I've changed the "subject line" on purpose. This is *not* really about
the propriety of sysop behavior.
I have seen the same thing several times (innumerable times!) since
joining Wikipedia almost 4 years ago. It's called "gaming the system".
You want a certain thing (for some selfish reason), so you accuse the
responsible folks of impropriety. Whereupon they "assume good faith" and
take your claim at face value, while you're laughing up your sleeve as
you tie everyone in knots.
The real issue is POLICY about images. How much do we want to shock our
readers? Are we trying to re-educate them, change their attitude,
enlighten them, cleanse their brains of impurities wrought by a
misguided culture?
I thought we were just supposed to be a reference book. When the facts
are clear, we lay them out for you. What you do with the info is up to
you. When the facts are not clear, we describe the controversy over
"what's what". Again, what conclusions you draw after that is up to you.
We're not supposed to try and change your mind.
The responsible ones among us *know* we're not supposed to use the
Wikipedia for advocacy. (If we ever slip into it, we always appreciate
the "good catch".) But there are POV pushers still.
/A chorus of shocked gasps fills the room/
*You shouldn't make such a big deal out of poo. Here's some in your
face, get used to it, it's real, it's here; nothing to make a fuss over.
That is prescriptive. It's an attempt to change attitudes.
If we need images of human feces or dog turds or horse manure, why not
create a sidebare article called [[Images of feces]]? A link or two in
the article won't offend too many people.
Uncle Ed