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.

Works for me =) Spirou 04:56, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Data point

As list administrator of the former IAFP mailing list, I can say with confidence we maintained a neutral position on popping, and the only flamewar we had on the list resulted in the main troublemakers (Pneuguin and someone else) getting banned. This has less to do with conspiracy-theory like "bias" or "repression" and more of simply doing the (thankless) job of running a mailing list. I think the moderators of most lists recognize popping is a controversial topic, and don't want their forums cluttered up with flamewars. That being said, WTF non-anthropomorphic inflatables have to do with furry fandom, I have no idea, but this whole thing sounds like someone got their hand slapped on a forum somewhere and is taking out their frustrations on Wikifur. Just my $0.02. —Xydexx 01:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

My aim was to provide accurate information on popping, though I can't promise being 100% unbiased as I'm a non-popper. That doesn't mean that I am a frustrated hand-slapped flamer. ^^ Glad that we can iterate on the subject and make it less biased, I think the Balloonie section is already well worked out.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but I was refering to the split with Papaball on IAFP that led to the forming of the Poppers Yahoo!Group in 1999, which left the rest of IAFP for the non-poppers. The other flame (with Pneuguin) happened in 2001.
What I meant 'by definition': although Wikipedia (according to DSM-IV-TR) lists both fetishism and sexual sadism as paraphilia, I suggested that popping is very rarely motivated by love ('philia'). But if we take the very strict DSM definition, this paragraph/claim can aswell be omitted.
Subtle harassment and teasing that is overlooked by moderation are tell-tale signs of repression and biased moderation, of which several examples can be cited from current forums (harder from the now closed ballooner Y! Groups).
Many furries are into actual inflatables IRL and the inflatophilia-reference was already described in the Popping article not modified by me. I have also attempted to merge the two articles.--Wolfkid23 03:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I honestly don't know what Papa Ball's problem is. He claimed in 2005 that the IAFP was leading some sort of crusade against poppers, but that has never been the case. The IAFP mailing list was always for everyone who likes inflatable animals, despite people's attempts to split it into a popper/non-popper feud.
Be that as it may, just because some furries are inflatophiles does not mean that furry fandom is about inflatophilia. Seems a bit too much like scope creep to me. Just my $0.02. —Xydexx 05:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I have added some source material on the questioned points and tried to Wikify the article - please review. I could provide further material on the topics in question upon request. In a later edit I could look up links on how poppers view themselves, though this kind of information would be more credible if provided by someone who is actually into popping.
(Inflatophilia seems to have its own place within the Furry fandom, and although I didn't meet any survey regarding this but I estimate about one third of inflatophiles identifying themselves as Furs.)--Wolfkid23 00:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The source material you provided didn't match the claims in the article, so I nixed it. Most of it (especially the lengthy post by "popinion" on inflates.yiff) was a lot of paranoid speculation about some sort of popper conspiracy. I've also corrected the history of IAFP. I think the article still needs some serious editing if it's going to be kept at all. —Xydexx 17:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I have restored the debated "popinion" link. Since the beginning of the discussion you are continuously asking for sources (which I have provided but are always being brushed aside as invalid). I kindly ask you to provide valid links or arguments that would disprove the claims and observations of Popinion and the other links I have provided, before nixing them.
I would like to think that you have kept your neutral approach towards popping.--Wolfkid23 05:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The popinion link is unsupported conjecture; there are no facts to back up his claim. The general standard, on Wikipedia at least, is that "some people claim X" is not license for people to insert any specious claims they want into articles. For example, claiming "Greenreaper is a space alien" and then pointing to a post of someone saying "Greenreaper is a space alien" is not proof that Greenreaper is a space alien.
Further, the burden of proof is on you since you're the one attempting to include these claims in the article. You are asking me for proof these things don't happen (i.e., proving a negative, a logical fallacy). Popping is not "off topic" on inflates.yiff, and there's no evidence anyone posts to "tease" non-poppers.
Of course, this is all a moot point because the whole section focuses on an argument that has nothing to do with furry fandom and should be deleted. —Xydexx 16:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The debated link is not only backed up by the whole thread it appears in, but I even have provided other examples (#1, #2, #3), which were deleted. Claims are always backed up by examples, such as in this case - however, as we cannot generalize from just a few examples, I have worded the article like There are claims.... Which is a justified solution, even by Wikipedia standards.
But even if Popinion's post would be only some sort of senseless "paranoid speculation" (which it is not), I'd disagree with removing the whole section. Popping might be a controversial topic but its certain issues must be addressed.--Wolfkid23 00:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Again, the links don't match the claims you're making, and it doesn't have anything to do with furry fandom. —Xydexx 05:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like mantra to me (the third time you mention that this info is 'unfurry', even signing it with a banner to give it more weight). Inflatophilia (and thus, popping) is as relevant in Furry context as plushophilia.--Wolfkid23 21:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to make it absolutely clear: I am not a space alien. I am a Kai norn, and the game I come from (Creatures 2) was set on Albia — not in space. Even if it had been Creatures 3, it would not be accurate, as that game was best described as "norns in space", not "norns from space". If you want a real space alien (and who doesn't?), try Frazzle. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Section Deletion

