiate a debate, when it is clear that the page does not adapt the references used to reliable sources. Furthermore, the sentence in question is intended to duplicate information and make it more visible, as the same information appears further down the article in the "Impact" subsection.

I consider this blocking to be a deliberately ideological decision. But the most serious thing is that the current version of the article that I have edited maintains in the second entry a statement that neither corresponds to what the survey in question says, nor is it a reliable source, nor does it represent the current state of science on the subject. 193.52.24.13 (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring, not your ideology. Being correct (if you are) with your edits is not a defense to edit warring, as everyone in an edit war thinks that their edits are correct. To be unblocked, please describe how to properly handle an editing dispute without edit warring. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked for an ideological and unscientific reason. Otherwise, why am I the only one who has been blocked for edit wars, when it is clear that all those involved have continually deleted and re-edited. Standard practice would be to debate whether an opinion poll should be the second entry in this article, not whether removing it as a precautionary and rigorous matter is bad practice.193.52.24.13 (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Please include a decline or accept reason.

---

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.

March 2021

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:193.52.24.13 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: ). Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit-warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Help

I would like to take a minute to ask the wikipedia community for help in reviewing an issue that I feel deserves special attention. I will try to be as schematic and objective as possible:

1. Topic: Two Wikipedia articles, namely "Rent control in the United States" [1] and "Rent regulation" [2], contain a statement that reads as follows: "There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing".

2. This statement was added to the article (without any consensus and without any discussion on the talk page) by Snooganssnoogans on 24 December 2020 at 14:5 (see [3]).

3. I have extensively argued the lack of neutrality of these articles on the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard [4]. As can be seen, many users (e.g. SPECIFICO, TFD, Dennis Bratland, Qzekrom,Charles Stewart) seem to agree that the statement is false (their arguments and weight in the conversation are being ignored by the users who act as the custodians of these pages). Only vague references that are not specific (general economics textbooks), opinion articles, and an article published by a think tank are used by these users as references to substantiate the claim. But the fact is that there is not a single study that can verify the veracity of this claim. Not to mention the obvious interest that these users have in this claim appearing in the second entry of the article, at the top, so that it reads well, even before technically explaining what exactly rent control is. Arguments and counter-arguments can be found on the NPOV Noticeboard.

4. In any case, what is serious is that although it is a manifest fact that there is no agreement among the users who discuss there, the article maintains the statement without any consensus and furthermore the article is not labelled as lacking neutrality.

5. And what is more dangerous: when I argued and reversed the claim that was added without consensus, I was persecuted and blocked. Isn't this outrageous? Users who debate and reverse changes that are added without consensus are blocked, while those who introduce statements without being debated and agreed with the wikipedia community are favoured with blocking those who argue against them.

In conclusion, I would simply like to draw attention to something fundamental at stake, which is the neutrality of our encyclopaedia. With this message, I would like to draw more eyes to what is going on there. And if anyone, bureaucrat, administrator or user considers that some action should be taken to help the neutrality of the encyclopaedia, I would be very grateful. If there is one clear rule on wikipedia it is that the content of the pages must be neutral and consensual among users. The statement we are talking about is not backed by consensus within the community, and users who fight for neutrality are being blocked.

At this point, given that I am not sure where to turn for help within the wikipedia community, I've decided to make a call here to some bureaucrats who seem to have an interest in issues of neutrality: e.g. SilkTork,Cecropia,UninvitedCompany,Dweller (sincere apologies if you are not interested in this issue)... but if anybody knows of other users that might be interested in this problem, let me know.

Many thanks, 193.52.24.13 (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The place to have this discussion is the talkpage of the relevant article, and I will copy this there.

I have had a quick look at the article and a very quick look at the issue. The sentence you object to is correct, and is well supported by cites to reliable sources. It is not something to argue over. However, the lead (I haven't studied the whole article) positions itself as an argument against rent control, and it doesn't explain the benefits. So, yes, the lead (and possibly the article itself) is biased. However, while Wikipedia aims to be neutral and balanced, many articles (possibly the majority) are biased in one way or another. It is a constant struggle to identify and correct bias. When we introduce bias ourselves, we rarely see it. Such is the nature of bias. The way to fix bias is to discuss and edit and discuss and edit. It can take a long time. And a fair balance is not always achieved even after years of polite, collegial discussion and working toward neutral consensus edits. Neutrality and fair balance is rarely achieved over-night, and pinging others rarely helps, as we each have our own areas of concern. Here are some articles that others have flagged up as needing attention for being biased: Category:Articles needing POV-check and Category:NPOV_disputes. As you see, there are thousands of articles which have been tagged as of concern going back over ten years.

