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