This isn't really an appropriate forum for internal arguments of inflates.yiff that have nothing to do with furry fandom, so I've deleted the section. —Xydexx 16:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Restoring the section as the debate around it wasn't yet closed. Please refer to the section above.--Wolfkid23 00:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think WikiFur is really an appropriate forum for hashing out non-furry arguments like this. As I don't really have time to get dragged into an edit war, the Admins can feel free to step in anytime here. —Xydexx 05:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd edited the article so it accurately reflects the thread in question. It looks like Popinion was trying to disrupt the group by trolling, and judging by the repeated warnings he received, I'd guess he was probably eventually banned for it. I know I would have done so. But that's just, y'know, my opinion as a former list administrator myself with little tolerance for these sort of shenanigans.
On that note, I don't think WikiFur should be a platform for someone trying to lend credence to a failed trolling attempt, but I'm sure the WikiFur admins can handle that more effectively than I can. —Xydexx 16:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Labelling (misrepresenting) the thread in question as a 'failed trolling attempt' doesn't really do justice as the whole site is full of controversy. I kind of expected the word 'troll' to pop up and even used against me (it's not the case yet but you're already suggesting).
To me it seems that you're trying to protect a forum where non-poppers (who are in majority) are continuously subjected to unwanted gross content and harassment in the name of 'mutual respect'.
My claim that you are biased towards popping while stating neutrality was further strenghtened by the speed and repeated efforts in attempting to brush away the sources I provided and bleaching and whitewashing the article.
Also, supportive comments given to the maker of this popping video (comment #2 and 4) further strengthens it. In case there would be any action from the WikiFur admins, this should also be taken into consideration.--Wolfkid23 21:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Nah, it seems to me like you're just upset you got banned from inflates.yiff and trying to stir up controversy here instead. Considering how Greenreaper doesn't like people using WikiFur as a battleground of ideologies to prove a point, maybe you'll end up getting banned from here, too. *shrug* —Xydexx 21:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

A few meta-comments

Appealing to administrators won't solve a content dispute, as we know less than you do and are not usually in a position to judge who is "right".

The content or activities of specific forums or mailing lists is a subject for discussion elsewhere. The objective of this article is to describe popping as a whole.

This is not good a place to win an argument. Accurately describing significant debates means reporting views which you disagree with — "writing for the enemy". If you truly are an expert, you should know all sides of an argument. Failing to write about them does not do WikiFur justice, but nor does magnifying one aspect beyond reason (the "storm in a teacup" scenario). Skewing an article will just make that section stand out as biased compared to the rest.

