2.243.43.99

Hello there,

Please stop reverting relevant high-quality content and references, even if the author may have been responsible for the original addition.

---

Sidbishnoi: I definitely agree. I came to this IP's page to make him stop reverting. All references are related and well-written.

What is happening here? @Sidbishnoi and Finncowboy: WP:SIG + timestamp, please. El_C 13:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@El C An IP is reverting changes by an autoconfirmed user. Even if self-citation, Wikipedia allows self citation if with good nature and related content. I looked into E3A contributions. Only 4 of 160 in the past several years were about citing new references. The articles are published in good journals. I say they can stay and help readers. Finncowboy (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Finncowboy, what are you talking about? There's way more than 4, including some very prominent pages such as: Economics, Real estate, Machine learning, Nomad, and even Twitter. El_C 13:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

You're correct. I am looking at the papers. The references occurred over 4 years and I say this is not excessive: "Citing oneself is allowed on Wikipedia, but are discouraged from excessive self-citation."

If you become too keen on pages, half the references are self promotion. For example, look at [3] in Machine learning, unrelated paper and many more in Twitter and other pages.

Now look at the Twitter change. It's a paper about Twitter trends with statistics, very related.

We can cut some slack here. The content are related. Finncowboy (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. To start with, I don't know anything about this being a self cite. What do you base that on? But even if so, the pages I listed are very prominent, so I definitely think it violates the spirit of WP:SELFCITE and WP:PROMO, regardless of the rate in which this user is adding it to pages. As an uninvolved admin, I am tasked with handling WP:COI or WP:PAID, which is what I'm currently doing. El_C 14:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your work. Please also note my below comment: there is a good case for further inspection and reverting :)

About self-cite, I thought that these were being reverted because of self-citation. I'm fine with reverting, but I do believe this seems hostile against a novice user. They also have done some good unrelated changes that may not continue, because of multiple reversion and messages in one day. Finncowboy (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@El C If you look keenly at [3] in Machine Learning, you see that it is shady and should be reverted (not the case for E3A's changes):

- It is [2] in Multi-agent_system.

- It's completely irrelevant to the pages.

- It is on the first line or first paragraphs of the page.

Please reconsider your view on the topic. It matters more if we see the action. I say E3A is quite a good user considering it did not add spams or unrelated content. The works were related to the core of pages.

But I do wonder if Wikipedia can prevent this kind of action with a software. Why no one has noticed Multi-agent_system[2]. Finncowboy (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

My view reflect longstanding policy and best practices. The salient fact is that the user has added a citation by Rahimberdi Annamoradnejad (a page which they are the author of) to multiple pages, some very prominent. So I challenge that a little investigating is due rather than instant blind faith (i.e. balancing WP:AGF and WP:PACT). El_C 14:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Your work actually seem hostile or personal to me. Is this person someone you know? Because I am seeing a little unprofessional angry responses in here and also in E3A page. Why aren't you worried about the one I found which I say has much more priority to investigate?

Either way, this seems like a self-citation. Although I am not seeing citations to Rahi... in most edited pages, and I am thinking this may not be it. @El C Finncowboy (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't believe I've ever met any of you. Just patrolling WP:RFPP. But feel free to seek review in any forum you see fit. El_C 14:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Also: I appreciate your work doesn't quite align with Your work actually seem hostile or personal to me, but I'm getting the sense that this conversation has probably reached the end of its usefulness. El_C 14:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

That's fine. I will.

The 'appreciation' was honest and a result of my first impression of your work, which you did not respond. Then I realized you are very keen only on one person, both in here and in the user's page, notes, etc. Then, I was wondering that who this IP is? Was this you trying to not disclose who you are, who suddenly came with the admin user and act surprised?!

Maybe I am thinking too paranoid about this. I don't care about a reference, but I am feeling some personal connections here. I agree to end the conversation. Love all. Finncowboy (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

You do whatever you see fit, but I'd advise you to double check the facts before jumping to all sorts of conclusions. El_C 15:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

---