User talk:Moneytrees

Moneytrees' Money Tree

Block removal

For how long am I blocked? Please remove my block. Talal Bin Hasan (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Talal Bin Hasan You're block until an admin (doesn't need to be me) is satisfied you won't violate copyright in your future edits. See the message I left you on your talk at the time I blocked you for more info. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:05, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Content dispute / arbitration

Hi Moneytrees i wanted to discuss with you regarding the claims that were made about my account regarding various subjects.

My mainspace editing record shows a strong retention rate:

• 692 total edits with a >90% retention rate overall.
• On Michael Jackson-related pages: 201 edits, 181 unreverted (90.05%), including 97% retention on Cultural Impact of Michael Jackson (71 out of 73 edits kept).

This shows that my editing history has been constructive and beneficial to the status of the pages, first and foremost

I began editing primarily on sales-related pages for most of 2024 before pivoting later in the year to editing Michael Jackson's pages, trying my best to maintain them up to Wikipedia standards of quality. The most my user talk page has had in the way of communication on Wikipedia is asking editors before my account was allowed to do anything to make edits for music sales based on certifications and updated record label submissions under the RIAA or other countries back in 2024.

The examples cited as battleground behavior or disruptive editing were content-focused talk page comments made by myself based on material already cited in the articles directly as sources or based on reliable sources that previously stood on the article or other articles, I was not inventing claims, but rather referring to reliable sources already present. While I acknowledge that my tone could have been softer in some cases, these were responses in ongoing content discussions. This issue is subjective leaning based on interpretation regarding content within the articles based on subjects brought up by other users.

What began as a discussion by other editors regarding canvassing, shifted for my case and instead the focus shifted to 'disruptive editing' based solely on talk page comments regarding content discussions and media based sources (For example citing the United Nations directly is something you flagged as a bad source).

I understand the focus shifted from canvassing to phrasing and tone in talk pages. If a temporary topic ban would help reduce editorial drama in this contentious area, I would be willing to accept that because i care about the status of Wikipedia and withholding the standards as to which we strive for Never17 (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Never17 The proposed decision is now up, and there's two sanctions related to you up for votes; a topic ban from MJ, and a full site ban, so you might want to discuss potential sanctions with Arbcom instead of me right now. That said, addressing what you've said here; "edit retention" is an abstract statistic that doesn't mean much, because it's not an accurate indicator for if edits are actually problematic. Problematic or poorly sourced content can stay in articles for a long time. Case in point is the MJ fandom edit; to be clear, the issue isn't the source. It's that one example of one girl doing the Moonwalk is cited as showing that South Sudan as a whole is a nation "[...] where his legacy remains prominent, through physical visits, tribute events, posthumous honors, mourning, or ongoing fan-driven recognition.". This is WP:CRUFT/WP:UNDUE and is pushing a fan's POV in favor of MJ.

That's not the real problem though-- Frankly, comments like these tend to lead to indefinite blocks for disruptive editing. Diffless, ranty arguing will be looked at very poorly by Arbs, and your explanation for them is seriously lacking; "This issue is subjective leaning based on interpretation regarding content within the articles based on subjects brought up by other users.". Sorry, but that's nearly incoherent, and doesn't align with your behavior. The issue isn't really tone, it's behavior and intent-- that's what you should focus on addressing if you want a lesser sanction from Arbcom. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I have never participated in one of these kind of arbitrations before and didn't even understand why i was called to it. I did try genuinely to explain my situation and yet people claim it makes it worse, so what i am i supposed to do? I have no idea, i tried & i asked for help. Never17 (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Dudley LeBlanc

Hi,

I left an identical comment on @Miraclepine's talk page as well. I'm looking for guidance on how to salvage an article that was nearly blanked after an investigation back in 2019:

The Dudley J. LeBlanc article currently is almost a stub with a non-standard mix of references. I saw that it used to be very comprehensive, although notably missing inline citations. And then, in 2019 there was an investigation and the result was Miraclepine deleted most of the content. The investigation page is blanked, and you wrote as an explanation comment, "We did it. The Billy Hathorn CCI has been finally defeated. Thank you to everyone who worked on it over the years".

My question: Where does this leave the article itself? In the subsequent 7 years, there's mostly only been changes to the article's categories, and a few sentences added. Are we allowed to rebuild the article? His biography will be largely similar to the removed content, and I suspect some of those references in the bulleted list would do well as inline citations. The infobox, if it contained correct information, would likely be identical. I guess I'm wondering if it would make sense to salvage the article by starting with the removed text as a draft that is verified and cited, line by line, and I'm wondering if that is allowed in cases like this (likely good content, but some problem with the editor and citations). Are there any published rules or guides about nearly blanking an article after an investigation, and about restoring an article after that has happened? Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Wikipedian-in-Waiting Sorry, that editor could've been clearer what they were doing in their edit summary and they should've left a notice on the talk page; see Template:CCI and WP:PDEL for an explanation. You can readd the content, but you'll need to make sure the text isn't copied from the source and that the citations actually verify the text. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:22, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Question about reapplying for NPP and Autopatrolled

Hi @Moneytrees, I hope you are doing well. I want your opinion on whether I should reapply for NPP and Autopatrolled rights. Since my unblock on 11 December 2025, I believe that I have had no major editing issues for the past six months which includes 22 new wikipedia pages, 14 Decemeber 2025 onwards. But, there was a SPI case involving me in March 2026. Do you think it is a good time for me to apply, or would it be better to wait longer? Charlie (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello @CharlieMehta, I would go ahead and reapply if you think you're ready; that SPI appears frivolous. You can link to this comment when reapplying-- I have no issue with the right be re-granted. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:18, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

@Moneytrees thank you. Charlie (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Possible sock puppet

Hi, it is regarding a suspected sockpuppet editing in a small topic area ('Sylhet' -related) apaprently sharing a similar sentiment/POV (that is the Sylheti language being a dialect of Bengali) like the sockfarm you identified. Would you be able to check it? Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk I get why you might say that, but a check shows they are very much Unrelated. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)