Works for me =) [[User:Spirou|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 03:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

::Well, I honestly don't know what Papa Ball's problem is. He [http://www.gettingit.com/article/67 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. —[[User:Xydexx|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.)--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 ([http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=13828 #1], [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=14599 #2], [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=15149 #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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 21:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Just to make it absolutely clear: I am '''not''' a space alien. I am a [http://creatures.wikia.com/wiki/Kai_Norn Kai norn], and the game I come from (''[http://creatures.wikia.com/wiki/Creatures_2 Creatures 2]'') was set on [http://creatures.wikia.com/wiki/Albia Albia] — not in space. Even if it had been ''[http://creatures.wikia.com/wiki/Creatures_3 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 [[Frazzy626|Frazzle]]. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk: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. —[[User:Xydexx|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [[Inflatables.yiff|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 [http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=pukH0pWX2Oo&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DpukH0pWX2Oo%26feature%3Dchannel_page 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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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* —[[User:Xydexx|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 — "[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy|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. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk: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 - ([http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=13828 Example#1], [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=14562 #2], [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=14574 #3] - plus countless YouTube videos filmed in a manner that resembles animal torture; [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujnTvvSm3pY&feature=channel_page Example#1], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA-uC4vHxGg&feature=channel #2]). Moderate popping apology is rare but it can also be heard ([http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=15337 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 Yiff.ru 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 (Yiff.ru) 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 [[Talk:Inflatables.yiff|Inflatables.yiff talk page]]). Citing his moderation attempt clearly supports Popinion's [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=15362 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 [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=15367 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: [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=19866 Example #1] - Gradual abstraction, [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=14633 #2] - Appeal to property rights, [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=15364 #3] - Appeal to property rights, [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=14634 #4] - Gradual abstraction, [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=19864 #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 Yiff.ru 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 [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=15362 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, Yiff.ru; 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 [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=15370 this] and [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=15720 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--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [[User:GreenReaper|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 - [[User:Spirou|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 07:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::The proofs and evidence I provided were and still are in conform with my initial claims.--[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 22:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::Your claims have been exhaustively debunked, sorry. Try again. —[[User:Xydexx|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 - [[User:Spirou|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,,contentMDK:20420458~menuPK:64133156~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175~theSitePK:239419,00.html 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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 Yiff.ru 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 Yiff.ru 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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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? --[[User:Wolfkid23|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! --[[User:Wolfkid23|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 [http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Conspiracy 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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=15362 ''highly organized and conspirative behaviour''] present ([http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/2373/popinion1.jpg 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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [[User:Wolfkid23|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. --[[User:Mwalimu|mwalimu]] 21:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

::For clarification, since the main point seems to be getting lost in the noise:
::[[File:Balloonies-Venn-Diagram.png|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 [http://en.wikifur.com/w/index.php?title=GreyScar&diff=prev&oldid=265481 on the ball] about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_vandalism 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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/2991/venn.jpg 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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:The_Last_Word|getting the Last Word]] and [http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychological_manipulation.htm#Metaphorical_Speech_%96_Hidden_Threats_and_View_on_Reality_Manipulation indirect threats]. Does that have anything to do with [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Harassment|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).
:::::--[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 04:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

