Aa45955

I sympathize with your position here. While "today the virtual online world of Furcadia is used primarily as an anonymous online meeting grounds for extreme sexual fetishists" is quite a bit of a stretch, there are certainly sexually explicit areas in Furcadia that pose a problem for children and parents, and it deserves mentioning.

However, two of our main policies in Wikipedia are No original research and Verifiability; these policies state that all contentious material (criticism certainly falls under this category) must cite reliable, third-party, published sources. If there is a prominent game review on Furcadia, that may qualify as a reliable source. Similarly, newspapers and nonfiction books often qualify. Interviews from DEP members admitting the controversy might also work. However, simply your word (or mine) and a website that contains hundreds of sex-related Furcadia profiles will not be sufficient. As for verifying by visiting Furcadia, that will not work because Furcadia is a huge community, and places like Naia and many private dreams will have a very different level of explicit content than FurN; it all depends on where you are. -kotra (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

(Response from Aa45955)

The statement "today the virtual online world of Furcadia is used primarily as an anonymous online meeting grounds for extreme sexual fetishists" is most certainly not a stretch, it's based entirely on fact. The official map dedicated to these practices [Furrabian Nights] typically has more than double the population of all other official maps combined, and all of the most popular user-created content in all of Furcadia is of a sexual nature and resides in Furrabian Nights. And yes, nearly 100% of it can be classified as "extreme sexual fetishism" and I don't think I even need to explain why.

Furcadia is a game based primarily on sexual entertainment. That's what people use it for. The game is pornographic. Just because a small minority of people in Furcadia choose to use the game for mostly non-pornographic purposes does not give the creators of Furcadia the right to run around the internet advertising their game as if it's a friendly and welcoming place for people of all ages and backgrounds. It definitely isn't, and nobody below the age of 18 should be allowed anywhere near it without a parent over their shoulder.

Even the areas of the game that are not of a sexual nature frequently see characters that ARE of a sexual nature passing through them. These characters' descriptions often contain detailed descriptions of sexual nature and links to outside websites containing extreme pornography. And a large number of the people that frequent the non-pornographic areas of the game do in fact use the game for sexual purposes, often against the [unenforced] rules right inside the G-rated areas themselves.

In regard to my criticism, you have a conflict of interest. You are a regular in Furcadia and you don't want to see it criticized. But you know everything I'm saying is true, and the fact that you knowingly remove criticism that you know to be factual from Furcadia's wiki is rather disturbing, especially when the criticism is intended to warn people about the absurdly high potential for Furcadia to expose their children to extreme sexual fetishism.

Considering nearly every reference in this Wikipedia article comes directly from the proprietors of Furcadia, this article amounts to little more than a misleading advertisement from the makers of Furcadia themselves. The article misrepresents their product and is totally irresponsible. This organization knowingly promotes pedophilia. If the criticism continues to be removed I'll be seeking deletion of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aa45955 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 11 May 2009

First of all, I am not a regular in Furcadia by any means. I have barely visited it in over 2 years, and before that the times I spent there were sporadic at best. In addition, I have my own criticisms of Furcadia and its leadership. However, I must set those aside here because they do not come from a reliable source. Wikipedia policy is fairly clear on this: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged ... must be attributed to a reliable, published source." and "verifiability, not truth". Even if true, your criticism section is not verifiable from reliable, third-party sources. It is simple fact that we cannot include it.

Respectfully, I must disagree that the current article on Furcadia is "little more than a misleading advertisement from the makers of Furcadia themselves". Nowhere in it is any positive praise given, words like "innovative" or "friendly" or "fun" are nowhere to be found. Only the facts are presented. Nor did the makers of Furcadia create or edit the article, with the notable exception of Special:Contributions/Sanct, a developer for Furcadia, who made a few uncontroversial edits that you are welcome to peruse.

However, if you wish to seek deletion, you are welcome to. The article was put up for deletion and kept over two years ago; since then, the article has drastically improved, so deletion is almost assuredly a lost cause, but you are welcome to try if you wish.