Accusing editors of bias is generally unhelpful. So is talking about them as if they're not part of the conversation. If someone is being unreasonable, others are likely to see that without your help. --GreenReaper(talk) 04:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing up the article and the positive attitude - however, I would like to point to some bits that I still find inconsistent in the article.
>> 1. Stress on the motivations for popping seems to be a bit weak in the current form. Sadistic motivation can easily be isolated - poppers often act as if they were enjoying the torture of actual living animals - (Example#1, #2, #3 - plus countless YouTube videos filmed in a manner that resembles animal torture; Example#1, #2). Moderate popping apology is rare but it can also be heard (Example); unfortunately moderate poppers can't seem to have any influence on those with clear sadistic motivations.
Considering this, I'd suggest to change the line 'While some consider the act of popping closer to sadism than inflatophilia' to 'While the motivations of popping are closer to sadism than inflatophilia'.
>> 2. While Popinion's comments on can be viewed by poppers as undesirable but his characterization of poppers' behaviour seems to be fitting. By reading the current version of the article, a reader can (falsely) conclude that Popinion's comments are nothing but troublemaking and false accusations.
In reality however, the forum this thread is in ( was and is still full of controversy. The moderator (Khast) who tried to moderate Popinion is a popper posing as a non-popper, as he was an active member of the Poppers Yahoo!Group (already noted on the Inflatables.yiff talk page). Citing his moderation attempt clearly supports Popinion's valid statement: "Some of their tactics are: [...] - posing as non-poppers; [...]".
In further support of Popinion's credibility, I would like to point to his next post in the thread, where he discusses two of poppers' most used methods (fallacies) to rationalize their behaviour: Gradual abstraction/Appeal to logistics (stating that a particular toy is nothing more than a plastic bag, therefore it is okay to destroy it) and Appeal to property rights (stating that the owner of a particular toy paid for the item therefore it is okay to destroy it; especially when rare, expensive/exclusive items are being destroyed).
Some examples: Example #1 - Gradual abstraction, #2 - Appeal to property rights, #3 - Appeal to property rights, #4 - Gradual abstraction, #5 - Combining both fallacies.
As a solution, I would like to put Popinion's comment to a separate reference (instead of being put forth as an example for disrupting the forum), with the description 'A comment on discussing the possible motivations of poppers and their behaviour'. The reference to its moderation attempt could be omitted.
>> 3. 'Some non-popper inflatophiles do not like the discussion of popping...' - while there are no exact polls on how many non-poppers dislike the the discussion of popping, one can logically deduce from the tension between poppers and non-poppers that the number of non-poppers who actually appreciate the discussion of popping is very low (most likely, zero).
The few exceptions can be attributed to a certain misinformation method (as described in Popinion's post): "Some of their tactics are: [...] - posing as non-poppers; combined with indirect allusions ('Even though I'm a non-popper but I must admit that I secretly admire when an inflatable breaks')"
Given that all active inflatophile boards and forums are operated by poppers (most prominently,; see the appropriate talk page), stating that non-poppers are forced to tolerate popping content would be more fitting.
It can be safe therefore to state that 'The majority of non-popper inflatophiles do not like the discussion of popping...'
>> 4. As for the last sentence about the manufacturers: while no comment can be cited that would include all given criteria at once, we could separate the sentence. Citations for the first part ('Toy manufacturers and designers sometimes voice negative views of popping on forums.') could be this and this. Although there were no citations by manufacturers and designers to working conditions in third world countries, this part of the sentence can still be deduced by common sense (on top of that I guess, citing human rights articles wouldn't make the article more relevant--Wolfkid23 00:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Lack of sufficient evidence aside, this section is clearly outside the scope of Wikifur and should be deleted. It has nothing to do with anthropomorphic animals and furry fandom, and it is unnecessary to include "as a whole" for the same reason Wikifur doesn't have a geocaching article. Even though some furries like geocaching, we don't have an article covering geocaching "as a whole" here. I have no problem with the focus on popping within furry fandom, but this section has nothing to do with that. —Xydexx 19:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be an obsession towards mantras and Wiki banners as if they'd help bring forward discussion. If I count well, this is the second attempt (without any variation) to remove or further damage the article.
Inflatophilia and plushophilia are as relevant to the fandom as fursuiting or conventions.
Also quoting GreenReaper from the article's History page: The topic seems reasonably appropriate, as they are involved with the fandom.
Why is it so important to remove or damage this article?
As for ignoring my proofs without examining them and naming them 'insufficient' - please provide genuine proofs that could be placed contrary to mine. There seems to be also an obsession towards disinformation tactics.
Are my proofs not in clear, legible English? Is the objection of toy manufacturers not enough? Is there not enough postings that indicate the sadistic intent present in popping? Is there not enough proof that indicate deliberate and clear repression on the inflatophile forums? Please explain what is wrong with my proofs. Also waiting for a genuine explaining of why exactly the IAFP was closed down (see Inflates.yiff talk page).
Until there are genuine reasons provided that would support the removal of this article, I'll take down the 'not appropriate for WikiFur' banner.--Wolfkid23 17:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The section is clearly outside the scope of Wikifur and should be deleted. Various claims have already been debunked on the Inflates.yiff talk page. Further, the sole purpose of including this section appears to be to continue an argument that had nothing to do with furry fandom which the original poster was apparently banned for after ignoring repeated warnings from the Administrator, and an attempt to lend credibility to a thus-far groundless conspiracy theory that poppers are somehow (for lack of evidence, I'll assume with a mind control device or pack of carnivorous cyberyaks from outer space) attempting to "shut down" non-popper sites. Tinfoilhatty accusations that the IAFP was shut down by outside pressure from poppers has been thoroughly discredited on the Inflates.yiff talk page, but for the record: The IAFP closed due to personal time limitations, not due to outside pressure or wholly-imagined conspiracy theories. Restoring banner while section continues to be under debate, as per Wiki standards. —Xydexx 01:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
"The section is clearly outside the scope of Wikifur" No, not really. For a term that I have seen, heard or viewed being used in various media in the furry fandom and/or its subsets of Inflatophilia and plushophilia lore for the last 15 years, it has definitely well earned the right to be added as a furry term on this wiki. Personal pro and con arguments about it is just that, personal opinions, not legitimate data - Spirou 01:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion is not about removing Inflatophilia article itself, only the section indicated which has nothing to do with furry fandom. Also: If personal pro and con arguments about it aren't legitimate data, then why include them? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought WikiFur wasn't an appropriate forum for hashing out arguments that have nothing to do with furry fandom, and frankly it's a bit mind-boggling to see Admins allowing someone to use WikiFur as a platform for spouting half-baked conspiracy theories when the general consensus in the inflatophile community is that it's netkookery. —Xydexx 01:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
It was you who initially labeled Popinion's claims as 'conspiracy theory' in the article, and use this buzzword ever since. You didn't even attempt to bring claims or proofs against Popinion's statements, only resorted to label the whole with derogatory terms and insisted that everyone will dismiss them as bogus from then on.
Unfortunately, it seems that's not how things work.--Wolfkid23 23:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence to support the claims you're making. Just saying so doesn't make it true. —Xydexx 07:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The proofs and evidence I provided were and still are in conform with my initial claims.--Wolfkid23 22:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Your claims have been exhaustively debunked, sorry. Try again. —Xydexx 02:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
No, they weren't even for a moment. Is it so hard to digest or what? --05:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

First, the correct template does not put the whole article on the wrong light (fixed, although the "dispute" template would have been a better tag). Two, the person you are currently having a discussion that still within the informative area. The moment it reaches "Cluehammer" territory, a request to keep it civil or take it somewhere will be requested - Spirou 02:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for creating the necessary template. Had it actually existed before, I would have used that one. I disagree the dispute template would have been better, as WikiFur's own article here states that "WikiFur is a website dedicated to the collection and preservation of information about the furry community and culture." The section in question has nothing to do with the furry community and culture, and as that's what the current discussion is focused on, the Inappropriate template is, uh, appropriate.
If you disagree, please kindly explain WTF non-anthropomorphic inflatables have to do with furry fandom, because I have no idea. —Xydexx 03:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional Notes On Unsupported Claims

For the record and further edification of the Admins, here are notes on the additional claims made by Wolfkid23, above:

  • >> 1. (Claim that poppers "enjoy animal torture")

There is insufficient evidence to support this claim. Evidence consisted of messages on IYR that don't mention animal torture, YouTube videos that allegedly "resemble" animal torture (I wouldn't know, I haven't watched any animal torture videos), and a message on IYR pointing out the assumptions about poppers' motivations and beliefs was incorrect. Additionally, the "motivations of popping are closer to sadism than inflatophilia" claim is pure POV that has already been debunked under the above section, "Data Point." (As an aside, if non-poppers don't like watching these videos, they probably shouldn't be seeking them out for the sole purpose of going on some big TBOF-like crusade about them. Just a thought.)