::::::Attached below is an updated diagram illustrating the out-of-scope section based on WolfKid23's comments.
::::::[[File:Balloonies-Venn-Diagram2.png|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 [http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/WikiFur:What_WikiFur_is#WikiFur_is_about_furries_and_the_furry_fandom 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 [http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/WikiFur:Speedy_deletion handled accordingly]. —[[User:Xydexx|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. --[[User:Wolfkid23|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.
::::::::[[File:Balloonies-Venn-Diagram3.png|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 '''[http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/WikiFur:What_WikiFur_is#WikiFur_is_about_furries_and_the_furry_fandom 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. —[[User:Xydexx|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 03:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::NUTS. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 19:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC) '''This "Nuts" was removed in Rev. 268469!''' --[[User:Wolfkid23|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 [http://community.livejournal.com/scionfurries/ 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. —[[User:Xydexx|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?--.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [[Wikipedia:Strawman|strawmans]]:''' knocking down weakened misrepresentations of the opponent's point
:- '''[[Wikipedia:Ad_hominem|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)
:- '''[[Wikipedia:Argument_from_authority|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
:- '''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:The_Last_Word|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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 - [[User:Spirou|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 [[Forum_talk:Popping_(Under_revision)|draft talk page]] for the Admins' edification. —[[User:Xydexx|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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 [[Forum:Popping_%28Under_revision%29 | draft page]] is now ready for review. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [[exposed|Wikipedia:Harassment#Dealing_with_harassment]] and handed over to [[Wikipedia:Admins_willing_to_make_difficult_blocks|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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 - [[User:Spirou|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 [[Forum_talk:Popping_(Under_revision)#Closing_Arguments|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/inflatable_animal_liberation_front/ be humorous] sometimes.)
:::By the way, still no sign of any warning for Xydexx' insulting mods (especially Spirou).--[[User:Wolfkid23|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 [[User:GrayscaleRain|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 - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 16:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

::Alrighty then! n_n There we go! [[User:GrayscaleRain|GrayscaleRain]] 17:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

== Request For Review ==

Popping article is (once again) ready for review. GrayscaleRain has a verbose rewrite [http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/User:GrayscaleRain/Inflation_and_Expansion_draft 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. —[[User:Xydexx|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.) --[[User:GrayscaleRain|GrayscaleRain]] 05:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

::Wrote my suggestions on the [[Forum_talk:Popping_(Under_revision)|Forum talk]] page.--[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 05:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Popping

2009-10-01T06:48:24Z

Wolfkid23:

Forum talk:Popping (Under revision)

2009-09-27T05:40:03Z

Wolfkid23:

== 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. —[[User:Xydexx|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. --[[User:Mwalimu|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?) --[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 23:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

:::There are already valid reasons why it should be deleted: It has nothing to do with [[WikiFur:What WikiFur is|what WikiFur is about]], and—more to the point—WikiFur is [[WikiFur:About#Request|not an appropriate forum for airing your personal disagreements]]. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 00:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

::::To summarize and review the main points of debate '''that are still open''' on the article's [[Talk:Popping|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 [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Civility|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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? --[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 01:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::Yes, as stated above: WikiFur is [[WikiFur:About#Request|not an appropriate forum for airing your personal disagreements]] —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 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. --[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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? --[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 02:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::::::No additional reasons. —[[User:Xydexx|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. --[[User:Wolfkid23|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 [http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry.politics/msg/40b7b48368ac5068?dmode=source&output=gplain 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 [[Talk:Popping#A_few_meta-comments|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). —[[User:Xydexx|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 [[WikiFur:What_WikiFur_is#._._._and_try_to_make_a_good_first_impression.21|it is definitely part of ''WikiFur'']]. If I read [[Talk:Popping#Proposed_Section_Deletion|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 [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=21702 discussed], with many Furs there, some of them - yes - poppers. [http://hollowpaws.com/ Hollow Paws] is a Furry forum. Also [http://community.livejournal.com/furs_n_floats/ 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. --[[User:Wolfkid23|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 [http://dr-agon-rawg.livejournal.com/1443.html LiveJournal]. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [[Wikipedia:Self-serving_bias|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 [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Outing#Posting_of_personal_information|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 [http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=pukH0pWX2Oo&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DpukH0pWX2Oo%26feature%3Dchannel_page 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? --[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 00:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::Wow, guess I touched a nerve there... -=)
:::::::::::::::::::By your logic, [http://www.xydexx.com/modernruins/ 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 [[Wikipedia:Spetsnaz|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, [[User_talk:Dr._agon|it's not like he doesn't have an account here]].
:::::::::::::::::::Oh well. It's nice to know [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_(Internet)|you're here to go to bat for him]] in any event. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Outing|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 [http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=pukH0pWX2Oo&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DpukH0pWX2Oo%26feature%3Dchannel_page 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? --[[User:Wolfkid23|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 [http://www.xydexx.net/squeaky/guide.htm 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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [http://www.brasscheck.com/martin.html 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. --[[User:Wolfkid23|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 [http://dr-agon-rawg.livejournal.com/1443.html 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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ambient%20Abuse 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 [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith|assume good faith]] but TBH I still have concerns about your intentions of making this a "''very'' informative article". --[[User:Wolfkid23|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 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lZTZCUKMQI 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 [http://xydexx.livejournal.com/694747.html 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_in_Black 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! —[[User:Xydexx|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. --[[User:Wolfkid23|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''! —[[User:Xydexx|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!

