Forum talk:Popping (Under revision)/Archive1

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Cutting To The Chase

In a nutshell: At issue is the fact that the section proposed for deletion is inappropriate for WikiFur because it has absolutely nothing to do with anthropomorphic animals or furry fandom. The focus of the debate is over appropriateness of content for WikiFur, not "support" for popping. —Xydexx 14:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

After a careful reread of the section in question, I concur with the notion that this section is not furry-related and can be deleted. The only possible exception is the following: "(...) the act of popping is generally viewed as disturbing by non-poppers, especially when animal-shaped inflatables are being destroyed." But that's tenuous at best and may be adequately addressed in the section about Balloonies. --mwalimu 22:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if there are actual reasons, why exactly should the section be deleted, instead of attempting a neutral POV in it? (Apart from labeling the article "irrelevant", and the RP/Balloonie restrictive line of reasoning?) --Wolfkid23 23:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
There are already valid reasons why it should be deleted: It has nothing to do with what WikiFur is about, and—more to the point—WikiFur is not an appropriate forum for airing your personal disagreements. —Xydexx 00:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
To summarize and review the main points of debate that are still open on the article's original Talk page against the section "Popping and Inflatophilia" (hereafter referred to as: Section), in my reading:
(For those new to the conversation and are unfamiliar with popping and inflatophilia within and outside of Furry context, the current articles give a brief description, IMO.)
Concerns brought up against Section's contents were:
- The article didn't cite sources. Provided sources either don't or just partly match the claims in the article, they are weak and also contain conspiracy theories (esp. the Popinion-link). (Xydexx)
- Answer: Provided links were initially left without discussion, then dismissed without bringing counter proofs, name-calling and other disinformation tactics. Probably without reading them at all. (Wolfkid23)
Concerns brought up against Section's existence were:
- Popping (inflatophilia sometimes also mentioned) is not related to the Furry fandom in any way, with exception of Balloonies. (Xydexx)
- Answer: Inflatophilia and popping are as related to the fandom as e.g. plushophilia. There are Furs who are not Balloonies but are inflatophiles and even poppers. (Wolfkid23)
- The Section is only a continuation of a debate on a particular forum (Inflates.yiff). (Xydexx)
- Answer: The debate is not restricted to Inflatables.yiff. The popping phenomenon affects all inflatophile forums, Furry or not. (Wolfkid23)
- Wolfkid23 attempts POV pushing. (mwalimu)
- Answer: realizing this I attempted to calm down discussion and insisted a neutral POV Section based on consensus. (Wolfkid23)
I have left out the points which were solved by consensus and also ad hominems, the edit war and other uncivil solutions not related to the article.
I would encourage other Mods and non-Mods to join the discussion and examine the article and its circumstances and its relevance.--Wolfkid23 02:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It should be noted that Popinion's unsupported claims on IYR have already been thoroughly debunked—by and large there is no evidence whatsoever to back them up. A similar attempt to disrupt Hollowpaws by importing Popinion's argument there was intercepted by the Admin and deleted. Whether WikiFur ought to be home to an argument which has nothing to do with furry fandom or anthropomorphic animals is left as an exercise to the reader.
I've taken the liberty of correcting the inaccurate characterization of the IAFP mailing list as a non-popper group, as this is entirely WolfKid23's POV. The IAFP mailing list maintained a neutral stance on popping. —Xydexx 06:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
In order not to sidetrack conversation, I suggest concentrating on the questions addressing the Section's existence first. After establishing its existence (or dismissal), we can concentrate on its content. I'm going to react to the questions regarding IAFP and Hollow Paws later.
I would also like to ask to refrain from repeating the importance of having the article removed, and please drop the suggestive negative labels when talking about others' claims.