  • >> 2. (Defense of Popinion's characterization of poppers)

There is insufficient evidence to support this claim. Evidence consisted of the previously unsupported accusation against Khast, messages on IYR consisting of still-unproven accusations from Popinion (a troll on IYR who was likely banned after ignoring repeated warnings from the Admin). (Note #1, above, also points out that Popinion's assumptions about poppers' motivations and beliefs was incorrect. Wolfkid23's attempt to portray Popinion as non-disruptive to the forum and act as an apologist for trolls seems incredibly dubious, IMHO.)

  • >> 3. (Some non-popper inflatophiles do not like the discussion of popping...)

There is insufficient evidence to support this claim. Evidence consisted of pointing out there was no evidence to support this claim, and an attempt to lend credence to Popinion's unsupported conspiracy theories about poppers. Allow me to reiterate that first part again: Evidence consisted of pointing out there was no evidence.

  • >> 4. (Manufacturers views.)

There is some evidence to support this claim. Evidence consisted of messages from IYR from a deleted user who manufactures inflatables. No evidence provided for the "third world country" statement, which has since been deleted. Inflatables are usually manufactured in industrialized nations anyway, not developing third-world countries. (Taiwan is a high-income country according to World Bank.)

I continue to maintain the WikiFur shouldn't be used as a platform to hash out arguments that have nothing to do with furry fandom. The Admins can feel free to join me in this belief at their leisure. —Xydexx 15:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