One final thing: to prevent disruptive edit warring, Wikipedia has a rule that prevents anyone from reverting on an article more than three times within a 24-hour period. You are dangerously close to breaching this rule, so please do not re-add the content until this discussion is resolved. The full text of the rule can be found at Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. -kotra (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Your sources are bogus. We cannot use Internet fora as sources for any articles, and the first source is horribly dated. If there was something more recent, I would have trimmed the section down so as to make it not look like you're playing the Think of the Children card, but unfortunately the one source is dated and useless. I've reverted your edit as introducing undue weight. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 21:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Response from aa45955

The article at MMORGY is a review of one gameplay aspect of Furcadia. The other sources cited are the official websites of the popular user-created dreams being listed. These are not bogus sources. The review is a little over 3 years old. Lots of reviews are old. It's a 12-year-old game.

You have no reasonable justification to be removing this entry. The other changes I made before this, I understand the decision to undo them. There was no third-party criticism. But I've tried to compromise to find some common ground that we can agree on.

This new entry is not criticism, it is a statement with reliable third-party sources regarding a very large portion of the Furcadian community. It is unbiased factual information with sources.

I logged onto Furcadia a few hours ago and did a rough measure of the population. Of all the main maps a few hours ago, the mature 16+ map where all the sexual content is located had 248 players on it. All other 9 main Furcadia maps listed on the front panel combined had 242. That's not even mentioning the fact that a lot of the 242 players were in Hawthorn, another mature environment that houses some adult material.

I didn't include any of that in the entry because it's original research, but I use it here to illustrate the fact that I'm not making this up as many of you seem to think, nor am I exaggerating the prevalence of this activity on Furcadia. You can log onto Furcadia and see for yourself.

It is a major aspect of the Furcadian community, and this article is absolutely incomplete unless there is at least some mention of it. I'm trying to compromise here. Please help me find a way to include the relevant information about the sexual nature of Furcadia in the Wikipedia article.

The MMORGY article is almost four years out of date; the other three sources are Internet fora and thus unusable. The sources are indeed bogus. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 22:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I sympathise with your position, but the plain fact is that Wikipedia does not report things covered only in self-published websites and forums - the fact that they're official sites is irrelevant to that since I'm objecting on grounds of unreliability in the technical Wikipedia sense not 'bogus'ness. I really don't know if the stuff about sexual activity is true (I have no reason to doubt you and you seem to know what you're talking about), but the standard for inclusion in Wikipeida is "verifiability not truth". If this side of the game has been discussed in reliable sources then great; if not, we will have to do without it. We may lose some true information that way, but that's far preferable (in my opinion and also that of the various Wikipedia editors who wrote the policies I linked to above) to the sort of problems we'd get into if we started accepting forum posts and other self-published sources. Best, Olaf Davis (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Against my better judgment, I would also like to point out that, from my (admittedly dated) perception of the game, the 450 players you found on main maps are a very small minority of total players. I asked a friend who still plays the game to verify this; he found 276 players on that particular map, and 3367 players in the whole of Furcadia. So unless one finds out how many people in Furcadia are in all sexually-explicit areas, both main maps and other areas, this sort of original research is misleading at best. -kotra (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That was indeed against your better judgment Kotra, because you are wrong. Yes, most people in Furcadia inhabit user-created content, but the population of the main maps is directly correllated to which kinds of user-created content are the most popular. Furrabian Nights has more than half the population of everyone in the main maps, and Furrabian Nights is the place where almost all of the sexual fantasy content is hosted. So it stands to reason, that the unaccounted for population that's populating user-created content, is populating these sexual fantasy dreams in an amount roughly proportionate to the relative numbers we observe on the main maps.

I'll agree then that the official sites of the most popular dreams in Furcadia are unusable sources per Wikipedia guidelines. The MMORGY article most definitely is not, though. It's not internet fora and the fact that it's 3 years old is irrelevant because it is a review. All reviews for old games are old, they still see rampant inclusion in all other game-related Wikipedia articles.

The MMORGY article is a reliable enough source to at least state that people do use Furcadia for taboo sexual fantasy (the review includes pictures and descriptions of anthropomorphic creatures having sex), and to link that activity to the official Furcadia map Furrabian Nights (the review mentions this also).

The review specifically mentions the following as sexual activity that Furcadia dreams cater to: "Gay, Lesbian, Straight, Bi, Beastiality (odd for a furry world, eh?), herms, heck, I’ve even since one for tentacles." So mentioning these sexual preferences as something that Furcadia dreams cater to should also be fair.

It also describes cybersex/yiffing, so the inclusion of links to furry fandom, yiffing, and cybersex wikis are reasonable as well.

