User talk:174.6.200.40

August 2013

Please stop blanking appropriately sourced content on the Structured settlement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). If you have concerns with the content, take it to the article talk page for dsicussion. Repeated edit-warring will simply result in your account being blocked and/or the page being protected. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Commercial spam is not appropriate content. Previous people inserting that content have had the accounts blocked from editing. That is why it is different people re-inserting the content. JGWentworth is paying various people to keep their commercial spam intact.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.200.40 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 12 August 2013‎

It does not appear to be commercial spam. As I said, if you have concerns with the content, you should discuss it at the article talk page at talk:Structured settlement.

On a different issue, please review WP:NPA ... in short, stop accusing people of being paid to keep content on a page unless you have proof. Repeated attacks are likely to result in your account being blocked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need to reference a commercial on an informational page. It is blatant spam. I will continue to remove it as it is unnecessary. JG Wentworth is simply trying to get exposure for their company from this information page. With their persistent re-insertions, it is completely obvious that they are paying people to maintain their reference. Multiple people have complained about this issue. The only reason people would keep putting it back in is due to financial compensation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.200.40 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 12 August 2013‎

Consider this your final warning. You were told to discuss the disputed content - instead you blanked it and made your unsupported accusations again on the talk page. Blank the content one more time, and your account will be blocked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

More than one person has disputed this commercial spam. It will be continued to be removed one way or another. Stop spamming informational pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.200.40 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 12 August 2013‎

The only other person to have commented about the content on the talk page is another IP that traces back to the same geographic area as you. Should sockpuppetry begin as a result of this IP being blocked, the page will be semi-protected to prevent your disruption the the article. As I have told you repeatedly - drop the unsupported accusations and discuss it on the article talk page. Gaining community consensus for a change is what will be required. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Why are you so insistent to keep reference to a commercial ad on an informational page? Why not list every single commercial from this industry in that case? The reason is that JG Wentworth pays people to ensure their spam stays up on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.200.40 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 12 August 2013‎

Continue to make unsupported accusations about other editors, and your talk page access can also be revoked for abuse of editing privileges. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

What a joke. Keep protecting the commercial spam. Great work! I will be reporting you as soon as I am unblocked.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

why would someone get blocked for trying to protect a page from commercial spam? Numerous people have disagreed with that commercial content being on the page. Someone is obviously being compensated to maintain their spam reference.

Decline reason:

When you're blocked for "making unsupported accusations against other editors", an unblock request that makes unsupported accusations against another editor is unlikely to be considered. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:29, 12 August 2013 (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.

I'm not an admin, but I have a few things to say here.

1. "why would someone get blocked for trying to protect a page from commercial spam?"—You're going against the existing consensus to keep that part of the article. If you had tried to establish a new consensus on the talk page that the JG Wentworth bit was indeed spam, then you might have gotten it removed. Instead, you edit warred, and you're now blocked.

2. "Numerous people have disagreed with that commercial content being on the page"—Who are these people? Glancing over the article's revision history, I only see you and another IP trying to get the info removed. Is it supposed to be a coincidence that both IPs trace to Vancouver? [1] [2]

3. "Someone is obviously being compensated to maintain their spam reference"—Keep making unfounded accusations against other editors like this and you'll just get your talk page access revoked. CtP (t • c) 19:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Structured settlement. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

---