[[Image:ConspiracySpagmumps.jpg]]

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! —[[User:Xydexx|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 [http://panugaeilgewiki.wikispaces.com/zangelding zangelding], or perhaps a wookalar. This is critically important and further details will follow shortly. —[[User:Xydexx|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! -=) —[[User:Xydexx|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, [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:HARASS#Posting_of_personal_information|which should be taken down]]. I also took notice of your [http://en.wikifur.com/w/index.php?title=Wolfkid23&action=history second covert death threat] ("decapitated") and [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:HARASS#User_space_harassment|user space harassment]] on [[User:Wolfkid23|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 [[Talk:Popping#Reviewing_Disinfo_Tactics.3B_Repeated_Request_for_Article_Protection_for_Rev._268205|locked]] because of your [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:DE|disruptive editing]], [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:NPA|personal attacks]] and [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:HARASS|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 [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Civility|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 [[Talk:Popping#Reviewing_Disinfo_Tactics.3B_Repeated_Request_for_Article_Protection_for_Rev._268205|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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 [[Russian Popper Mafia|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''. —[[User:Xydexx|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 Inflatablefurs.com 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 [[User_talk:Spirou|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 [[inflatables.yiff|inflates.yiff.ru]] 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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [[Dr._Agon_Rawg|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 [[User_talk:Xydexx|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 05:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Forum talk:Popping (Under revision)

2009-09-27T05:28:49Z

Wolfkid23:

== 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. —[[User:Xydexx|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. --[[User:Mwalimu|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?) --[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 23:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

:::There are already valid reasons why it should be deleted: It has nothing to do with [[WikiFur:What WikiFur is|what WikiFur is about]], and—more to the point—WikiFur is [[WikiFur:About#Request|not an appropriate forum for airing your personal disagreements]]. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 00:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

