Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 December 2005/Anal sex

anal sex article - explicit draw

 * Request made by (please sign below): --Alberto msr 01:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Status: New request


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Anal sex article and at the talk page topic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anal_sex#Women_doing_the_man.27s_ass_picture


 * Who's involved?
 * alberto_msr, Appleboy and Dpark


 * What's going on?
 * There is a explicit sexual draw in the article (a woman inserting a strap-on dildo in a guy's anus), which does not comply with Wikipedia's Profanity policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Profanity).

For more info on my argument, please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anal_sex#Women_doing_the_man.27s_ass_picture

The policy says: A taboo image shall not be posted unless it is essential for the article to be understood. I removed the picture and Appleboy user reverted. I reverted Appleboy's change, so the article didn't have the picture anymore. Now Dpark reverted it and the article has the picture now. I'm avoiding to create a revert-war. We need some opinion whether the image is appropriated or not.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * Maybe lock the article or block image upload in the article.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * On my talk page

Deliberation
This appears to be a straightforward revert war, but I don't advocate enforcement of the three-revert rule if it's been broken. One the one "side", we have, I guess, a new contributor - welcome to Wikipedia - who hasn't understood that this issue's been discussed in numerous locations, including Wikipedia_talk:Profanity, Wikipedia_talk:What Wikipedia is not, in IRC, on the mailing list, etc. and that the consensus is that illustration, in the appropriate form and in the appropriate place, improves Wikipedia and sets it apart from other such resources.

It appears, then, that User:Alberto msr hasn't understood that. Fair enough. In which case, the other users need to revert with a polite message to refer to the talk page, and leave either there, or on his talk page, a brief explanation of the above, with links to appropriate Wikipedia guidelines.

This issue's been blown out of proportion already; it's a shame someone so new has to encounter mediation at this stage. What I'll now conclude is as follows:


 * A misunderstanding over Wikipedia guidelines has occurred
 * A lack of communication occurred &rarr; the "misinformed" editor was not referred to the appropriate locations &rarr; the editor persisted with a point of view that other editors disagreed with &rarr; a minor discussion broke out

At no point in this debate do I see evidence of personal attacks or incivil behaviour, which is excellent.

To the original complainant
Please refer to our guidelines on the matter, including What Wikipedia is not and Profanity, and the discussions behind the established norms.

To those the complaint was filed against
Let's remember to point new contributors at the appropriate guidelines when we're using them to back up arguments, ok?

I consider that there really is very little left to discuss. 86.133.53.111 05:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments by others
this is a public site, not a Credit Card Pay for Porn Site. The Image of nude Woman, with a strap on giving it to a Man is PORNOGRAPHY and has no place where Children could see it. I recommend it be removed "NOW" and the person who placed it be strongly warned of EVER doing such a thing again. And if it is ever done by that person again, they should face a lifetime ban. A second picture further down is also Pornogrpahic with a caption that reads "Suzuki Harunobu, Shunga." All my comments seconded for this also. If it is possible their ISP should also be notified that their service is being used to post pornography in public view where Children may see it. user:KJVTRUTH


 * I'm not being pedantic here (OK, so I am) - but pornography, by definition is in the eye of the er, observer, for want of a better term. Also, please review the guidelines on this, as posted on your talk page. 86.133.53.111 05:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Nothing inherently wrong with presenting the picture, but it is just not of a suitable quality for the page in question. Personally I think the alternative image from Pegging (sexual practice) would be much more appropriate and in tune with the tone of the article. - FrancisTyers 04:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep that for the article talk. 86.133.53.111 05:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Please note: Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of children. -- Natalinasmpf 04:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The old image has been changed for a new, not-so-explicit one. Now it's more encyclopedic. Glad this issue ended.--Alberto msr 22:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)