  == Re: Please be less bitey ==  I've read your comments on my talk page.  You are entitled your opinion of course but I stand by my actions.  This seems to be a clear case of spamming which needs to be dealt with firmly.  What is incontrovertible is that a few days ago 173.163.134.97 added links to several Fox Chapel Publishing websites to a range of articles.  When they were removed they were re-added by another IP editor and subsequently by Gloden, a new user.  It is also easy to verify that 173.163.134.97 is an IP address assigned to Fox Chapel Publishing.  If Gloden is to be believed then somebody at Fox Chapel added those links, and identical links were re-added by a new user acting independently less than 24 hours lately, and that users apparently created an account for the express purpose of adding those links. I believe that that is stretching credibility.  Sure, you'd need a CU to confirm it for certain but it appears clear that there is a prima facie case there.  Both user Gloden and the IP editors were told that the links added were in contravention of policy on external links but chose to ignore that fact.  The edit summaries suggest that the reverting edit summaries were being read and that they were aware of the nature of their addition but they were willing to persist in re-adding the links anyway.  There comes a point where AGF is no longer tenable: when it is clear that the true motives of an editor are not in the best interest of the project AGF should be dropped.  I believe that was reached a long time ago and when that point is reached the conclusion is simple: he is a spammer and should be dealt with accordingly.  My post at AN/I did not solicit any concerns about my own behaviour - the response seemed to confirm my reading of the issue.  Having said this I don't believe myself to be infallible so I'll open this up to editor review to see if the general consensus is if I have acted appropriately.    