::::To summarize and review the main points of debate '''that are still open''' on the article's [[Talk:Popping|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 [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Civility|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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? --[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 01:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::Yes, as stated above: WikiFur is [[WikiFur:About#Request|not an appropriate forum for airing your personal disagreements]] —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 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. --[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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? --[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 02:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::::::No additional reasons. —[[User:Xydexx|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. --[[User:Wolfkid23|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 [http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry.politics/msg/40b7b48368ac5068?dmode=source&output=gplain 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 [[Talk:Popping#A_few_meta-comments|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). —[[User:Xydexx|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 [[WikiFur:What_WikiFur_is#._._._and_try_to_make_a_good_first_impression.21|it is definitely part of ''WikiFur'']]. If I read [[Talk:Popping#Proposed_Section_Deletion|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 [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=21702 discussed], with many Furs there, some of them - yes - poppers. [http://hollowpaws.com/ Hollow Paws] is a Furry forum. Also [http://community.livejournal.com/furs_n_floats/ 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. --[[User:Wolfkid23|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 [http://dr-agon-rawg.livejournal.com/1443.html LiveJournal]. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [[Wikipedia:Self-serving_bias|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 [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Outing#Posting_of_personal_information|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 [http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=pukH0pWX2Oo&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DpukH0pWX2Oo%26feature%3Dchannel_page 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? --[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 00:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::Wow, guess I touched a nerve there... -=)
:::::::::::::::::::By your logic, [http://www.xydexx.com/modernruins/ 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 [[Wikipedia:Spetsnaz|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, [[User_talk:Dr._agon|it's not like he doesn't have an account here]].
:::::::::::::::::::Oh well. It's nice to know [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_(Internet)|you're here to go to bat for him]] in any event. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Outing|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 [http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=pukH0pWX2Oo&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DpukH0pWX2Oo%26feature%3Dchannel_page 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? --[[User:Wolfkid23|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 [http://www.xydexx.net/squeaky/guide.htm 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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [http://www.brasscheck.com/martin.html 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. --[[User:Wolfkid23|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 [http://dr-agon-rawg.livejournal.com/1443.html 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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ambient%20Abuse 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 [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith|assume good faith]] but TBH I still have concerns about your intentions of making this a "''very'' informative article". --[[User:Wolfkid23|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 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lZTZCUKMQI 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 [http://xydexx.livejournal.com/694747.html 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_in_Black 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! —[[User:Xydexx|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. --[[User:Wolfkid23|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''! —[[User:Xydexx|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!

[[Image:ConspiracySpagmumps.jpg]]

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! —[[User:Xydexx|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 [http://panugaeilgewiki.wikispaces.com/zangelding zangelding], or perhaps a wookalar. This is critically important and further details will follow shortly. —[[User:Xydexx|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! -=) —[[User:Xydexx|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, [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:HARASS#Posting_of_personal_information|which should be taken down]]. I also took notice of your [http://en.wikifur.com/w/index.php?title=Wolfkid23&action=history second covert death threat] ("decapitated") and [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:HARASS#User_space_harassment|user space harassment]] on [[User:Wolfkid23|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 [[Talk:Popping#Reviewing_Disinfo_Tactics.3B_Repeated_Request_for_Article_Protection_for_Rev._268205|locked]] because of your [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:DE|disruptive editing]], [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:NPA|personal attacks]] and [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:HARASS|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 [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Civility|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 [[Talk:Popping#Reviewing_Disinfo_Tactics.3B_Repeated_Request_for_Article_Protection_for_Rev._268205|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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 [[Russian Popper Mafia|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''. —[[User:Xydexx|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 Inflatablefurs.com 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 [[User_talk:Spirou|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 [[inflatables.yiff|inflates.yiff.ru]] 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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [Dr._Agon_Rawg|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 [User_talk:Xydexx|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 05:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Forum talk:Popping (Under revision)

2009-09-27T05:24:39Z

Wolfkid23:

== 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. —[[User:Xydexx|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. --[[User:Mwalimu|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?) --[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 23:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

:::There are already valid reasons why it should be deleted: It has nothing to do with [[WikiFur:What WikiFur is|what WikiFur is about]], and—more to the point—WikiFur is [[WikiFur:About#Request|not an appropriate forum for airing your personal disagreements]]. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 00:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