So, IMO the first point to reach agreement on is whether the Section (as a whole) should be kept or deleted, or alternatively, which parts should be kept or deleted.--Wolfkid23 23:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
If you're going to request dropping the negative labels, perhaps you should practice what you preach and stop characterizing requests for evidence as "disinformation tactics." I understand you have strong feelings about the subject, but so far the claim that non-popper groups are being "taken over" or "shut down" by some shadowy group of poppers has been false and without foundation. —Xydexx 00:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any other argument for deleting the article besides that it's "unrelated to the fandom" and popping is restrictive to balloonies, or will you keep diverting the conversation? --Wolfkid23 01:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, as stated above: WikiFur is not an appropriate forum for airing your personal disagreementsXydexx 01:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I can assure you that the creation of the article had no personal disagreement involved. (On top of that, reviewing our conversation this far, I think I have more right for complaints of personal attacks.) Also, as already stated, popping is a general phenomenon, not restricted to one or a few groups. The article also mentions more forums and cites references from various sources. --Wolfkid23 01:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Which is irrelevant because popping as a general phenomenon has nothing to do with what WikiFur is about. Considering the argument was given the heave-ho when it disrupted IYR and Hollowpaws, I can't imagine why WikiFur users would be willing to put up with it here, where it is even less relevant. —Xydexx 02:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
This conversation starts to get repetitive, like a damaged record. In the article, forum posts are cited only as references, they have nothing more to do with WikiFur. Are there other arguments for deletion? --Wolfkid23 02:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
No additional reasons. —Xydexx 02:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Then, as all points of support for deletion were objected to, we could remove the article from being marked for deletion and start discussing article's contents, if Mods have no further objection. --Wolfkid23 03:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Um, no. Why would we remove the section from being marked for deletion when the reasons it should be deleted are still valid? You have yet to provide a convincing argument as to what pool toys have to do with furry fandom (as stated by Mwalimu above, it's a tenuous connection at best, and even a well-known inflatophile like myself has said it's not related), and why WikiFur should be used as a platform to continue an argument that has nothing to do with furry fandom in the first place (as stated by GreenReaper previously, the content or activities of specific forums or mailing lists is a subject for discussion elsewhere, and this isn't the place to try to win an argument). —Xydexx 04:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Pool toys can be brought in connection to the fandom through inflatophilia. It can be debated whether inflatophilia is part of the fandom (if we accept self references), but it is definitely part of WikiFur. If I read Mwalimu's statement well, he didn't state that inflatophilia and popping are totally unrelated. The only articulated concerns were POV related, which I attempted to correct. Mwalimu's second remark brought no further arguments.
But are the fandom and inflatophilia really unrelated? Whether IYRU is a Furry site or not is discussed, with many Furs there, some of them - yes - poppers. Hollow Paws is a Furry forum. Also Furs'n'Floats. See, I'm not making this up.
GreenReaper's remark was cited out of context. It is a reflection of your assumption, namely, that I was supposedly kicked out of a forum and trying to take revenge on WikiFur. As above, I state that there were no such personal motives in starting the article. Outside than being a nonpopper, of course. --Wolfkid23 06:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
IYRU isn't really a furry site, it's just run by furries. There aren't "many" furries there, considering your link includes only a handful in an estimated userbase of 1000+. There are 19,780+ messages on the message board; less than 1% of them have anything to do with furry fandom. Likewise, the picture and files sections—with perhaps the sole exception being AxeCat's recently-added pictures—are devoid of furry content. Hollowpaws and Furs'n'Floats have about as much to do with furry fandom as Scion Furs does, i.e., they're groups run by furries, but they're not about furry fandom. Having other interests besides furry fandom doesn't mean those interests are part of furry fandom.
And no, I don't think I took GreenReaper's remark out of of context at all. WikiFur isn't a place to import arguments from other forums that have nothing to do with furry fandom. I mean, you haven't really explained why it's so important for you to carry out a crusade against popping here, but I do know you're pretty much the only person who is so vehement about the issue. If you really want a forum to voice your opinions about it, I don't see why you can't do so on LiveJournal. —Xydexx 22:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
If these sites are run by Furs, then they can be considered as Furry sites, can't they? Your line of reasoning seems to occupy a self-serving bias: you fail to call Furry groups as such despite overwhelming evidence only because doing so would nullify your parroted-to-hoarse statement (or, fall-back point), that "inflatophilia and popping are unrelated to the fandom and WikiFur".
The rules on WikiFur make publication of this material possible. Even though you might want to be the decisive authority that decides what is Furry and what is not and what belongs to WikiFur or what not - facts are stubborn things, as we all know.
I also encourage your vehement efforts in attributing malicious motives to the opening of this article.