To edit without conflict on Wikipedia people need to be able to put things in perspective, and to work together with others in a friendly supportive manner. This may appear to be a big issue to you, but in reality it is simply an everyday thing on Wikipedia.

My suggestion is to find reliable sources which discuss both the benefits and the drawbacks, and then to propose on the talkpage edits which put rent control into proper context, explaining both benefits and drawbacks. I hope this helps. SilkTork (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

SilkTork, many thanks for your reply. Although you are not right about the claim. I am sorry but it is not correct, nor well supported by reliable sources. The only study supporting that there is a consensus was published by a libertarian think tank. The rest are vague references, not specific ones. And the counter-arguments are ignored. Furthermore, if the claim was introduced without consensus. Why are we keeping it? If there is not consensus among users, why are we keeping it? In any case, thanks and welcome to the discussion.193.52.24.13 (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not joining the discussion, I am moving on. Be aware that you are close to be being blocked for being disruptive and not listening to reason. If people are pointing out that the sentence is correct, and you are unable to accept that and move on, then I will block you. It is not appropriate to edit war and to ping busy users over an everyday editing issue. And it is not appropriate to believe you are correct in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The sentence "There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of rental housing units" is accurate and well sourced. What is missing in the lead is mention of the benefits, and that there is an ongoing debate about the issue. See [5] for a reliable source discussing both sides. SilkTork (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

You say "people are pointing out that the sentence is correct". That's not true. There are many users that argue the opposite. Have you read the thread and the comments of the users that agree the claim is false? (please, read here [6]). The truth is that there is no consensus.193.52.24.13 (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

SilkTork, you're wrong about the level of consensus among editors, and it's condescending for an editor such as yourself who happens to be on one side of a dispute to dismiss the other side for "not listening to reason". You have your opinions and that's great but that doesn't make your opinions the sole voice of reason, as if you've already proven your point, and it doesn't make everyone who disagrees irrational. If you're going to accuse the IP 193.52.24.13 of pushing too hard, then I'd avoid such ad hominem yourself.

This is an intractable topic on Wikipedia. For lots of historical reasons, Wikipedia has a powerful techo-libertarian bro bias, and it is probably a not worth fighting against the core editor establishment for too long. Disagreeing with what "economists" [sic; read a subset of economists presenting establishment pro-market opinion] "all" [sic] agree on is not unlike going to a Wikipedia talk page and suggesting that perhaps Saint Elon Musk's promises of how fantastic his next car is going to be could maybe be ever so slightly exaggerated. To see my point, compare this strict application of the WP:CRYSTAL policy to remove even a one sentence mention at the very bottom of an article of the plans to sell a variant model that has already entered production of a long-established existing car line at Talk:BMW M3/Archive 2#RfC Discussion, with another Wikipedia consensus to do the exact opposite, and keep a long, detailed stand-alone article about a future, unproduced car that exists only in concept and wouldn't be released for years (if ever): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tesla Roadster (2020). Look at how many times the Tesla Roadster (second generation) treats Tesla's promises, hopes, dreams, and hypothetical stretch goals about the future as fact, stated as if it had already happened. Most editors are cool with that, because Tesla.

I realize these are distinct topics, and OSE etc, but it helps to follow the trend of these two disputes to get a sense of how Wikipedia's hive mind works. So Wikipedia is sometimes flawed and sometimes makes bad decisions. That's normal. We should accept that. Nobody promised perfection. Sometimes taking a step closer to perfection is harder than other times.

All I ever asked for was WP:INTEXT attribution stating up front who precisely is making the claim that "there is consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of rental housing units", and how they went about deciding who counts as an "economist" and who doesn't. If the sources who make that claim really are universally regarded as reliable, it shouldn't be too much to ask. But like the insistence that we must treat as fact Elon Musk's hyperbolic performance claims of a future car that nobody has driven, the hive mind doesn't want to say that with in-text attribution. It has to be stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Wikipedia is not perfect and sometimes it makes bad decisions such as this.

Eventually I think consensus will change but often it's better to pick your battles and let it go. These guys are passionate about their free market beliefs, their love of Tesla cars and their faith in technology. You can only try for so long to negotiate and find consensus with them, before it's time to move on to something else.