While I respect your position within the Furry fandom, contradicting moderators and appealing to them at the same time on WikiFur could be termed - to say the least - problematic.
On the ad-hominem attacks issued against me: why can't you just accept that I'm just an ordinary Fur adding legitimate information to the site (albeit knowing that it is controversial)?
Why is it so important to spindoctor for and poppers, remove or damage these articles and attempt to discredit me? If I remember well, you're a nonpopper (although I can't find any statement from you citing that) but you clearly behave like a popper, at least concluding from the tactics you implement. (Which clearly fits the "poppers posing as nonpoppers" situation.)
The factor that decides the legitimacy of a claim is not the volume that it's shouted at or how it is colored or number of words - it is the value of truth in it. My initial proofs still stand by themselves and there isn't any need to change them as they weren't shaken even by a small bit by these attacks. You aren't bringing proofs to counter mine. As a general rule, you were just clenching into my proofs and named them either as invalid or partial, only by inverting my original statements or dismissing them. No further proofs were cited, except for Taiwan being high-income (that doesn't say much about wealth distribution). You insist that readers won't go back checking my original claims, and you can discredit my claims as long as the original ones aren't examined. Then - as a summary - you went on calling me names.
I won't play your game of requesting proofs just to dismiss them.
(After this point, a sudden attempt to find/manufacture contrary proofs would be more than suspicious...)
You also cleverly(?) use banners, title sections deliberately to label my claims with negative words, such as 'dubious', 'unsupported' et cetera. You might insist that the majority of readers don't see through such a simple form of deception.
My mantra is: you are trying to outshout me by using disinformation tactics. It's quite odd you say these things bravely "for the record".
It is often said that the hard part in proving something is not finding the proofs, rather avoiding their destruction or dismissal.
Despite these enormous efforts, I'm afraid that the facts about poppers and can't be vanished by whitewashing, they will eventually resurface one way or another. Some time can be gained by temporarily removing the articles or damaging them (directly or indirectly) to change their meaning - and that always with a loss of personal credibility -, but the articles will eventually be restored and (optimally) further moderatory steps will be taken to prevent vandalism (especially in this subtle form) if need be - following the usual Wiki procedures.--Wolfkid23 23:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Your unsupported accusations of whitewashing and disinformation have been noted, but they don't change the fact that the burden of proof is on you to back up the statements you're making. If the claims you're making aren't holding up to scrutiny, perhaps you should consider using someone with more credibility than a troll who was kicked off a message board as your primary source. —Xydexx 07:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, the proofs and evidence I provided were and still are in conform with my initial claims. From the Popinion link you created a nice conspiracy theory/tinfoilhatty/troll strawman, with the hope that you can prevent people from reading it and forming their own opinion. (BTW as far as I know, Popinion is still an Inflates.yiff user.) If we'd drop the Popinion link, I'm afraid the article would still arrive to the very same conclusions using other sources.--Wolfkid23 22:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Popinion was the one who first claimed there was a popper conspiracy, not me. I don't know where you get that I have some magic powers that prevent people from reading it. Come to think of it, it's kind of hard to understand you sometimes. It sounds like English is a second language or you're using a translation program, what with all your talk about "mantras" and "tactics" and other idiosyncratic word choices. It's like trying to play a harpsichord covered in jam.
I've seen claims elsewhere on the internet that inflatable-related communications are "undeniably" being taken over by an "amorphous clique" of poppers, at an "astounding speed", but so far there's never been any evidence to support this claim, which is why most of the inflatophile community doesn't take it seriously. The catalyst for it all appears to have been Popinion getting banned from IYR, and given his vehemence and refusal to back down it's really not hard to see him taking his crusade elsewhere. Kinda transparent, when you think about it, which would sort of explain why the stuff I've seen elsewhere sounds so similar to the stuff here, right on down to the animal torture claims and everything. It's a big internet, nobody knows you're a dog and all that.
Or a wolf, as the case may be. Ha.
I'm actually kinda curious why it's so important to you to spindoctor this article and bring an argument that has nothing to do with furry fandom to WikiFur. Care to explain why it's so important to you and what it has to do with anthropomorphic animals? Nobody, including the Admins here, have been able to figure that one out, and the only explanation that makes any sense to me is that you got your hand slapped on IYR and are taking out your frustrations on Wikifur. Please elaborate why this has become your life's goal. —Xydexx 03:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Good. Without getting into playing another of the little games you set up to detour conversation from the real deal - I think you'll never get over being uncovered as a popper. Unless you apply some extra whitewash to dissolve this uncomfortable bit of information and then cover up the coverup's coverup.
My original point had nothing to do with conspiracy theories but you push the subject so much that with this you do confirm yourself that there is in fact a popper conspiracy of a sort in existence... talk about a blowback effect? Are you willing to elaborate on that? --Wolfkid23 05:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, if you're analyzing my usage of words, typing patterns, the times when I post and so on - don't hesitate to share any result and info with me or the public, or blackmail me, preferably behind my back. I'm eager to deal with such a situation! --Wolfkid23 06:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Your original point was to defend Popinion and claim his points were valid (despite the complete and utter lack of evidence backing up any of his claims). Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas. But that's all beside the point; the bottom line is there's nothing in this section that has anything to do with anthropomorphic animals, Q.E.D.
That being said, you're fabricating enemies where they don't exist and grasping at straws at this point (and... not really making a lot of sense, either... blackmail you behind your back? WTF is that supposed to mean? You can't blackmail someone behind their back). Seeing as you don't have any concrete evidence to back up your claims, and it doesn't have anything to do with anthropomorphic animals, I'm going to request deletion of this section. —Xydexx 17:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
First of all we have to be clear on why the latter part of the article should be deleted, or should it be deleted at all.
Is it because of "dubious conspiracy theories"? Popinion only stated that there is highly organized and conspirative behaviour present (screenshot if former is broken), in relation to poppers. That doesn't tell anything of or imply any suspected or real "popper conspiracy". The terms conspiracy and conspiracy theory are exaggerations and such are far beyond the scope of this article to discuss.
Is it because of inflatophilia has nothing to do with anthropomorphic animals and with the fandom? Although not expressively anthropomorphic but inflatables have a lot to do with artistic rendition of animals, some Furs deliberaty choosing inflatable characters. Other voices were already stating that inflatophilia has its place within the fandom. Removing inflatophilia would insist that many other related things (such as plushophilia) should or could also be removed.
(If I would apply your own tactics against you, I'd request evidence to back up your claims and then dismiss them, having ready derogatory terms at hand, without paying the slightest attention to what you say or if what you say is relevant or not.)
Even if some or many sources would be inappropriate as you state (of whose enough has been spoken this far), editing the article appropriately would be enough.
Or is it the assumption that only those topics should be present on WikiFur that can be viewed as favourable or in a "positive" light and without any controversy?
Before proceeding with any moderatory intervention, I think we should consider these points.--Wolfkid23 20:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Popinion claimed there is highly organized and conspirative behaviour present, but didn't provide any evidence to back up his claims, and there still isn't any. Therein lies the difference between a actual conspiracy and a conspiracy theory. It's a subtle difference, but an important one. —Xydexx 22:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Section Deletion