My basic reason was and still is that I want to provide accurate information on this controversial matter. The accurateness of the article and the cited sources were further proven during our conversation, especially those describing poppers' line of behaviour: creating disruption, posing as nonpoppers (in this case, you pose as neutral), taunting, et cetera.
I have deliberately avoided referring to personal matters in the article and I deliberately avoided denying or confirming your assumptions whether I have had any personal argument on these sites or not or whether I was kicked out from any of them or not. Your ongoing outing attempts will be met by the appropriate policies.
Thank you for referring me to LJ - some are voicing their concerns there already and it even supports the validity of the article.
Now that we have cleared this up, it's time for you to answer some questions that were left unanswered this far. How would you define "neutral standpoint" in relation to popping? (Is it partly popping and partly non-popping?) Why did you give supportive statements to this popper? Why do you want to vanish the article? Why the edit war? Why do you apply sophisticated disinformation tactics, instead of reasoning? Why will you attempt to avoid answering these questions? --Wolfkid23 00:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow, guess I touched a nerve there... -=)
By your logic, Xydexx's Exploring and Modern Ruins Page is a furry site, simply because it's run by a furry. Such is clearly not the case. Furry sites generally have furry content.
Pointing out a possible conflict of interest doesn't fall under any of the criteria listed in Wikipedia's prohibition of posting personal information, sorry. You're grasping at straws there, although the fact that you admit you've got something to hide doesn't really make you look good.
Glad you enjoyed the LiveJournal link. As I said, you're pretty much the only person who's so vehement about the issue. Dr. Agon Rawg's LJ doesn't really support the supposed "validity" of this article... it sounds rather paranoid and ridiculous, IMHO. Unless of course you actually believe his vague and unsupported claims that there's some super-secret cabal of poppers—or perhaps the Russian Spetsnaz—harassing non-poppers into submission by leaving bits of paper on their lawn... or whatever he's on about.
I mean, c'mon... seriously? The Russian Popper Mafia? What would that be, the Popfia? -=D
I'm going to hazard a guess and say you're projecting your own behavior onto poppers. Remember, poppers weren't the ones disrupting IYRU or Hollowpaws—both sites you've curiously obfuscated your identity on—with this argument. And surely your accusations of poppers being sockpuppets isn't merely an effort to divert attention from yourself, right?
You know what the funniest part about all this is? The fact that Dr. Agon Rawg pointed to this article and tried (and failed) to drum up support for his crusade against poppers on LJ and Hollowpaws, yet hasn't shown up in months to make his otherwise outspoken opinions known. Doesn't that seem a little odd? I mean, it's not like he doesn't have an account here.
Oh well. It's nice to know you're here to go to bat for him in any event. —Xydexx 06:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't ask that very last question without a reason and boy I was right. "When faced with uncomfortable questions, do not reply and divert the conversation as far as possible. Since attack is the best defense, bite when cornered!" - says our (not-so-)imaginary Disinfo 101. Talk about grasping into last straws. Let's see if it is me from the two of us who has something to hide.
I can't speak for Dr. Agon Rawg or others, maybe they will join if they'll like. I can't help but think that you push the conversation to associate me with one or another nick on the forums or WikiFur so you can agitate for online (and offline) retaliation for writing a realistic article on popping. I think this perceived fear of retaliation is the basic reason for other nonpoppers not joining this discussion. Which tells a lot about the goings of things on the inflatophile forums. Plus, you're creating rumor-mongers on LJ, this is getting more and more interesting...
That's why I will not react either in an affirmative or negative manner to your outing provocations.
Again, your suggestion that I'm alone with my opinion against popping is countered by the vast number of different sources already cited in the article. Nonpoppers aren't silent because they tolerate popping, but because they are afraid of retaliation, i.e. ridiculed, being labeled as intolerant, paranoid or nuts or kicked out from the popper-moderated forums, should they speak up.
You also try to frame me for sockpuppeting with suggestions. As for me sockpuppeting or not, I kindly ask the Moderators to check whether this is true and also check Xydexx' records for sockpuppeting.
I start to get the overall inspiration that you imagine yourself as some sort of a demigod on WikiFur and you think you can get away with edit wars, you can immediately discredit anyone by just telling that "he's a nut", you can dismiss any evidence by just calling it "conspiracy theory", you can hide your biased POV behind a neutral facade, overall insisting that everyone will believe you and Moderators will always back you up by turning a blind eye to your ramblings.