::::To summarize and review the main points of debate '''that are still open''' on the article's [[Talk:Popping|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 [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Civility|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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? --[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 01:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::Yes, as stated above: WikiFur is [[WikiFur:About#Request|not an appropriate forum for airing your personal disagreements]] —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 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. --[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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? --[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 02:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::::::No additional reasons. —[[User:Xydexx|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. --[[User:Wolfkid23|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 [http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry.politics/msg/40b7b48368ac5068?dmode=source&output=gplain 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 [[Talk:Popping#A_few_meta-comments|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). —[[User:Xydexx|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 [[WikiFur:What_WikiFur_is#._._._and_try_to_make_a_good_first_impression.21|it is definitely part of ''WikiFur'']]. If I read [[Talk:Popping#Proposed_Section_Deletion|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 [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=21702 discussed], with many Furs there, some of them - yes - poppers. [http://hollowpaws.com/ Hollow Paws] is a Furry forum. Also [http://community.livejournal.com/furs_n_floats/ 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. --[[User:Wolfkid23|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 [http://dr-agon-rawg.livejournal.com/1443.html LiveJournal]. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [[Wikipedia:Self-serving_bias|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 [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Outing#Posting_of_personal_information|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 [http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=pukH0pWX2Oo&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DpukH0pWX2Oo%26feature%3Dchannel_page 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? --[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 00:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::Wow, guess I touched a nerve there... -=)
:::::::::::::::::::By your logic, [http://www.xydexx.com/modernruins/ 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 [[Wikipedia:Spetsnaz|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, [[User_talk:Dr._agon|it's not like he doesn't have an account here]].
:::::::::::::::::::Oh well. It's nice to know [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_(Internet)|you're here to go to bat for him]] in any event. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Outing|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 [http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=pukH0pWX2Oo&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DpukH0pWX2Oo%26feature%3Dchannel_page 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? --[[User:Wolfkid23|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 [http://www.xydexx.net/squeaky/guide.htm 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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [http://www.brasscheck.com/martin.html 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. --[[User:Wolfkid23|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 [http://dr-agon-rawg.livejournal.com/1443.html 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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ambient%20Abuse 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 [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith|assume good faith]] but TBH I still have concerns about your intentions of making this a "''very'' informative article". --[[User:Wolfkid23|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 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lZTZCUKMQI 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 [http://xydexx.livejournal.com/694747.html 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_in_Black 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! —[[User:Xydexx|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. --[[User:Wolfkid23|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''! —[[User:Xydexx|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!

[[Image:ConspiracySpagmumps.jpg]]

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! —[[User:Xydexx|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 [http://panugaeilgewiki.wikispaces.com/zangelding zangelding], or perhaps a wookalar. This is critically important and further details will follow shortly. —[[User:Xydexx|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! -=) —[[User:Xydexx|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, [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:HARASS#Posting_of_personal_information|which should be taken down]]. I also took notice of your [http://en.wikifur.com/w/index.php?title=Wolfkid23&action=history second covert death threat] ("decapitated") and [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:HARASS#User_space_harassment|user space harassment]] on [[User:Wolfkid23|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 [[Talk:Popping#Reviewing_Disinfo_Tactics.3B_Repeated_Request_for_Article_Protection_for_Rev._268205|locked]] because of your [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:DE|disruptive editing]], [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:NPA|personal attacks]] and [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:HARASS|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 [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Civility|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 [[Talk:Popping#Reviewing_Disinfo_Tactics.3B_Repeated_Request_for_Article_Protection_for_Rev._268205|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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 [[Russian Popper Mafia|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''. —[[User:Xydexx|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 Inflatablefurs.com 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 [[User_talk:Spirou|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 [[inflatables.yiff|inflates.yiff.ru]] 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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [Dr._Agon_Rawg|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 [User_talk:Xydexx|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 05:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Forum talk:Popping (Under revision)

2009-09-27T05:06:04Z

Wolfkid23:

== 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. —[[User:Xydexx|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. --[[User:Mwalimu|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?) --[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 23:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

:::There are already valid reasons why it should be deleted: It has nothing to do with [[WikiFur:What WikiFur is|what WikiFur is about]], and—more to the point—WikiFur is [[WikiFur:About#Request|not an appropriate forum for airing your personal disagreements]]. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 00:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