As the section of Popping and Inflatophilia has no relevance to furry fandom or anthropomorphic animals, I propose it be deleted. —Xydexx 17:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if doing so carries any real weight, but after reading over the arguments here, I'll go ahead and weigh in. I don't know that I'd go so far as to say there is no relevance whatsoever to furry fandom or anthropomorphics, but when a topic is not unique to furry fandom we do like to see some kind of synergism, or "furry angle" if you will, that demonstrates the combination is something more than the parts, and I don't really see that here. Further, the material Wolfkid23 is determined to include strikes me as soapboxing on a particular aspect of of the subject, maybe even POV-pushing despite his attempts to characterize the material as NPOV. As such, reasonable counter arguments could probably be made. However, that whole discussion, while it may make good discussion fodder on a website devoted to the subject, is getting a lot deeper than the level of coverage that is appropriate in a Wikifur article. My view, therefore, is to Delete the section, or at least everything after the first two paragraphs. Parts of the preceding section, "In Balloonie fandom", appear to be unneccessary by a similar line of reasoning. In fact, the subject seems so obviously tied to both Balloonie fandom and Inflatophilia that it seems superfluous to have separate sections addressing them that cover some of the same material. --mwalimu 21:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
For clarification, since the main point seems to be getting lost in the noise:
Venn Diagram
Inflatophilia in and of itself has nothing to to do with furry fandom. You are correct in stating there is a "furry angle" to it, i.e., balloonies (inflatable anthropomorphic animal characters), and I have no problem with leaving that here. At issue is the section "Popping and Inflatophilia" which has nothing to do with furry fandom, and the only rationale for inclusion here is to continue an argument which had nothing to do with furry fandom on IYR. I think it's pretty mind-blowing that the WikiFur Admins have let these shenanigans go on for so long when they're usually pretty on the ball about Sneaky Vandalism (i.e., adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g., minor alteration of facts or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes (emphasis mine))), but that's just my $0.02. —Xydexx 22:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the above diagram leaves out a large number of fans who are not Balloonies (i.e. playing non-inflatable characters), but with an interest in inflatables. The intersection is therefore not exclusive to Balloonies. That is, popping does exist among Balloonies but is not exclusive to them. Many Furs are into inflatables, are poppers but don't play inflatable characters - like you (Xydexx), to cite one example. They come into the lined section in the diagram that I modified slightly.
WikiFur is not a place for defamation or hurting people or websites or original/unbacked claims. However, as Wikipedia, it aims at providing accurate information and that includes controversies - like it or not. Even more in case of controversial websites and practices, that in fact do hurt.
I wonder how many readers do actually read the threads I brought up as evidence. It is easy to dismiss evidence by not reading it, just giving credit to suggestions (set in bold and big size) that it is "dubious" or "unclaimed" or just "a hoax" and their presenter is a "conspiracy theorist" or a "shenanigan". (Disinfo at its best/worst.)
I also object to the deletion on grounds of conspiracy theory accusations. If the link pointing to Popinion's entry is controversial because one of its points can be interpreted as "conspiracy theory", it doesn't mean that the whole entry is irrelevant as a whole to popping and the behaviour of (quite some) poppers. At worst, the link could be taken out, I don't cling into it much.
Speaking of sneaky vandalism, it was you (Xydexx) who edited my original article and labeled this link as conspiracy theory, to force its later dismissal.
I declared myself a nonpopper in my very first entry on this talk page and announced that I can't guarantee being 100% unbiased. This is one approach. Insisting a neutral approach and then pushing a biased agenda (towards popping) is another. Who is the shenanigan?
I hope the reference to GreyScar here is not a death threat.--Wolfkid23 03:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Many furries are into modern ruins, but that doesn't mean modern ruins has anything to do with furry fandom. Likewise the interest in non-anthropomorphic inflatables. The section is not appropriate for WikiFur based on those grounds. Your ongoing attempts to lend credence to conspiracy theories about popping are a distraction from the real issue. As I said at the onset, WikiFur isn't an appropriate forum to hash out your arguments that have nothing to do with furry fandom. —Xydexx 04:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I personally don't see any wrong in discussing geocaching or modern ruins on WF, however I'm not a mod to decide that.
Apart from creating strawmans, name-calling, ad hominems, mantras (ad nauseam) and other disinfo tactics, you also have an obsession with getting the Last Word and indirect threats. Does that have anything to do with harassment?
You also use the term "conspiracy theory" with a well defined purpose. It is one of the most widely used associative buzzwords engineered to quickly discredit an opponent in any debate, without the need of further explanation. The applier of such buzzwords insists on getting immediate support from the public, who might not want to be associated with the opponent who is now labeled "not politically correct". This tactic also might imply guilt in the opponent and if succeeds, turns him to the defensive.
(While at that, conspirative behaviour in relation to popping is well explained within the Popinion link:
"Another important thing is the conspirative behaviour - [...] some poppers can even form friendships or other relations with credible non-poppers and then asking them to look out for any denouncement of popping and then report it, or even asking them to publicly protect the habit of popping.")
Not to lose focus, the main points of arguments are still:
- whether popping in relation to inflatophilia should be discussed on WikiFur (or not)
- whether popping is being deliberately vanished from WikiFur by popper/s (or not).
--Wolfkid23 04:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Attached below is an updated diagram illustrating the out-of-scope section based on WolfKid23's comments.
Venn Diagram
To reiterate, the focus of this discussion is the proposed deletion of the "Popping and Inflatophilia" section in this article due to its inappropriateness to WikiFur, i.e., it is in no way relevant to furry fandom or anthropomorphic animals.
Additionally, in the interest of not wasting everyone's time with this further, I strongly recommend any further attempts to derail the discussion with groundless conspiracy theories should be considered Vandalism by the Admins and handled accordingly. —Xydexx 23:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
You cleverly (?) avoid the issue by using fancy charts and parroting the c-word and your need to remove this article, ad nauseam.
No reaction to my question regarding harassment either.
As for the chart: as stated above, what about Furs who are inflatophiles, poppers but not Balloonies - like you? Would you consider yourself (among others) in no way relevant to furry fandom?
What about editing the article in a way that represents both the poppers' and nonpoppers' points of view in a factual manner so it can approach a NPOV? Poppers have lots of forums (ever growing in numbers), websites and other online media. By the way,
Charts, colors, pictures are good eyecatchers on an edit page...
...but that doesn’t mean they contain correct data.
Okay, let's concentrate on editing. --Wolfkid23 03:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Attached below is a further updated diagram illustrating the out-of-scope section based on WolfKid23's comments. Also included for reference is my place on the spectrum (Xydexx is a balloonie who is neutral on the issue of popping), since WolfKid23 seems to have difficulty understanding this. HTH.
Venn Diagram
Note that the views of poppers/nonpopper Balloonies are already covered in an NPOV way by the in-scope section (which is irrelevant to the issue at hand because it isn't the section proposed for deletion in the first place).
The issue remains that WikiFur is not an appropriate forum for continuing arguments which have nothing to do with furry fandom, and the section on Popping and Inflatophilia should thus be deleted. —Xydexx 22:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The above charts are restrictive to Balloonies, in relation to inflatophilia. I tried to correct this error previously but to re-introduce it again and again seems to be a deliberate effort. On a personal note, I thought you are not Balloonie but the Balloonie article says so; sorry for the misattribution, I didn't pay attention to this before.
If we assume that inflatophilia in Furry context is exclusive to role-playing fans with inflatable characters (Balloonies) and anything outside this scope is "unrelated to the fandom" and "even to WikiFur", this logic would be errorenous as not all fans are into role-playing.
There are fans who are inflatophiles but don't RP and have no inflatable characters - they are excluded from the above chart, regardless of if they are into popping or not.
Furthermore, neutral stance is only valid in a (probably very small) niche, namely, for Furs who RP with inflatable characters but are not inflatophiles. In real life, inflatophiles either pop inflatables or not.
All in all, I think the "furry angle" of popping toys is therefore present - maybe in and of itself unrelated to role-playing and anthropomorphism but as a part of inflatophilia, popping has much to do with the fandom (even its non-Balloonie aspect). I disagree with popping being only matter of discussion on sites dedicated to the subject. I would also object to not discussing poppers' specific forum behaviour in the article.
Therefore I think finding a neutral POV in the article would be more in conform with WikiFur, rather than having the questioned part removed.--Wolfkid23 03:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
NUTS. —Xydexx 19:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC) This "Nuts" was removed in Rev. 268469! --Wolfkid23 02:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The section on Balloonies was included because it was the only portion related to furry fandom. Furry fans who are into inflatophilia but not into Balloonies was not included because, as exhaustively stated above, inflatophilia by itself is not relevant to furry fandom. It is the same reason we do not have an article covering the Toyota Scion here, even though there is a group for furry fans who own Toyota Scions. Just because some furry fans do X does not mean X is furry. Popping as related to furry fandom is already covered in an NPOV way by the section on Balloonies.
I maintain WikiFur is not an appropriate forum to go on a crusade about things which have nothing to do with furry fandom. —Xydexx 19:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for Article Protection