As you seem to like to delve in my personal interests (and even in my person), similarly, you will not be able to circumvent answering to these questions: How would you define "neutral standpoint" in relation to popping? Why did you give supportive statements to this popper? Why do you want to vanish the article? Why the edit war? Why do you apply sophisticated disinformation tactics, instead of reasoning? Why do you avoid answering these questions? --Wolfkid23 22:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
You inexplicably persist in looking for patterns and connections which exist solely in your imagination. You have not provided any reliable evidence to back up your claims (nor filled out the proper forms for your laughable requests for information). You are desperately trying to continue an argument which has nothing to do with furry fandom on WikiFur. If people think you're paranoid, it has more to do with your shouting at windmills than any of my alleged "agitation" for "retaliation." Your wounds are self-inflicted, sir. You're looking for enemies that don't exist, and then fabricating them when you don't find them. Don't blame me if folks think you're nuts. —Xydexx 04:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay. No matter how much evidence or proof I bring, you label them as "invalid". You ask for more and more evidence just to dismiss all with other derogatory terms. Then if these fail (I keep on bringing evidence), you go on attacking my person (among others) to completely sidetrack the discussion. Disinfo at its best. You apply the tricks described here exactly as if you were reading this while composing your replies. Is it only me who sees patterns here?
If you have nothing else in defense for your standpoint of deleting the section, we can aswell have the "marked for removal" status lifted. I say this rather to the Mods as I don't see much (if any) chance for you ever admitting that even one of your arguments were countered or considering the debate closed. --Wolfkid23 22:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Very well. I agree. Obviously you believe there's some sort of conspiracy by the Russians to harass non-poppers, and no amount of reasoning seems to dissuade you, so I agree we should investigate their conspirative behavior and actions further and include it in the article.
I had no idea harassment by the Russian government (who may not actually be poppers, according to Dr. Agon Rawg) was so widespread! Consider, for example, their techniques of leaving litter on people lawn in order to suppress and intimidate them. Why, I found some scraps of paper on my lawn the other day, plus an empty Deer Park water bottle! I thought this was just random debris that had blown out of my neighbor's recycling bin, but I now realize it's something far more sinister—in fact it is concrete evidence that the Russian government is harassing me for being neutral on popping! Well, I for one refuse to be silenced! I think WikiFur is an optimal place to tell the world of their evil plans and fully support a complete investigation to expose them so they can be brought to justice and thrown in internet jail forever so non-poppers will not have to suffer in silence!
I looking forward to working with you, my new special friend! I'm sure together we can make this a very informative article. —Xydexx 04:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
(decreasing indent for readability)
Definitely a strange turn in conversation, after all this, now it is you who claim to be harassed.
Now I'm confused. Assuming that your statement is true and you are really being harassed (which might be true as the method you described, leaving litter on someone's property to mess with his head reminds me of ambient abuse), and the reason is "being neutral on popping", why did you deny the presence of outside pressure in closing IAFP and why did you dismiss all harassment claims as "conspiracy theories"? Why did you want to vanish this article? Who would have bias towards popping while being harassed by poppers? And so on.
Is the mention of the Russian government and Spetznaz some sort of intimidation?
I sense that instead of concentrating on the main issues (i. e. the reason this Forum was created), the conversation got diverted and evolved into "verbal boxing", which can be entertaining for a few readers who like flamewars but it certainly won't bring forward substantive discussion. I know I should assume good faith but TBH I still have concerns about your intentions of making this a "very informative article". --Wolfkid23 04:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, you're not the only one who is confused, and yes, I'm definitely being harassed by the Russian Popper Mafia—I even posted a picture of the spagmump I found as evidence, so you know I'm not making this up! Although to be honest, I don't know if it's the Russian Popper Mafia or Spetsnaz—that's just a guess based on what Dr. Agon Rawr said (he lives in Hungary and he says the tactics he described are used by the KGB, and he probably knows more about them than I do anyway), so that's good enough for me! Speaking of which, I found another present from our mysterious shenanigan this evening when I perambulated up the pedestrian walkway to investigate my postal receptacle: A game token from Chuck E. Cheese! (Chuck E. Cheese is a game parlor/restaurant for kids... on the outside possibility they don't exist on your planet.) I am not sure how they think a mere game token will intimidate me, but obviously this means the popper obnubilation is related to furry fandom as the mascot for Chuck E. Cheese is a giant anthropomorphic rat. Out of curiosity, have you found any similar objects on your property? Also, I just discovered that Chuck E. Cheese has a video game that involves popping balloons, as seen in this YouTube video! Clearly, the game token is an attempt by them to get me to pop balloons and do their evil bidding for them! The nearest Chuck E. Cheese to me is in Sterling, about 15 kilometers (75 furlongs) away from me—I am thinking of stopping by and demanding an explanation! But they will probably deny everything... you said THEY tend to do that when confronted with irrefutable evidence!