::::To summarize and review the main points of debate '''that are still open''' on the article's [[Talk:Popping|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 [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Civility|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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? --[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 01:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::Yes, as stated above: WikiFur is [[WikiFur:About#Request|not an appropriate forum for airing your personal disagreements]] —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 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. --[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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? --[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 02:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::::::No additional reasons. —[[User:Xydexx|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. --[[User:Wolfkid23|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 [http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry.politics/msg/40b7b48368ac5068?dmode=source&output=gplain 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 [[Talk:Popping#A_few_meta-comments|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). —[[User:Xydexx|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 [[WikiFur:What_WikiFur_is#._._._and_try_to_make_a_good_first_impression.21|it is definitely part of ''WikiFur'']]. If I read [[Talk:Popping#Proposed_Section_Deletion|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 [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=21702 discussed], with many Furs there, some of them - yes - poppers. [http://hollowpaws.com/ Hollow Paws] is a Furry forum. Also [http://community.livejournal.com/furs_n_floats/ 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. --[[User:Wolfkid23|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 [http://dr-agon-rawg.livejournal.com/1443.html LiveJournal]. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [[Wikipedia:Self-serving_bias|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 [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Outing#Posting_of_personal_information|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 [http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=pukH0pWX2Oo&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DpukH0pWX2Oo%26feature%3Dchannel_page 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? --[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 00:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::Wow, guess I touched a nerve there... -=)
:::::::::::::::::::By your logic, [http://www.xydexx.com/modernruins/ 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 [[Wikipedia:Spetsnaz|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, [[User_talk:Dr._agon|it's not like he doesn't have an account here]].
:::::::::::::::::::Oh well. It's nice to know [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_(Internet)|you're here to go to bat for him]] in any event. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Outing|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 [http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=pukH0pWX2Oo&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DpukH0pWX2Oo%26feature%3Dchannel_page 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? --[[User:Wolfkid23|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 [http://www.xydexx.net/squeaky/guide.htm 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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [http://www.brasscheck.com/martin.html 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. --[[User:Wolfkid23|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 [http://dr-agon-rawg.livejournal.com/1443.html 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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ambient%20Abuse 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 [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith|assume good faith]] but TBH I still have concerns about your intentions of making this a "''very'' informative article". --[[User:Wolfkid23|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 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lZTZCUKMQI 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 [http://xydexx.livejournal.com/694747.html 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_in_Black 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! —[[User:Xydexx|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. --[[User:Wolfkid23|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''! —[[User:Xydexx|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!

[[Image:ConspiracySpagmumps.jpg]]

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! —[[User:Xydexx|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 [http://panugaeilgewiki.wikispaces.com/zangelding zangelding], or perhaps a wookalar. This is critically important and further details will follow shortly. —[[User:Xydexx|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! -=) —[[User:Xydexx|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, [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:HARASS#Posting_of_personal_information|which should be taken down]]. I also took notice of your [http://en.wikifur.com/w/index.php?title=Wolfkid23&action=history second covert death threat] ("decapitated") and [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:HARASS#User_space_harassment|user space harassment]] on [[User:Wolfkid23|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 [[Talk:Popping#Reviewing_Disinfo_Tactics.3B_Repeated_Request_for_Article_Protection_for_Rev._268205|locked]] because of your [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:DE|disruptive editing]], [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:NPA|personal attacks]] and [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:HARASS|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 [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Civility|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 [[Talk:Popping#Reviewing_Disinfo_Tactics.3B_Repeated_Request_for_Article_Protection_for_Rev._268205|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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 [[Russian Popper Mafia|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''. —[[User:Xydexx|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 Inflatablefurs.com 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 [[User_talk:Spirou|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 [[inflatables.yiff|inflates.yiff.ru]] 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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [Dr._Agon_Rawg|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 [User_talk:Xydexx|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 05:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Forum talk:Popping (Under revision)

2009-09-23T04:05:05Z

Wolfkid23:

Forum talk:Popping (Under revision)

2009-09-23T03:57:09Z

2009-08-25T21:14:59Z

Wolfkid23:

Works for me =) [[User:Spirou|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 03:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

