Wishing Moneytrees a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Best wishes! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the 2nd opinion: I got the impression that the ip claims to be the author of the cited text, who is (understandably) hesitant to word the same in a less elegant way. I found that too difficult to intervene. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Gerda Arendt, I think you're right in that assessment; I also think that if they feel that way, they could follow the steps of WP:DONATETEXT that Diannaa outlined, so they get to keep the wording without issue. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know there was an SPI investigation into me (until about a few hours ago). I initially left a message on @Tamzin's Talk page. But then I saw that you judged the SPI investigation as "Inconclusive, check doesn't say anything one way or another to me. Behavioural evidence needs evaluation".

I am not suggesting you were acting in bad faith, I am respectfully saying that this is not a sockpuppet account and this is the only Wikipedia account that I have.

Like I wrote on the SPI case topic, if you look at my IP, you will see I do most of my edits/posts from a static residential IP owned by an ISP. Sometimes I edit from a phone, so all the mobile edits should be from an IP range owned by the same ISP/telephone company (different than my residential ISP). They will all be in the same geographic range. Sometimes around the holidays you might see edits from a different geographic location. Which brings me to my second point, if you look into my contributions you will see I demonstrate knowledge of two languages other than English, and both languages correspond to the geographic areas of my IPs. [1] [2] It would be a crazy coincidence if the person banned for sockpuppetry also spoke the same three languages, but I don't think that is the case.

This is a serious accusation and I don't want to come across as too defensive, but I feel the need to defend myself. This isn't like a content dispute or a warning or something, this is the kind of allegation that can prejudice other editors when they interact with me. Editors responding to the SPI were talking as if it could be possible, when I know that it is an absolutely ridiculous accusation. Yet I am still worried that it is being taken seriously. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Ravel's birthday, we also think of a conductor and five more composers ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of good photos on that article... Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Ravel? I found one that is not in the article for my latest, Tout est lumière. Click on birthday for background. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At his request, the Arbitration Committee restores the Oversight permissions of Moneytrees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 04:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Change to the Oversight team, March 2025

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For your quiet and persistent diligence in making Wikipedia a great place for editors. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 12:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much @ImaginesTigers:! Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrative action review regarding an action which you performed. The thread is February 2025 SPI conclusion by Moneytrees. Thank you. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 12:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TurboSuperA+ To be clear, I checked you because a Clerk had endorsed a check; as indicated by the inconclusive result, a check isn't necessarily a presumption of guilt/innocence. The case is now awaiting an assessment from a patrolling admin based on behavior, not technical evidence. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI request was badly formatted, there were no diffs provided and it was very vague with the OP themselves being uncertain. It should have been dismissed, not allowed to go on for so long. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 06:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the initial SPI was closed because it was scant; that was also why I initially took no action, other than moving it to the correct title. But then new evidence and diffs were submitted, and it was reopened by a SPI clerk, who endorsed a checkuser. I checked, couldn't make a clear judgement, and deferred to behavioral evidence. You've since posted a rebuttal that seems plausible; if you are being truthful then you needn't worry, someone else will eventually come along and close without action. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I just don't like the "suspected sockpuppet" label hanging over my head, that's all. But I'll be patient. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 19:19, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am just wondering about 2 questions regarding the Gordon RFC: One: That was an article citation about a rivalry. Not families in LA Second: How was the club history section a copyright violation? Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moneytrees Just read and think for a moment, is this: [3] a citation about rivalry between Gordon and Northern Suburbs, or about families in LA? Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Servite et contribuere, I'm looking at your edit right now; this is the citation you added: <ref>{{Cite web |last=Key |first=Clinton |last2=Marano |first2=Emily |date=2022-11-29 |title=Behavioral Interventions to Advance Self Sufficiency Next Generation (BIAS-NG): Los Angeles County, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families |url=https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.10539 |access-date=2025-03-12 |website=AEA Randomized Controlled Trials}}</ref> . I think you might've pasted the wrong URL in and clicked autofill without realizing what happened? The history section was added by this ip in 2013; using Archive.org, I was able to confirm that the club's history page was the same as what the ip added at the time. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moneytrees That's funny. Because this [4] links to an article about the Gordon Northern Suburbs rivalry for me. Sorry to ask, but are you in a different country? I am in Australia where that source works for me. It might not work for you. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moneytrees Here is the link with it's name (At least in my country): https://rugbynews.net.au/the-origins-of-the-northern-suburbs-v-gordon-rivalry-2/. Please just confirm, does it link to something else in your country? Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Servite et contribuere Yeah, that URL links me to the RFC rivalry... it's just not the URL you used in the article, I pasted what you added in my above comment. I'm in America right now, but I don't see how that would change the content of the citation you added, unless that DOI redirects to the Rugbynews.net.au article in Australia? But then, why is the title different than the title of the Rugbynews.net article? I get this is more confusing since the content is revision deleted and you can't see it; I can ask for another admin to verify what I'm seeing, to be sure. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moneytrees That would be good. I am pretty sure I did use it in the article. I will admit I might have (Unintentionally) committed a copyright violation by copying too much from the source. I find it tough to determine copyright violation. If I do commit it, please let me know. Just like what the first userinfobox is on my user page in the info section Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(this is the edit being discussed, for reference) Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moneytrees Hope I am not disturbing you, but when you wake up, I am just letting you know, although not important, I have honestly never seen so many consecutive revisions be hidden, nor so far back. Just expressing my view of this Servite et contribuere (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can second that the content Moneytrees posted from the diff is accurate. (FWIW, I'm not in the US.) The article linked in this thread wasn't linked anywhere in the diff, so it's very possible that the wrong URL was used to generate the citation—it's a valid citation, just of a different article. Giraffer (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]