As for my denying the existence of outside pressure in closing the IAFP, I honestly didn't think there wasn't an absence of such. But then I went back and looked at the circumstances leading up to the closure of IAFP and found something interesting! Only mere days before shutting down the IAFP, I had attended the WikiFur party at MFF. I only stopped by for a few minutes, but according to my con report on LiveJournal there was a strange fellow whose name I didn't get. I don't even remember what he looked like, other than he was dressed all in black! He might have asked me about the IAFP, I don't really remember what we talked about... it seemed like we were talking for a long time but I swear I was only there for like 15 minutes tops. Therefore, it is entirely possible he probably used some sort of psychological techniques on me to subliminally and covertly pressure me to shut the IAFP down! That's probably why I don't remember any of it! Maybe GreenReaper can tell us who he was since he was there too?
Anyway, I do apologize for snapping at you and thinking you were just trying to import an argument that had nothing to do with furry fandom onto WikiFur; I was so obviously wrong! Imagine my embarrassment! At any rate, I'm so glad this discussion is finally moving us toward consensus and understanding of these important issues! Cheers! —Xydexx 20:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Dr. Agon states that he's being harassed and suspects there are others on the forums being harassed but he didn't mention names this far. If you feel (or are) (too) being harassed by people or organizations, you should alert the proper authorities. (However, in case authorities are harassing you, the case is a tad more complicated.) If this harassment has relations to people or forums in the fandom (inflatophile forums - in the context of this discussion), i.e. you are being harassed by people or moderators on certain forums, then would it be justified to bring it into this conversation.
Reckoning your previous behaviour, these tirades and (fake) apologies make your story hardly believable. Again, do these references to KGB and "men in black" serve as intimidation?
As for the article, if only the "it has nothing to do with the fandom" mantra is being recited about it but there are no (yet undiscussed) arguments brought up to support this, we could finally consider the article relevant to WikiFur. --Wolfkid23 05:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I am well aware that Dr. Agon’s claims are hardly believable! It is a bit incredible that Dr. Agon is being harassed by the KGB and Chuck E. Cheese! This is why most people on the forums don’t believe him, and more importantly, why it is critical that we remain obdurate in exposing the clandestine activities of the Men in Black and not allow them to intimidate us! I’m glad you agree the involvement of Chuck E. Cheese makes this discussion relevant to the fandom because he is a giant anthropomorphic rat who supports popping in video games! I am certain there are many other furry fans who are being harassed by him who are afraid to speak out! Did you notice how GreenReaper has refused to provide the name of the person at the WikiFur meet who forced me to shut down the IAFP? I think GreenReaper is acting suspicious and may be biased toward popping! I am not sure what authorities I should contact if I am being harassed by the KGB and Chuck E. Cheese, has Dr. Agon contacted the authorities yet? Is there a Hungarian version of Chuck E. Cheese? Perhaps there is not enough cheese over there, so he is always Hungary? Do you have any suggestions who I should contact about the harassment? We shouldn’t let the KGB intimidate Dr. Agon as they obviously have been doing, and we shouldn’t allow GreenReaper to protect the Men in Black either! I assure you my apologies are 100% sincere and am being totally serious as everyone knows I have no sense of humor and take the internet very seriously! Ask anyone, I am a Demigod of Internet Seriousness! —Xydexx 16:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The Conspiracy Continues!

Only minutes after I posted the above, someone rang the doorbell to my house! I ran to the door and opened it to find a box on my doorstep, and someone driving away in a white van! It looked like a USPS postal truck, but I can't be sure! When I opened the box and looked inside, this is what I found!