This is of course assuming that there is no debate that MMORGY.com's article is a reliable source. I see no reason why it wouldn't be. It is an independent website that publishes stories and information and reviews about the world of massively multiplayer online sexuality. The fact that it's 3 years old is totally irrelevant, all of that information is still relevant today and there's no reasonable expectation that any of that information would become less relevant with time.

As long as we're talking about reliable sources, consider the fact that every source cited in this article comes directly from the makers of Furcadia themselves, -except mine-. Every other piece of information in the article was self-published by the very subject of the article itself.

I'll be re-writing the Sexual Fantasy portion of Gameplay to include only information cited from the reliable source, MMORGY, later on. Once that's done we'll need arbitration because I'm not going to stop fixing it, and the biased Furcadians that maintain this wiki likely aren't going to stop tearing it down.

I'm removing it because the sources are not reliable. I do not play MMORPGs at all, Furcadia included. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 23:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see you are dedicated, but there are several reasons why what you propose will not work. Firstly, MMOrgy is not a reliable source. The age of the source, for one, is a problem. Online games change greatly within the span of 3-4 years, despite your assertion that they do not. Another problem is bias. MMOrgy is biased in that it very publicly and unashamedly seeks to only cover sexual and pornographic aspects of online games. Still another problem the source has no "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:RS) or, as far as I can tell, reputation at all. It is a self-published blog, and one that has been defunct for two years at that. For all these reasons (there may be more that I have overlooked), it is not a reliable source.

Secondly, the article Furcadia does not currently describe in any way what sort of content is present in Furcadia. Presenting only the sexual aspect without also presenting other aspects is a textbook example of introducing undue weight.

Concerning your assertion that sexual activity is proportionally greater based on the population of main maps, I fail to understand how you can make this assertion. This is akin to saying most people in the United States are Democrats because most of the residents of large US cities are Democrats. This assertion is demonstrably untrue, and I can't see how it must be true in the case of Furcadia either. I addressed this "against my better judgment" because you admit it is original research and not admissible in Wikipedia, so discussing it here is pointless and off-topic. Therefore, I will let you have the last word on the subject, if you choose to.

I have no words for your mention of arbitration, so I will merely leave it at that. -kotra (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"Of all the main maps a few hours ago, the mature 16+ map where all the sexual content is located..." it says on Furcadia's website here that on a 16+ map "Strong language, mild sexual content, moderate violence and other adult themes may be encountered." (nothing any worse then in Resident Evil or Bad Fur Day) and that "Extreme violence and explicit sexual content is not allowed." Also all main maps do not go above this rating.

"Furrabian Nights is the place where almost all of the sexual fantasy content is hosted." Again this is not true as Furrabian Nights is only a +16 zone.

"I'm not going to stop fixing it, and the biased Furcadians that maintain this wiki likely aren't going to stop tearing it down." Please assume good faith, I don't think most that reverted you have ever played the game. RP9 (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Every refutation posted here is completely wrong. Go to Furcadia, >40% (I'm being excedingly modest) of what happens there is people exchanging sex fantasy of extreme taboo nature in user-created dreams open to the public hosted in Furrabian Nights. According to this Wikipedia article though, it's a happy place full of sunshine and rainbows and cartoon characters with a wonderful helpful and active community of perfectly sane and imaginative individuals that's totally safe for people of all ages.

This article represents the polar opposite of a truthful representation of Furcadia, and all based on information sourced by Furcadia itself. This is ridiculous. This is like having an article where one person is allowed to post anything about himself he wants while listing himself as a credible source, but if any other person posts anything no matter how obviously true it is, it gets thrown out for a lack of sources because no news outlet cares enough to post a story about him in the first place.

This proves there's a tremendous flaw in Wikipedia policy, where apparently any small unknown business can start an article and post anything they want about themselves without anybody having any ability to correct even obvious falsehoods and misrepresentations.

Furcadia.com is not a reliable source.

It's more reliable than what you've been pushing. Three forums and a three-year-old page are useless sources, and in any case the sexual content crap you've been trying to shove in adds undue weight. Seriously, just stop before you get yourself blocked for disruption. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 01:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeske, I don't have anywhere near the amount of pathetic devotion you do to spending exorbitant amounts of free time editing and powertripping (without any real power) for no money on an internet encyclopedia. What happens to this account is totally irrelevant to me. Your cards are stupid, (Personal attack redacted by Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)}), and you obviously lead an incredibly dull and creepy little life. But you win, I'm gonna give up trying to make the article accurate, it's just a waste.