So I guess I agree with SilkTork that it's time to just drop it, but I say that with respect and sympathy. Regroup and try again at a later time when the winds are blowing in a different direction. For now focus on making Wikipedia better in one of the ways that Wikipedia won't resist so much. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dennis Bratland. I sincerely appreciate your words. I also appreciate that as a much more experienced user than me you are speaking clearly about what you consider fair and unfair, neutral and non-neutral. And I am very sorry that you had to endure insults on the NPOV Noticeboard for speaking your mind. For my part, I feel it is a moral obligation to continue defending neutrality and denouncing that there is neither consensus among economists nor consensus among wikipedia users on this issue. The conversation must continue both on the talk page of the articles and on the NPOV Noticeboard. Wikipedia is written by all of us, however much some users may not like it.193.52.24.13 (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for block evasion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Why am I blocked this time? Which law have I violated? Cheers, 193.52.24.13 (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This IP address is blocked as Pedrote112 is using it to evade their block. You are free to edit so long as you are not that blocked user. Sign in with your account. If you don't have an account, one may be created for you via WP:ACC. Yamla (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hi Yamla. What do you mean my IP is blocked as another user is using it? I dont understand. Why can't I edit with this IP? 193.52.24.13 (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per conversation below. You could easily create an account if you have nothing to do with Pedrote, and edit what you would like to edit to your heart's content as long as you stay within policy ... but noooooooooo! You insist on having this IP unblocked. Can you then blame us for not trusting that your motives are pure? — Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hi Daniel Case. So what. You could easily unblock this IP, but noooooooooooooooooooooooooo, you insist on having this IP blocked. The point is that my IP is improperly blocked because you don't have a single consistent argument linking me to another account or IP. Can you then blame me because you do not believe that my IP is not the same as that of another user living in another country? On the basis of what? 193.52.24.13 (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

That's quite enough. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

---

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.

We can't tell if you are the same person as Pedrote112. For that reason, we will not lift the block. If you are unrelated to that person, you are free to edit and I've told you how to do so. If you are the same person, you are not welcome here, not until you contest the block on your account. --Yamla (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

However, if you open a new account a continue the behavior for which I have given you the previous block, you will likely get a block again.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

So Yamla, you cant tell if I am the same person but you block my IP. That's a bit weird. Secondly, Ymblanter, it seems that you are obsessed with my edits. I wonder, why? Are you suggesting that I am not allowed to discuss in the page of rent control? That sounds like coercion. 193.52.24.13 (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

You are confused. I reviewed your unblock request, I did not block this IP address. Let's be very clear, should we. Please tell us if you are the person behind the account, Pedrote112, or are in any way associated with that person? --Yamla (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I am gonna make it crystal clear Yamla: I have no idea who Pedrote112 is. What I do know is that my IP is blocked for no clear reason. And that there seem to be ideological interests that prevent some users from editing on the rent control article.193.52.24.13 (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that the next admin consider, after declining the unblock, revoking access to this talk page as it's getting pretty clear we have gone past the point where these discussions can serve any further purpose except to waste everyone's time. This already happened on the original user's talk page; the combative tone of the user's arguments there, the same Comically Missing the Point, the fixation on the same narrow subject and the similarity in editing styles have adequately demonstrated for me that the two users are the same person.

So, Pedro, if you're continuing to insist that "my IP is blocked for no reason", even though at least a couple of other admins have stated that it is blocked because we believe Pedrote112 has used it to evade blocks, which is hardly unique to this IP, you can rest easy knowing that I, at least, join my colleagues in believing that you and Pedro are one and the same, and therefore I believe there's good reason this IP is blocked.

You act as if some sort of notion of human rights, to the extent that that applies to users of a privately owned and operated website, applied to IP addresses as well. But IP addresses are not people; they have no rights for you to plead. Not here, not anywhere. We can block them for whatever reasons we set ourselves in our policy, within those limits (i.e., not indefinitely, in almost all cases). A human editor in good standing can insist on what we can call in this context a right to edit, something we have even helped them secure; an IP never can. There is, under our policy, no right for you, no obligation on us, to allow editing from a particular IP, and we have made the reasons for this clear many times (we can never be sure who's editing from a particular IP, primarily). You have never seemed to understand that, or perhaps you have, because you have always changed the subject when it came up. Indeed, many administrators have seen that "you blocked my IP for no reason ... I'm not this person you say I am and I don't know who they are", despite blatant similarities, argument so often that to use it is practically to confirm our suspicions.

Indeed, at this point, you are also starting to seem like that guy whose response to being told that he should seriously consider leaving the bar, as he will not be served further drinks no matter how much he wants them and is willing to pay, is to stand up and argue his defeated case more and more loudly, as the other bouncers slowly and silently begin to surround him and one places a gentle yet unmistakeably firm hand on his shoulder saying, "OK, buddy ..." (In real life, as we all know, sometimes bad things can happen after this).

It's time you dropped the proverbial stick. Daniel Case (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

---