Coincidence? I think not! Clearly this is a message from the Russian Popper Mafia intended to intimidate me into silence! What a travesty of a sham of a travesty of a sham! —Xydexx 17:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Agon Being Monitored By Furry Zangelding?

New evidence has come to light that Dr. Agon's internet browsing habits are being monitored by a furry zangelding, or perhaps a wookalar. This is critically important and further details will follow shortly. —Xydexx 01:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ready For Review Any Day Now

So like, since the conspiracy theories are pretty well covered here, I think the article's ready for review by the Admins. Or I suppose I could write an article on the Russian Popper Mafia (if we, y'know, actually need to into further detail about a controversy which has nothing to do with furry fandom and isn't really a controversy), or expand on the mysterious circumstances of Wolfkid23's mysterious disappearance and how he was mysteriously eaten by a wookalar or something. The fact that there's no proof of this is evidence in itself! It's a conspiracy, I tells ya! -=) —Xydexx 18:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't disappear, just waited for you to stop throwing in smoke bombs.
In a debate, the smoke bomb tactic is usually applied when when there are no arguments left: the thread is cluttered with an overwhelming amount of (mostly irrelevant) information to totally disrupt conversation and divert it from the original point. This also resulted in editing and creating several other articles to escalate disruption.
Unfortunately (for you), the smoke bombs you threw in contain a high amount of sarcasm, sensitive info, personal attacks and even a personal address, which should be taken down. I also took notice of your second covert death threat ("decapitated") and user space harassment on my User page.
This discussion has now nothing to do with popping, it was turned into a rampage against people who speak up on the topic. This also underlines the very presence of harassment on inflatophile forums.
The original article had to be locked because of your disruptive editing, personal attacks and harassment conducted against me (and other users on inflatophile forums). Wikipedia usually regulates such actions with warning templates, temporary bans or bannings from editing an article. However, (probably) because you are an active contributor to WikiFur, there were no moderatory actions against you taken this far - not even a warning. As instead of reaching a civil tone you didn't cease to resort to intimidation and harassment, I now feel that stronger moderatory actions should be taken against you.
It is completely up to GreenReaper and other Mods whether they want to stop you or not from running amok and converting WikiFur into an Encyclopedia Dramatica style drama site.
It is also up to Mods to check whether I'm a sockpuppet of any other nick or not but only if a similar check is conducted on Xydexx.--Wolfkid23 04:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The article is currently locked due to a content dispute; GreenReaper says we need to work together toward consensus and a nuanced solution that will please everyone, so that's what I'm doing to the best of my ability. I am happy to hear you weren't decapitated or eaten by a grue, and look forward to many lengthy discussions with you regarding this important issue until it is resolved. I am also glad we have finally reached consensus on the global popper conspiracy and that you have no objections to its inclusion! I feel this is much more productive than arguing, despite your failure to produce any evidence or proof to back up your claims. We are finally making progress! However, if we are to continue I think you need to provide evidence that you weren't devoured by a wookalar and replaced with an exact duplicate, possibly a robotic sockpuppet!
GreenReaper has stated this controversy is interesting and relevant to WikiFur, and that we should include all sides of the story. I object to your blatant attempts at censorship and suppression of this important information on WikiFur. From what we know of poppers, you may actually be a popper posing as a non-popper in order to disrupt WikiFur. I'm sure GreenReaper will look into it, but I understand winter's just around the corner and he's probably busy filling his nornhole with carrots at the moment.
Thanks for pointing out my error on your user page; I've moved it to the appropriate page and appreciate your support in editing. Remember to assume Good Faith! It was a simple mistake, and trying to bait the moderators into action by throwing around groundless accusations of harassment isn't going to endear you to them. Sorry to say, I am not in any way responsible for the zangelding monitoring your internet activity. To be honest, any moderatory actions against me by GreenReaper will likely be motivated by the fact that he's biased towards popping. Have you noticed he's avoided elaborating on the Men In Black he invited to his WikiFur party to force me to shut down the IAFP? I think he may be hiding something! Indeed, very suspicious behavior. Perhaps he is a shenanigan. —Xydexx 06:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Closing Arguments

I will only be dealing with the Admins from this point forward, as trying to achieve consensus with Wolfkid23 (at the direction of the Admins) is apparently considered “harassment”. So be it. As for my recommendations:

  • The top half of the article should be merged to Balloonies. While it is related to furry fandom, it probably doesn’t merit its own article. This isn’t Inflatopedia.