::Well, I honestly don't know what Papa Ball's problem is. He [http://www.gettingit.com/article/67 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. —[[User:Xydexx|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.)--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 ([http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=13828 #1], [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=14599 #2], [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=15149 #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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 21:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Just to make it absolutely clear: I am '''not''' a space alien. I am a [http://creatures.wikia.com/wiki/Kai_Norn Kai norn], and the game I come from (''[http://creatures.wikia.com/wiki/Creatures_2 Creatures 2]'') was set on [http://creatures.wikia.com/wiki/Albia Albia] — not in space. Even if it had been ''[http://creatures.wikia.com/wiki/Creatures_3 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 [[Frazzy626|Frazzle]]. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk: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. —[[User:Xydexx|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [[Inflatables.yiff|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 [http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=pukH0pWX2Oo&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DpukH0pWX2Oo%26feature%3Dchannel_page 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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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* —[[User:Xydexx|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 — "[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy|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. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk: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 - ([http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=13828 Example#1], [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=14562 #2], [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=14574 #3] - plus countless YouTube videos filmed in a manner that resembles animal torture; [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujnTvvSm3pY&feature=channel_page Example#1], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA-uC4vHxGg&feature=channel #2]). Moderate popping apology is rare but it can also be heard ([http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=15337 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 Yiff.ru 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 (Yiff.ru) 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 [[Talk:Inflatables.yiff|Inflatables.yiff talk page]]). Citing his moderation attempt clearly supports Popinion's [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=15362 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 [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=15367 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: [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=19866 Example #1] - Gradual abstraction, [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=14633 #2] - Appeal to property rights, [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=15364 #3] - Appeal to property rights, [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=14634 #4] - Gradual abstraction, [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=19864 #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 Yiff.ru 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 [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=15362 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, Yiff.ru; 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 [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=15370 this] and [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=15720 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--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [[User:GreenReaper|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 - [[User:Spirou|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 07:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::The proofs and evidence I provided were and still are in conform with my initial claims.--[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 22:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::Your claims have been exhaustively debunked, sorry. Try again. —[[User:Xydexx|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 - [[User:Spirou|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,,contentMDK:20420458~menuPK:64133156~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175~theSitePK:239419,00.html 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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 Yiff.ru 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 Yiff.ru 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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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? --[[User:Wolfkid23|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! --[[User:Wolfkid23|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 [http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Conspiracy 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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [http://inflates.yiff.ru/?p=messages&m=read&mid=15362 ''highly organized and conspirative behaviour''] present ([http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/2373/popinion1.jpg 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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [[User:Wolfkid23|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. --[[User:Mwalimu|mwalimu]] 21:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

::For clarification, since the main point seems to be getting lost in the noise:
::[[File:Balloonies-Venn-Diagram.png|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 [http://furry.wikia.com/index.php?title=GreyScar&diff=prev&oldid=265481 on the ball] about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_vandalism 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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/2991/venn.jpg 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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|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. —[[User:Xydexx|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 [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:The_Last_Word|getting the Last Word]] and [http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychological_manipulation.htm#Metaphorical_Speech_%96_Hidden_Threats_and_View_on_Reality_Manipulation indirect threats]. Does that have anything to do with [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Harassment|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).
:::::--[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 04:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

::::::Attached below is an updated diagram illustrating the out-of-scope section based on WolfKid23's comments.
::::::[[File:Balloonies-Venn-Diagram2.png|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 [http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/WikiFur:What_WikiFur_is#WikiFur_is_about_furries_and_the_furry_fandom 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 [http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/WikiFur:Speedy_deletion handled accordingly]. —[[User:Xydexx|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. --[[User:Wolfkid23|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.
::::::::[[File:Balloonies-Venn-Diagram3.png|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 '''[http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/WikiFur:What_WikiFur_is#WikiFur_is_about_furries_and_the_furry_fandom 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. —[[User:Xydexx|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.--[[User:Wolfkid23|Wolfkid23]] 03:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::NUTS. —[[User:Xydexx|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?--21:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)