Due to repeated deletions while the questioned section is still under debate and considering other vandalism efforts (disinformation tactics and harassment), I wonder if we could protect the article (Revision 268205) by temporary locking until the discussion around it gets sorted out?--.--Wolfkid23 21:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The sole purpose of your edits have been to continue an argument from another forum that has nothing to do with furry fandom. You have provided zero evidence that this section is appropriate for WikiFur. Doubly so for your groundless accusations of vandalism and harassment; reverting Sneaky Vandalism is neither. —Xydexx 21:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Section Deletion

The out-of-scope section has been removed as there has been no evidence that this is in any way, shape, or form appropriate for WikiFur. In the interest of not wasting everyone's time with this further, I strongly recommend any further attempts to include groundless conspiracy theories and continue arguments that have nothing do to with anthropomorphic animals and furry fandom should be considered Vandalism by the Admins and handled accordingly. —Xydexx 21:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing Disinfo Tactics; Repeated Request for Article Protection for Rev. 268205

Reviewing the disinformation tactics used by Xydexx this far:
- Creating rumor mongers: describing all charges as "mere rumors", "conspiracy theories" and "groundless accusations" (and other derogatory terms), regardless of venue or evidence
- Creating strawmans: knocking down weakened misrepresentations of the opponent's point
- Name calling (Ad hominem): adding negative labels to opponent's person, actions and claims to induce ridicule ("out of context", "irrelevant", "invalid", "kook", "dubious", in this case)
- Argument from authority: insisting that one's words hold more weight just because he is (supposedly) a respected member of the Furry community and insisting that he can get away with edit wars unregulated
- Playing dumb: avoiding discussion of key issues by being constantly in denial, no matter what evidence or logical counter-argument is offered
- Changing subject: sidetracking discussion with any means possible, to divert it from key issues
- Vanishing evidence: attempts to delete the sensitive part of the article at all costs, removing self-inflictory statements
- Emotionalizing opponents: attempts to provocate emotional responses from the opponent, to make them look foolish
- Ignoring proof presented, demanding unusually/impossibly high standard proofs. In order to completely avoid discussing issues, existing proofs are categorically and thoroughly denied by labelling them as "invalid" or "weak" one by one, without bringing counter-proofs. Misrepresenting opponent's statements as "out of context".
- Repetition, "thick skin" tactic: sticking to weak, contradictory and disproven standpoints by parroting them over and over, even at the expense of ridiculousness
- Getting The Last Word
- Using fancy graphics to stress POV
- Intimidation (indirect death treat)
- Posing as neutral but supporting a biased POV
- Gradual corruption of the article (sneaky vandalism): editing a sentence to be self-contradictory or meaningless, then forcing the deletion of the now contradictory sentence. This tactic is especially conspicious at the gradual erosion of the sentence that started with "Manufacturers and toy designers sometimes voice their negative views [...]"
Considering the controversial nature of the topic, the repetitive usage of disinformation tactics and harassment, forcing the deletion of the questioned section instead of attempting to approach NPOV and engaging in a revert-war, I hereby suggest to revert the article to Revision 268205 and have it protected by locking until the dispute over it gets sorted out.
If possible, I would also like to request reviewing of named article and the cited sources, preferably by Moderators who are unaffiliated to inflatophilia, popping, the editors of this article and the current debate.--Wolfkid23 02:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Done. Opened a "Popping" draft page (Forum:Popping (Under revision)). Will like to ask/recommend to move the current discussion to the forum's talk page, tighten the established and agreed upon section (bloated and muddled during the edit war), and tackle the "issue" last.
The subject is complicated enough has it is, with the context starting to become harder than Chinese algebra. The main (agreed) body of the article is bloated, muddled and cut at mid-comprehension by the text being disagreed upon. Extirpate, cleanup, arrange logically the expunged section, merge.
That's all we can offer - Spirou 03:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
In the interest of not continuing the war of attrition, I will understandably be ignoring the fusillade of groundless accusations from WolfKid23 above and instead focus on the crux of the matter on the draft talk page for the Admins' edification. —Xydexx 14:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick action. Hopefully things will settle down and point towards a consensus on the Forum page.--Wolfkid23 21:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for Review