  • The survey on popping/non-popping from that Spirou recklessly deleted, apparently without even bothering to review, should be re-added.
    • If Spirou insists we edit this article, he shouldn’t neglect his duties as an Admin by refusing to review it.
    • If Spirou is going to be part of the review process, he should unlock his Talk Page so editors are able to leave him messages as to the status of the article, rather than his previous standoffish and stonewalling behavior which is unfit for a WikiFur Admin.
    • If Spirou is unable to set aside his personal feelings and conduct himself as a neutral arbiter to resolve this dispute, he should either delegate this task to someone who can, or be removed as an Admin.
  • The section on “Popping and Inflatophilia” should be deleted. It is not relevant to WikiFur, and all the “controversy” stems entirely from one person who was trolling and attempted to troll Hollowpaws.
    • Despite multiple requests over the past four months, no evidence whatsoever has been provided to prove the dubious claims (implying some sort of conspiracy) currently being cited in this section as references.
    • WikiFur should not be a home for paranoid conspiracy theories that have been both debunked and rejected as trolling attempts elsewhere.
    • If the WikiFur Admins are indeed serious about not having “hoax” articles about “non-existent” groups, this section should be deleted with prejudice.

In the interest of not wasting everyone’s time with this further, I request that the Admins resolve this issue no later than 11:59 pm EDT on October 2, 2009. —Xydexx 20:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As for including all sides of the story - i.e. the viewpoint of poppers -, I think we have already witnessed a fair demonstration of that. Disinformation, intimidation, harassment, parroting. Vanishing all references to popping. No intent of reaching consensus.
I have had no intent to write an article on popping without sources (despite knowing that I have my POV on the question of popping) and the references of the original article are still valid. You created a nice "conspiracy theory" strawman out of the Popinion link (his description surprisingly fits your behaviour) - and despite I have suggested that if you have concerns about it we could remove that link you refused and went on pushing the vanishing of the whole article.
I also became aware that the article dealing with Dr. Agon Rawg and me (both created by Xydexx) were merged in a manner to insist that I'm a sockpuppet. Since there are no sources cited, I would like to know the very details on how this conclusion was derived.
Xydexx has long been parroting his suggestions that I'm a sockpuppet of one of several users from different boards who voice their opinions on inflatable boards (Pneuguin, Popinion and Dr. Agon Rawg), but forgot to provide concrete evidence apart from a lengthy and micro-detailed presentation on the online activity of these people (which had to be taken down) - is Xydexx' mere claims enough to be taken as base for such a merge, so then I can be accused of sockpuppeting and trolling?
But to clear this issue, I have already asked for a sockpuppet check for my account and also for Xydexx' account. Was this done already?
Furthermore, while I respect your honor on WikiFur, how come that after a long story of disruptive editing and receiving warnings for them you now start to insult moderators too?
To add more theatrical weight, you name this section "Closing Arguments" and even set time limits for Mods. Interesting, to say the least.--Wolfkid23 05:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Data Point

For reference, there isn't much conflict on the forums between poppers/non-poppers. There was Pneuguin on the IAFP was back when (I'd say one incident in twelve years is pretty rare), and Popinion trolling inflates.yiff. I suppose Dr. Agon Rawg's attempted trolling of Hollowpaws might count techincally, but by and large most forum users respect the guidelines and behave themselves, so conflicts like these are rarely an issue. —Xydexx 19:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Well the general irritation around here about the whole subject is pretty amazing, really. XD But that's why I put 'may'. You know? The general friction might cause a few problems here and there but tagging and the general amiability between the members of the community are usually enough to prevent any problems. That way, the article is as accurate as possible. After all, no one can account for the happenings on ever board, in every forum and in every corner of the furry and inflatable areas of the internet. Just can't be done. XD But I think the way it is currently is fine. n.n If I do say so myself. :3 GrayscaleRain 20:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Just offering some background information, that's all. I have no problem with the article as currently written. —Xydexx 20:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I propose this merge. GrayscaleRain 23:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
No problem with it, except you misspelled "Nuances." -:) —Xydexx 00:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)