Moneytrees' Money Tree, day one

Close phrasing and notification


Thank you for your close of WP:ANI#Kaalakaa on Islam-related topics. May I rather diffidently ask if the phrasing and notification have quite the effect you intended? I'm very used to seeing "broadly construed" so "broadly constructed" surprised me, and when you notified Kaalakaa of the topic ban, you suggested they might want to follow the standard offer. The topic ban appeals I've seen at WP:AN have only succeeded if the editor has shown that they can edit Wikipedia constructively and without disruption by editing without breaching their topic ban. In contrast, the standard offer, which is described as being for cases of a site ban or an indefinite block, includes having made no edits ... on the English Wikipedia and so I fear would not lead to a topic ban being lifted - but I could be wrong and this might all be irrelevant anyway. NebY (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@NebY I’m not going to lie, I’ve always read “construed” as “constructed”, so that’s a silly mistake in my part. I meant to add a bit about appealing in six months after mention SO; a lot of TBANs stipulate the same appeal window of 6-12 months even if they don’t mention the SO. It didn’t seem like there was a presence for an appeal window in the discussion, and I feel like there aren’t very clear explanations on how to appeal community TBANs, so I decided to reference the SO. Regardless, I’ve corrected my mistakes now, thanks for pointing it out. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eashvar Karthic


Hello, Moneytrees,

I guess you didn't use XFDcloser to close this AFD discussion as you still need to untag the article and post the AFD closure result on the article talk page which XFDcloser would handle for you. It really simplifies things so if you are going to help out at AFD (which would be awesome), I encourage you to look it over. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 04:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

(talk page watcher) That was closed by a vandal impersonating Moneytrees. I've reverted them. DanCherek (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Dan. Yeah @Liz, there’s an LTA who does that occasionally. No emoji means it isn’t me! Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 06:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply



Hi, you forgot to sign the actual report part (of the Lb SPI).
I tried template signing it, but there's a filter that prevents IPs from editing that part of SPIs (or something like that). – 2804:F1...75:866E (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi 2804:F1..., I intentionally didn't sign it, as I don't need to as far as I'm aware. But I can sign if that makes things less confusing. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Nah it's fine, I thought it was accidental. For me it was only confusing until I looked at the page history, though maybe when it is archived it will become more confusing? – 2804:F1...75:866E (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's not a bad point, I'll fix it rn. I'll just copy and paste my signature from the CU comments because that's what it would've looked like if I did sign it. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Irtapil


As the admin who closed the SPI, I wanted to ask you on about this article. It seems to be a very clear case of WP:G5, but a couple of editors have contested it on grounds of notability. BilledMammal (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

As an editor who has contested G5: I don't have a strong view that it should be kept, but I think there is enough involvement from other editors that it should go through AFD. If consensus disagrees, I will not object. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
if someone can fix Persecution of gay and bisexual men by the so-called Islamic State to be at a less-inappropriate title, that would be appreciated; I think I have tagged everything else I had concerns about. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've reverted it back to the previous title BilledMammal (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
My understanding is that it doesn't require discussion; it's an article created by a blocked editor, with no substantial contributions from other editors (this appears to be the most substantial other contribution) - and generally, we don't want to exacerbate our sock problem, in a topic area already overrun with them, by suggesting that some of their contributions might stick. BilledMammal (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi, @Walsh90210, @BilledMammal, I don't think the edits outside of MWQs are significant enough to dispute a G5-- they're mostly minor cleanup and technical edits from what I see. That said, how I read WP:BANREVERT is that an editor can dispute a tag and take responsibility for the article, and it seems like there might be reasons outside of G5 to do so. So I don't agree with that argument, but if other editors are taking responsibility for it then I won't delete it. Sorry, I know that's not a very satisfying answer. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
how I read WP:BANREVERT is that an editor can dispute a tag and take responsibility for the article I might be blind, but I can't actually find that section of BANREVERT? (Walsh90210, before you take responsibility for any of MWQs edits I should mention that they have a history of WP:COPYVIO - you might want to confirm that the article doesn't have any first) BilledMammal (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm working on removing content I'm not willing to "take responsibility for"; it's possible there won't be enough for an article separate from Mohammed Deif by the time I am done. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@BilledMammal I was thinking about Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content, which is right under the Proxying subheader (I didn't see that first either). @Walsh90210, I didn't realize there was a "main article" here-- personally speaking, I think this might be better long term as being covered at the parent article in order to maybe avoid WP:Recentisim, but I'm speaking outside of being an admin when I say that. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I consider the current version of that article "minimally acceptable"; I will not complain if/when further changes are made. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just happened to end up here because that page is on my watchlist and I do want to clarify since you mentioned WP:Recentism that the event referred to here is one that occurred during the 2014 Gaza War, not the Israel–Hamas war. Kinsio (talkcontribsrights) 02:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I thought I had read Mohammed Deif and his family had recently died @Kinsio. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Nope, a decade ago. And if you join the dots, it's potentially quite a significant event in the overall cycle of violence. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! BilledMammal (talk) 04:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

In appreciation

  The Barnstar of Integrity
For all you do for the project. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello, Moneytrees. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Scorpions1325 (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Gustave.iii block


Hi, I wanted to comment on the recent-ish block of User:Gustave.iii as a Wikipedia:Third opinion. I see why you put the Alan MacMasters article as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion but the indefinite block seems to be punitive as he only disrupted once. Wikipedia:Sanctions against editors should not be punitive

Not to Wikipedia:Wikilawyering but I think he should've been educated instead of an immediate block, as to not Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. I welcome your response. LinuxNCats (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delayed response


Hi MT! Apologies for not responding to your note but I was offline. I fully appreciate your goal of addressing an issue that came up and avoiding the politics, but I think you inadvertently hit the nail on the head with your second paragraph. This is less about the deleted child musician and more about the age old fight. That thread and the ones it spun off made no one look good, unfortunately.

Were Andy's or LB's behavior any worse this month than ever? I don't think so. I think Andy mightbe less enabled then he had been prior to the June block, he's still going to thumb his nose at Light, and other still extant ARS volunteers because they write content he doesn't believe are up to wikistandards. He may be right about the latter (I didn't dig into the articles, but saw at least one was SNOW closed), but that doesn't mean he has to name call. It doesn't make him more right. Be he has continued to do it because there are no sanctions so why should he. And every discussion where content raised at WPO comes up it turns into a referendum on WPO as a whole and the age old grudges vs. the issue at hand.

Whereas LB, if I'm reading your note and the SPI correctly, socked (bad) but stopped (good). So why sanction him now? If we're not going to fully resolve the age old ARS issue and say he has to change his behavior, what more does he need to do than maybe not (over)react to tweaking by Andy? There's no behavior that needed actioning so it ended uo coming across even if unintended as "you sought action against a more favored editor, that can't happen" similar to others who didn't out anyone but got tarred and feathered by the WPO brush.

Thanks for your insight and apologies again for the delay. Star Mississippi 01:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply