From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Dubious and unreferenced claims[edit]

The only reference provided for any of this section is a failed trolling attempt from a user who may have been banned after at least three warnings from the Administrator. I'll leave it to the WikiFur Admins to decide whether this section is merely an attempt to continue the same behavior. Just my $0.02. —Xydexx 17:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You're trying to avoid the issue with disinformation techniques. First, trying to devalue my credibility by describing me as some 'banned user'. Then, in the very moment I added valid and proper references and proofs to the article, these were removed from the article and the discussion moved here to the talk page. My proofs were termed as improper or invalid, in the hope that they will be completely dismissed or forgotten along the discussion. This manipulation technique (evidence removal) is called whitewashing in the press jargon.--Wolfkid23 05:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for Review of Unsourced References[edit]

I'd like the admins to review the following unsourced references in this article:

  • "inflates.yiff is operated by poppers." — There is no source provided for this claim.
  • "inflates.yiff contains fetishes "contrary to" inflatophilia. — Popping is listed as a source, but no evidence is provided and even the Wikipedia article contradicts this.
  • "The IAFP forum was closed due to inactivity in December 2008, after nicks from inflatables.yiff appeared to post popping content, which was very rare before 2008 and was generally viewed as gross. Due to the already low number of posts, weak resistance and the already huge influence of other forums (especially inflatables.yiff), criticizing the habit of popping became frowned upon, causing near complete inactivity." — There is no source provided for this claim, and as list administrator of the former IAFP, I'd like to go on record stating this is an inaccurate summary of the general character and circumstances of IAFP's closure.

Xydexx 01:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not try to convince the admins that my evidences are improper, just because you neglect them. (Disinfo techniques again.) You even omitted two points completely: the issue of the YouTube videos by the users and the on-site whitewash campaign. Let's see then.
The site is widely advertised as inflatophile but is filled with images and comments involving (but not limited to) popping (toy destruction), scatophilia,... Again, the site is run by poppers (see below). Scatophilia: I provided a valid link, namely this one but let's see a second one to make sure, here. BDSM: on-site pictures only. I wouldn't like to link them here. In the Plush section the presence of scatophilia (smearing feces and urine on plush animals) is more rampant, I would encourage the WikiFur mods to take a look there too (though not without a warning of graphic imagery).
...fetishes totally unrelated or even contrary to inflatophilia. This is being discussed at the Popping article, where the reference also pointed. (Popping is most often motivated by sadism and not love (philia). As discussed there, the Wikipedia article and the DSM-IV-TR considers both sexual sadism and fetishism (inflatophilia) as paraphilia, paying no attention to the motives of each behaviour.)
Inflates.yiff is operated by poppers. The site is run by the_SaD, having a popping folder in the Pictures section (and more reeky stuff on plush.yiff). Khast, who is another moderator (who keeps claiming that he's a non-popper, for example while attempting to moderate Popinion), was active in the Poppers Yahoo!Group. His messages can still be read there (by doing a search) but his account and picture folder appears to be deleted. (Whitewash attempt?)
All other inflatophile forums that existed before or parallel to inflatables.yiff.... The given description was my interpretation of the events, drawing conclusions from the posts. Perhaps you as the IAFP list's moderator could give a more accurate summary of the events in question, which we would like to hear.
Participants directly or indirectly connected to the site keep posting videos to YouTube that depict popping... Please check the profiles and the YouTube accounts of the following users: #1 inflatableraptor, #2 northwestlooner, #3 vinyldragon AKA pootoypopper. I don't provide direct links to YouTube here as I don't want to generate traffic to their accounts, but these users are on YouTube under the same nicknames. Warning: graphic content/some may be shocking.
In March 2009, a sudden "whitewash campaign" has been started... Lots of things happened since March but what about this most recent thread? Poppers now claim to be victims of being 'criticized' (sic!) and announce a retreat to the Poppers Y! Group.
...Onboard activists and moderators who formerly openly engaged in popping now portray themselves as nonpoppers... As above.
...Disturbing content has also seemingly been cut back. That's how whitewashing works, isn't it?
I sincerely hope this is enough proof to consider putting back accurate information to the Inflatables.yiff Controversy section, instead of the current bleached version of it.--Wolfkid23 05:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding these claims and the "evidence" to support them, for the record and the edification of the Admins:
  • The site is widely advertised as inflatophile but is filled with images and comments involving (but not limited to) popping (toy destruction), scatophilia,...'
There is insufficient evidence to support this claim. Evidence consisted of two threads on IYRU which span one week's time in January 2009. This hardly justifies claiming the group is "filled with" said content. If anything, it is rarely mentioned, and even then in combination with inflatables and thus on-topic.
  • ...fetishes totally unrelated or even contrary to inflatophilia.
'There is insufficient evidence to support this claim. Evidence consisted of a Wikipedia article which contradicted this claim, and POV-pushing in the Popping article. Popping is not "contrary to" inflatophilia.
  • Inflates.yiff is operated by poppers.
There is some evidence to support this claim. Evidence consisted of the_SaD's folder (which also contains non-popping content... if having a popping folder constitutes being a popper, then logically having a non-popping folder constitutes being a non-popper—having both would constitute being neutral and simply making the distinction as a courtesy to non-poppers as is common practice to do so), and an unsupported accusation against Khast, a non-popper moderator of IYRU. Thus, IYRU seems to be maintaining a balance between the two.
  • All other inflatophile forums that existed before or parallel to inflatables.yiff...
There is insufficient evidence to support this claim Evidence consisted entirely of assumptions of events unrelated to IAFP and no reference messages were provided. The IAFP always maintained a neutral stance between poppers and non-poppers. The IAFP closed due to personal time limitations, not due to outside pressure or wholly-imagined conspiracy theories.
  • Participants directly or indirectly connected to the site keep posting videos to YouTube that depict popping...
There is evidence to support this claim, but it is irrelevant. Evidence consists of IYRU members who have YouTube accounts. (So what? IYRU allows popping content, but YouTube is a separate site from IYRU. If you don't like it, nobody's forcing you to watch.)
  • In March 2009, a sudden "whitewash campaign" has been started...
There is insufficient evidence to support this claim. Evidence consisted of thread on IYRU showing poppers getting tired of getting picked on (which handily contradicts the original unsupported claim that non-poppers were the ones being "teased" by poppers).
  • ...Onboard activists and moderators who formerly openly engaged in popping now portray themselves as nonpoppers...
There is insufficent evidence to support this claim. (No evidence provided.)
  • ...Disturbing content has also seemingly been cut back.
There is insufficient evidence to support this claim. (No evidence provided.)
Once again, I can't accept the mere inversion of my initial claims as contrary proof. My initial claims are still valid and whole. I won't play your game of requesting proofs just to dismiss them one by one. If any WikiFur moderator accepts this, kudos to him...
An interesting point, this one: 'if you don't like don't view it'. It is the exact way of reasoning the activists use when they're confronted after uploading something that is controversial. (See [1] or [2].)
(The operators also act as if they aren't responsible for the content that their users upload. Of course they aren't, but if they remain silent about it and leave the controversial content in place, it insists that they tolerate it.)--Wolfkid23 00:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


From what I can gather, "participants directly or indirectly connected to the site" includes a significant part of the inflation fandom. If this is controversial, it's not site-specific any more than the cub/babyfur issue was FA-specific, and so belongs be on the "popping" page. Similarly, "nicks from" inflatables.yiff does not signify much. If they were positively identified as staff members it might have relevance, but that was not indicated. I suspect they would have more sense than to use such nicknames if they were trying to harass, too. --GreenReaper(talk) 04:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I would encourage you to take a look at the sources I have provided, the circumstances of the edits back and forth, the whitewashing and other manipulative techniques applied and bring appropriate decisions.--Wolfkid23 05:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm unclear what controversy there is, though. You seem to be concentrating on the fact that some people who have a fetish are now not advertising it to all and sundry. Why is this as a bad thing? Because they're "secretly" still poppers? This isn't a crime. Nor is having a site that contains popping.
Administrative actions are one thing, but I'm finding it hard to see the problem in what they've done. If you're looking to convey an opinion on the content of this site, or the personal preferences of their administrators, you're in the wrong place. It's like saying "Furry Weekend Atlanta is run by babyfurs" and trying to build that into a significant part of the article. Even if true, it's not relevant. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The basic controversies regarding the site were written in the original article, which was then decorated with 'citation needed' links. I have tried to supply credible proofs to each (see above).
I agree that the points that discuss the behaviour of poppers should go to the Poppers article.
A site that is run by poppers and contains popping content wouldn't be much of a problem in itself.
It becomes problematic when it extends its influence to other forums - for example disrupting discussion on other forums in case is criticised. It is possible that even forum closures can be attributed to, most notably the Inflatable Animal mailing list of which Xydexx was the moderator. Having his point on the closure (and/or examining the comments of its last years in case a message archive could be made available) would be of great help in deciding this. I have written my statements about the closure beforehand.
Moreover, the current article doesn't reflect the site's controversies appropriately. I think many of the controversies that I have supported proofs for can be displayed in the article.
Please allow me to point out that this line: 'Discussion of the destruction of inflatables owned by others are sometimes posted,[1] although such vandalism is not supported by moderators.[2]' is not correct in this form. In the cited thread there is not even one moderatory comment. SerFox (cited in ref#2) is not a moderator.
This is another example that discusses destroying others' property - left without any moderatory comment.
'Attempts to start internal popper vs. non-popper flamewars are strongly discouraged.[3][4]' - this sentence is a discrediting attempt on Popinion, suggesting that he is the trouble-maker/flamer. Please refer to the Popping talk page to see supportive proofs and examples to his statements.
While the threads that featured Popinion's comments were reacted to by moderators (maybe he struck sensitive nerves), some other popper vs. non-popper flamewars were omitted (appreciated?) by mods: there is no moderatory comment in this one, nor in this one.
About the whitewash-campaign (currently worded: 'In March 2009 the level of "objectionable" content decreased.' and labeled with Citation needed) - in general, more voices can be heard that denounce popping, 'die hard' poppers reduced the number of their posts (or doing them under another aliases) and announcing retreating to the Poppers Yahoo!Group and other private lists - there is a little chance that will suddenly become a place that is friendly towards non-popper inflatophiles (or would put more efforts in creating such an atmosphere or at least an illusion thereof...)
My goal is not to defame, but its certain issues must be publicly addressed, since its controversies grew beyond the forum's own scope. I think readers would appreciate seeing credible and appropriate information in the article.--Wolfkid23 02:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Out of Curiosity[edit]

Aside from the admins being furry, why is this site even included on WikiFur? It's not like there's a lot (if any, AFIAK) furry content on the site. Just some food for thought. —Xydexx 19:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Inflatophile and plushophile sites are as relevant (read: essential) to the fandom and to WikiFur as sites dealing with fursuiting and those regarding conventions.
Reversing the initial question, why is it important to remove this controversial site from being mentioned here?
I would also like to see finally some genuine reaction to my claims, especially regarding the IAFP closure, apart from the workarounds, name-calling, accusations, nitpicking, ignoring presented proofs and demanding impossible proofs, attempts to invoke authority and other disinfo tactics.--Wolfkid23 17:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least you're honest about just wanting to get a reaction, even if I pretty much figured that out already.
Inflatophilia in and of itself has nothing to do with furry fandom, which is about anthropomorphic animal characters. (In other words, balloonies qualify; inflatophilia in general does not.)
The fact remains that there is very little (if any) furry content on IYR, and the controversy (what little there is) has nothing to do with furry fandom. The site should be removed because it is irrelevant to what WikiFur is about. As you've been told previously, WikiFur is not an appropriate forum for your little crusade against poppers or half-baked conspiracy theories.
You have not provided sufficient evidence for the claims you've made. When you have provided evidence, it hasn't matched the claims you've made. Case in point, your hysterical groundless accusations that there's some sort of conspiracy by poppers to shut down non-popper sites. This is—pardon my French—so incredibly batshit ludicrous that it hardly warrants a response, but clearly you won't be satisfied until you get one. Very well. Here, then, is the official statement regarding the closure of the IAFP: The IAFP closed due to personal time limitations, not due to outside pressure or wholly-imagined conspiracy theories.Xydexx 01:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Inflatophilia and plushophilia are as relevant to the Furry fandom as fursuiting and conventions. What's not clear about this? Is anthropomorphism the decisive factor for things that have something to do with the fandom and WikiFur? Or it is you who decides this?
Okay, let's accept 'time limitation' for the main reason for the closure for now. Not to get into the details as it is beyond the scope of this discussion but I'd leave to the reader to decide whether this is true or not, considering your current support for popping and and way of communication.--Wolfkid23 00:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Precisely what support for popping and support of are you referring to? In case you haven't noticed, my participation here hasn't been support of popping or the alleged (and still unproven) popper conspiracy that people (or more likely, just one loud person) seems to be going on about lately. I'm neutral on the subject of popping, and my position continues to be that this has nothing to do with furry fandom. Be that as it may, the burden of proof is on you to back up any claims you make with evidence. Just saying you're providing proof isn't the same as doing it, sorry. —Xydexx 07:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
You're constantly in denial in face of genuine evidence.
Your support for poppers is already more than obvious: if you were truly neutral towards the question of popping - as you state -, you weren't working so much on removing or altering the articles and perhaps wouldn't be interested in joining the discussion at all. You certainly wouldn't engage in constant ad hominem attacks. The usage of disinfo tactics and negative propaganda always insist a hidden or unpopular goal or motive. In this case, the attempt to remove or damage the article, that is, whitewashing by definition. Including the conspiracy theory strawman you manufactured.
And, of course, you wouldn't give supportive comments to poppers, such as to this popping video (comment #2 and 4).
Considering all this I can't accept you as neutral in the question.
This whole situation about the site and popping seems as if it was a test how far popping (a seemingly "innocent" violent content) can be pushed with the aid of various disinformation, coverup and repression methods.
Since the discussion drifted far away from Inflatables.yiff I suggest the reader to re-read this conversation from the start and re-consider all claims and proofs. All relevant information to the initial claims about Inflatables.yiff has been presented and are still valid. I don't want to repeat myself over and over.--Wolfkid23 21:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Um, no.
Being neutral on popping means I don't care one way or the other. Being neutral means I don't have to join in your little crusade here. Sorry if that bothers you, but I am totally Switzerland on the issue, and I've got over a decade of experience running an inflatophile mailing list to back that up, pally-boy.
Being neutral on popping also means I don't have to remain silent when people try to insert specious claims and ridiculous conspiracy theories into WikiFur that have nothing to do with furry fandom—especially when those claims can't withstand even cursory scrutiny. As folks well know, I hate seeing misinformation spread.
In conclusion, if you have any actual evidence to support your claims of The Great Inflates.Yiff Popper Conspiracy, it would be entertaining to hear it. —Xydexx 02:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
You're a popper - period. I'm sorry to hear that.
This reveals and explains your true relation to the subject and your behaviour.
Any further action you take from now on to the article will be considered vandalism. I sincerely hope moderators won't take part in your disinformation campaign by turning their backs or otherwise tolerate it. --Wolfkid23 05:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Ensuring factual statements are added to WikiFur is not vandalism. I'll assume your failure to provide requested evidence means you don't have any. —Xydexx 17:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion[edit]

As there has been no evidence of any furry content on the site, I propose this article be deleted. —Xydexx 17:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Article update #1 (March 6, 2010)[edit]

Updating the entry's appropriateness status. Keep or delete? - Spirou 00:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Run by furs, of interest to some furs, but not much actual furry content, though there's appears to be more from furs if you order by date to get the recent pictures. The toys are often animals but rarely anthropomorphic. Tricky. I'd say weak delete, but keep the link in Inflatophilia. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Link kept - Spirou 03:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Pedophilia and Underage Content[edit]

As of Christmas 2013 the site owner of inflates.yiff, Dmitry U Prohorov (owner of other websites including dedicated to FTPing stolen software and hacking) under username 'The SAD' opted to allow underage content to be hosted on his server. Stating "Pictures is hosted in Russia i wont share member information with anyone" he said "as long as child is not naked its ok", "This site is not adult only. Most of content about collecting and regular use". This despite the home page stating "This site is for adults people 18+, Warning! Site contains adult pictures and videos. Site may contain images of sex with balloons and inflatables."

As of April Mr Prohorov began deleting users of inflates.yiff who spoke out at the growing number of folders and links to child pornography on the board as more extreme sexual content involving very young children and inflatables was hosted.

In early May Dmitry Prohorov was reported alongside other members of inflates.yiff to the Moscow Criminal Investigation Department (MYP) of the Moscow City Police, where Mr Prohorov resides, and CEOP - the Uk Child Exploitation & Online Protection Center, run by Uk Police.

As it stands at time of updating this Wiki Inflates.yiff has become 'the' go to forum for underage pornography involving inflatables.

Oookay... Of course you realize that the article about this site was deleted from this Wiki 3 years ago for not being related to the furry fandom, yes?. Just FYI - Spirou 16:58, 29 August 2013 (EDT)