User talk:ANecessaryWeevil

Re:AIPAC

Hello, with the summary "rv pov" you removed the following from AIPAC:

The Economist magazine claimed AIPAC's political power is the one of the main reasons for America's support of Israel. "Why is America so much more pro-Israeli than Europe? The most obvious answer lies in the power of two very visible political forces: the Israeli lobby (AIPAC) and the religious right." ^[1]

^ "To Israel with love". The Economist. Aug 3rd, 2006. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Would you mind explaining why you believe this is POV?

Also, why did you change the title of "AIPAC espionage scandal" to "Franklin, Rosen, Weissman"? Surely the former is a more descriptive and well known title for that section? Thanks. ANW 08:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the passages in question because they were representative of a pov and were stated as fact. As they had proper sources it would be permissible in certain situations, however since there exists a plethora of mainstream references that contradict the aformentioned paragraph it would be inappropriate to present it as unequivical fact since it is likely a minority view. As for the retitling of the section, I believe it was justified since certain aspects of the scandal are still based mostly on speculation, and calling it "espionage" once again relates to WP:POV.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The POV wasn't stated as fact, it was presented as just a claim of The Economist in the "Criticism" section of the AIPAC page, which has many other such opinions from less distinguished sources presented in the same manner.

Regarding the title of the section, there exists a page already called AIPAC espionage scandal, and it seems to be the generally accepted name for those events. Franklin has pled guilty to conspiracy and admitted to passing classified documents to foreign officials so it doesn't seem POV to call what Franklin did "espionage". Would some other word than espionage such as "spy" or "conspiracy" be acceptable to you? Thanks. ANW 09:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Spy" or "conspiracy" would be even more pov. However I do see problems with the current title, perhaps something like "Lawrence Franklin scandal" would be acceptable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess the problem with that is that two former employees of AIPAC, Weissman and Rosen, have also been indicted. So it's not just about what Lawrence Franklin did, so that title wouldn't really be accurate. Perhaps "Espionage investigation involving AIPAC"

And do I take it you have no remaining objections to restoring the Economist quote? Thanks. ANW 10:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

I've blocked this sockpuppet account for now; as WP:SOCK says you cannot create sockpuppet accounts to "Avoid scrutiny from other editors". Specifically:

Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail. Using sock puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors can't detect patterns in your contributions. While it may be legitimate to do this from time to time (for example, by creating a special account to make edits that might serve to identify you in real life), it is a violation of this policy to create multiple accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions.

Since you have used this account to edit in the exact same areas, topics, and articles as your previous account, and to oppose editors you have previously opposed, I can see no legitimate reason for having this account. If you wish to switch from your old account to this new account, or wish to publicly declare that you are now using two accounts, so that accommodations for this can be made, please let me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? Who am I supposed to be? Thanks. ANW 17:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see; so you are pretending that you are not a sockpuppet. Are planning to stick to that claim? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

No reason given

Decline reason:

Sockpuppets are not to be used in this manner. --Shell ^babelfish 20:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

[1]