Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Most of the participants in this discussion are accounts which appear to have been created in immediate response to this discussion or to a previous, closely related one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democracy & Nature. Thus for purposes of closure, any user with no significant contributions outside these two discussions, and outside the articles being voted upon, shall be considered a sock (and/or meat) puppet, and his/her vote is hereby disregarded. That having been said, this article has been deleted by a vote of 2-0. Have a nice day! — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 19:15, Dec. 25, 2005

The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy

[edit]

Vanity Page, mere reproductions of already published journals, no publisher, no original contributions, self-promotion for one Mr. Fotopoulous, not international but local (Greek) editorial board DisposableAccount 23:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a lie that the journal does not publish original contributions. Even when it reproduces articles (which were available before only to subscribers) it publishes mostly completely UPDATED versions of them and it even offers entire books published for the first time in English as special editions. Furthermore, as from the last issue (September 2005) the journal increasingly publishes original contributions like that by David Gabbard & Karen Anijar Appleton and the next (January issue) will consist entirely of original contributions. Finally, the accompanying Newsletter consists entirely of new contributions (already 24 of them) and many of the contributions to the NL have already been reproduced in international papers, magazines, indymedia etc. --TheVel 15:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP The journal, following the example of several serious theoretical journals, is offered on line. This means there is no capitalist publisher involved and therefore the journal can be offered free to all internet users and also secures a much greater degree of freedom to editors from profit considerations. The contributions are still refereed as in the journal’s predecessor D&N. To say that the articles appear as reproductions is a falsification, distortion, and affront to those international authors who have contributed to the journal. User:john 12:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This comment was posted by John sargis and not John as signed. This user has no contributions other than those related to this article. Stifle 00:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEPIt seems to me that the same disgruntled person who began the attack against the journal Democracy & Nature last month (using then the Paul Cardan nick), after his real motives (i.e. his personal vendetta against Takis Fotopoulos became all too clear and the vast majority of users voted to keep the entry, came back now. In fact he cannot even hide his rage betraying again his real motive (‘vanity page –self promotion for ONE Mr Fotopoulos’)! As regards the Editorial Board, it consists of an Editorial Committee which runs the journal and its members are based in Greece (apart from Takis Fotopoulos, the editor, who is based in London, UK). The International Advisory Board consists of well known theorists and activists of the International Left. The same applies to its contributors. User: Narap43 Webmaster of the International Journal of Inclusive Democracy
    Comment: Thank you to Narap43 for pointing out that he is the webmaster to this group. His contributions are exclusively to this article, its AFD, one of the group's members, and Democracy & Nature. Stifle 00:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "KEEP" I share the arguments above! From my computer at the University at the moment here is a Login error and the account creation of wiki is temporarily disabled but I don't have the time to try later. So accept my vote! StudentofLife, 17.12.05
  • "KEEP" (Hope now it is working!)StudentofLife