I spend less time than you think on Wikipedia, Aa. As has been repeatedly told you, the reason people keep reverting you (note that I use the plural, people) is because you're using fora and a horrendously out-of-date webpage to try and push a bias, as well as equating players of the game to pedophiles. It was so bad another administrator had to completely redact your deletion rationale for the article per our Biographies policy. And before you deny any of this, I will point you towards your contributions to Wikipedia - all centered around this one article, all attempts to push a POV or eliminate the article after your POV was soundly rejected. You, Aa, are a one-trick pony and a "child-oriented" zealot. Please do yourself and Wikipedia a favor and either 1) learn from this experience thus far, contribute in another area (preferably one you have very good knowledge of), and try and turn over a new leaf; or 2) leave. If you need a rename to cover you as you vanish, I am more than willing to file a rename request at CHU on your behalf. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 04:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what a CHU would accomplish or why I would care about that

CHanging Username. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:SELFPUB this article doesn't have a single reliable source, because "5. This article is based primarily on such sources." You can't possibly disagree with that, it's clear as day right there in Wikipedia policy. Not one reliable source in that entire Furcadia article, other than 1 news story that's 3+ years old posted by a source of questionable reliability itself, that only supports 1 single statement in the entire Furcadia wiki.

Please do not use "wiki" to refer to an article. It makes us think you're talking about something like WikiFur or Bulbapedia. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd ask then why you singled my entry out for retraction when every single entry in the entire article lacked reliable sources, but I already know the answer to that question. You're biased and it's heavily reflected in your editing.

And you aren't? You've been pushing the sexual aspect relentlessly; it's undue weight! Let (s)he without sin cast the first stone. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If this article doesn't find additional citations for verification within 7 days, I'll be re-submitting it for deletion on the grounds that it's in violation of WP:SELFPUB, doesn't have a single reliable citation, has failed to provide reliable sources over an extended period of time, and therefor lacks notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aa45955 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 13 May 2009

See below. You resubmit it for deletion, and it will, once again, be speedy-kept. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The non-DEP source you mention, [1], is actually only 2 and a half years old, not 3+, the information it is being used to cite is not going to change with time, and it supports one of the main statements that asserts notability of the subject. You are also overlooking (not by any fault of your own; they are improperly cited) the sources listed later in the article for the awards Furcadia has received, which also assert notability of the subject. The sources from the Furcadia official website are only used to cite uncontroversial statements, and well in line with WP:SELFPUB. Admittedly, you're right that the article could use more sources that aren't from the Furcadia website, but notability of the subject is established already, even without them. -kotra (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Furcadia hosts sexual fantasy and cybersex/yiffing isn't going to change over time, either. That's the point I was making. Obviously the datedness of that article is irrelevant, just like the datedness of the article I was citing is also irrelevant. The article I was citing was on a site just as reputable as that one, too. But my entry gets deleted. The people who maintain the Furcadia article are selectively removing content that they personally don't want on the article, it's total bias.

You're talking about an online game. A three-year-old article being used to cite an aspect of the game very susceptible to change is equivalent to citing Richard Nixon in the midst of the Watergate scandal for Rod Blagojevich's corruption impeachment. Also, another user has pointed out that explicit sexual references are disallowed by the game, even by the game's most adult rating. Please do yourself a favor and listen to reason; Edit in a different topic area or invoke your right to vanish. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but I don't even see where the MMOrgy article supports the statement that a high proportion of the game's use is taken up with sexual content. It says some people have sex there, but so what? I'm sure we could find plenty of sources saying that people have cybersex on Windows Live Messenger but without one specifically saying that it's a significant use of the program it doesn't deserve to go in the article. So the reliability or age of the source is irrelevant, since in any case it does not support the claim that sex is one of the most popular aspects of the game.

Please do correct me if I've missed something. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Go on Furcadia and see for yourself(Personal attacks redacted by Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)}).

Verifiability, not truth, Aa. We cannot accept one's personal experiences. By the by, CHU is Wikipedia:Changing username. And stop insulting editors. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Any further edit warring on Furcadia will result in a block. Please take your concerns to the articles talk page instead. Tiptoety ^talk 00:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently working with another user on IRC to try and add the info you've been trying to add without using a politician's tone or drawing undue weight to the article. You may see it at User:Twp/Furcadia. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)