As it's impossible to leave Spirou a message on his Talk page, I'll state here I believe the draft page is now ready for review. —Xydexx 00:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Article Was Unlocked and Edited Without Consensus - Spirou Intimidated?

Despite the discussion on the Forum page was far from reaching consensus, Xydexx' long requested deletion of the questioned section was pushed through without any explanation.

It was almost predictable that Moderators who would be supportive of keeping the questioned part, would be intimidated online or offline by Xydexx or one of his peers. Should that be the case, such intimidations (they almost always arrive in subtle and indirect form to be deniable) should be Wikipedia:Harassment#Dealing_with_harassment and handed over to Admins who are willing to make difficult blocks - by the way do such Admins exist on WikiFur? I have already received two covert death threats from Xydexx, both already discussed but this far left unregulated.--Wolfkid23 06:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If no consensus was reached, as Xydexx wrote on the contrary on the summary box, the page is going back to being secured and the edit revert. Xydexx and Wolfkid23, do open a section entitled "Concesus" reached - Spirou 15:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe the consensus reached, between myself and the Admins at least, was that WikiFur was not the place for "hoax" articles about "non-existent" groups, and that using WikiFur as a platform to spout groundless conspiracy theories that have nothing to do with furry fandom was frowned upon. Please correct me if I'm wrong. As stated previously, I am only working with the Admins for consensus and not responding to Wolfkid23 as Spirou considers it "harassment," and given Wolfkid23's groundless and increasingly paranoid accusations about death threats I doubt trying to get consensus would be very productive anyway.
If Spirou would like to waste everyone's time and drag this out another four or five months, there's not really much I can do about that. Further, as stated on the draft talk page: 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.
If Spirou has reversed his opinion and now believes "hoax" articles about "non-existent" groups belong here—as implied by his decision to lock and revert edits back to the current inaccurate version of the article—then I look forward to a lot of interesting conversations about the Russian Popper Mafia.
As stated previously, I would like this issue resolved definitively no later than October 2, 2009, 11:59PM EDT. —Xydexx 18:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Clear talk, finally. So there is no intent to reach consensus. In an edit debate, consensus should be seeked between editors. Consensus between one editor and moderators is not enough and usually indicates restrictive actions other editors.
Regarding hoaxes, I have no personal objection to start an article on the Russian Popper Mafia. (Nonpoppers are often accused of having no humour by poppers, especially when they are being teased by them and they "just can't get the joke". However, they too can be humorous sometimes.)
By the way, still no sign of any warning for Xydexx' insulting mods (especially Spirou).--Wolfkid23 05:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

How Very Silly

The whole thing seems very silly to me. All you fellows arguing little points about what IS furry and what ISN'T when it really isn't any one person's view that matters. (Sort of like the whole silly Mermaid thing.)

That said, the article seems unnecessarily biased in a certain view, currently and I believe it could profit by being a bit more ambiguous. Of course, I can't edit the damn thing so I can't do anything about it! X3 GrayscaleRain 16:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Forum:Popping (Under revision) is a working copy of the article. The final draft will replaced the (again protected) main article. Feel free to edit this draft - Spirou 16:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Alrighty then! n_n There we go! GrayscaleRain 17:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Request For Review

Popping article is (once again) ready for review. GrayscaleRain has a verbose rewrite here. In the interest of not wasting everyone’s time with this further, I request that this issue be resolved no later than 11:59 pm EDT on October 16, 2009. —Xydexx 00:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Already put it up as the Inflation page. (Didn't feel like waiting.) So all we have to do is wipe this, redirect, and there we go! Once the proper redirects are in place (Popping, Bursting, Expansion, ect.) then that'll be that. n.n I just need someone to approve this I guess. o.o Otherwise I would have wiped the pages myself. (Mirrored from other pages.) --GrayscaleRain 05:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Wrote my suggestions on the Forum talk page.--Wolfkid23 05:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The editing community is the final arbiter of content, not the administrators, so we're not going to "review" or give "approval" for any particular version. I've unprotected the page, as indefinite protection is only appropriate for vandalism, not edit warring. Work it out amongst yourselves. --GreenReaper(talk) 19:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)