Here is the proof: The user name DisposableAccount was first used on 00:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC) when the user, in the discussion on the AfD on Democracy & Nature journal (the predecessor of The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy), wrote a comment indirectly supporting the AfD and causing an administrator to comment:"simply using an ad hoc username which hasn't been used anywere else in Wikipedia and will therefore probably be discarded soon afterwards" -- like, say, "DisposableAccount"?—SarekOfVulcan 01:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The same user name was used again on 30 November 2005 when the user made a malicious comment, which was PROVED by other users to be false in : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democracy_%26_Nature#Dissenting_views
Finally, when User: Narap43 above expressed the legitimate suspicion on 19:22, 16 December 2005 that DisposableAccount is a sock puppeteer who edits under more than one name (User: PaulCardan, who played a leading role in promoting the AfD on Democracy & Nature and DisposableAccount, who made the present AfD on 23:43, 14 December 2005), the following interesting development took place. Just a few hours after the comment by User: Narap43 was made, DisposableAccount added the following comment to his own account WITH THE CLEAR INTENTION TO COVER HIS STEPS AND DECEIVE WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATORS: “I specialize in spotting users who write either using no username, or simply an ad hoc username which hasn't been used anywhere else in Wikipedia and will therefore probably be discarded soon afterwards. Hence the choice of "DisposableAccount". Oh, the irony! 01:15, 17 December 2005”
I hope this would prove his bad faith to any bona fide Wiki user and administrator. User:Sandy 10:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get it together dudes. Enough with this Sherlock Holmes business. He is so-and-so and she is so-and-so. I've only appeared in Wikipedia when I saw ad hoc usernames, i.e. sock puppets. And now you're claiming I'm one myself. (while also using ad hoc usernames, with which you haven't contributed anything anywhere else on Wikipedia) L.o.l. What's this crap about me covering my steps and deceiving Wikipedia administrators? I simply wrote on my user page what it is I do around here.
I even told SarekOfVulcan that I'm gonna AfD your vanity page before I put it up for deletion, and he (wisely enough, as it turns out) said "I'm not getting involved with this one again. Good luck, though!"
I haven't met any greeks, but if this is what you guys look like, then "My big fat greek wedding" was right on the money!
If you keep this behavior up (e.g. saying I am PaulCardan or Stifle just 'cause I wanna maintain the Wikipedia policies) I'm just gonna stop contributing to any entries that are related to you (effective immediately). But there's lots more where you guys came from...
- User:DisposableAccount 21:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your tactics are well known since your intervention in the AfD debate on D&N. This intervention had nothing to do with supporting Wikipedia’s policy and had everything to do with Goebbellian tactics! Then, when we complained that the result of the AfD debate was summarized inaccurately by an administrator as ‘no consensus’’, at the very moment when the vast majority of users sided against deletion of the D&N entry, you wrote: “Of course you're going to get a majority when the same people show up and vote over and over again in favor of keeping your journal. The point however is what ACTUALLY EXISTING Wikipedians voted”. And you wrote this, in full knowledge of the fact that this was a blatant LIE, since the vast majority of ACTUALLY EXISTING USERS (as we proved) had voted against the AfD. This, excluding all those who have not contributed anything before to Wikipedia (although properly registered users) who presumably, according to some silly Wikipedia regulation, are considered somehow second class citizens! As regards your ironic comment about the “Sherlock Holmes business” you never explained the “coincidence” that you remembered to define your function in the Wikipedia, as a guardian of the above mentioned regulation, a month after you began to play this role and—again “by coincidence”—always in relation to the same journal (i.e. The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy and its predecessor, D&N).
There is a simple way to prove that we are wrong: can you give us exact data about how many other interventions in accordance with your self-defined function you have made, apart from the ones related to D&N and its successor The International journal of Inclusive Democracy? Also, we would be grateful if SarekOfVulcan, who as he showed in the AfD discussion on D&N specializes in checking DNS addresses, could do the same with regards to the addresses used by Paul Cardan and DisposableAccount. It would be very interesting indeed if he finds a close similarity between the two addresses. Particularly so if they both are found somewhere in Illinois, where it is well known that the …Greek student who used the Paul Cardan username presently lives! I hope that you will not use the cheap trick again of “Sherlock Holmes” business in order to avoid a substantiated reply. User:john 19:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request How long is this going to last? Five days have already lapsed since the request and the discussion seems to have finished (with an overwhelming KEEP). I think it is quite reasonable to ask the administrators to remove the AfD banner from "The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy" --TheVel 18:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why are the opinions of the Editorial Board disqualified and the opinions of Disposable Account (who we believe is the disgruntled ex-member of the Editorial Board who was posting also under the nick Paul Cardan) are not? We asked for evidence that Paul Cardan and Disposable Account do not have similar addresses and we haven't received a reply on this. Even if we exclude all those for whom Stifle and Sarek made dubious comments about john not signing as john sargis

sandy not signing as Sandyshevack, and Stifle thanking Narap for identifying himself as webmaster of the Group, still this means that 66% of participants rejected the AfD. Isn't this a concensus? User:john sargis 21:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just want to say that it was only a few hours ago that I realized there is an AfD on this page. Up to this point, I have NOT participated in it. I'd also like to point out that I had nothing to do with the AfD on the Democracy & Nature entry. As anyone who is not blind can see, that AfD got started by User:SarekOfVulcan who is also not participating in the present exchange -- Paulcardan 23:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Good! But nobody provided yet the evidence requested about your address and that of DisposableAccount to persuade us that they do not refer to the same person. Also, although the AfD on the D&N entry was started by User:SarekOfVulcan, the discussion page of D&N shows clearly your crucial role in supporting it. Finally, I notice that the present Afd was made on 14 December and according to WP Deletion policy the lag time on articles for deletion is five days and at the end of this period a decision has to be made on whether to keep or delete the page concerned. Still, no decision has yet been made although seven days have already lapsed! User:john sargis 23:00 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The number of people trying to push this to be closed is concerning me. I don't know why an administrator hasn't either closed this or marked it as a relist for lack of consensus yet. Stifle 00:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is scandalous! In clear violation of WikiPedia rules the AfD banner remains 10 days after it was put there by a well known malicious user--as it was shown above!!! What forces this silence????--TheVel 11:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I vote to keep, because Stifle is suggesting to stifle my vote and be discounted because I didn't sign "properly". The Journal is extremely important as a theoretical analysis that the anti-systemic Left badly needs. User: john sargis 10:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I vote to keep the Inclusive Democracy journal , for its anti-systemic stance against the transnational elites' increasing concentrations of economic and political power. User:tommy silva 11:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_International_Journal_of_Inclusive_Democracy&oldid=1144796865"