Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-01 Oral Sex

Request for cabal mediation

Request Information

Request made by: Regionalsimp 06:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?: ...In the article: "oral sex." Specifically, see Talk:Oral_sex#WHY_ARE_ALL_THE_PICTURES_HOMOSEXUAL.3F

Who's involved?: ...Me (Nathaniel), Catamorphism, KimvdLinde, several others.

Regionalsimp has posted undera variety of IP-numbers.

What's going on?

...I was taken aback when I saw the images on the page. In referring to the discussion page, I noted that I was not the only person who thought the editor who posted these images was motivated an agenda. An edit war ensued, and at one point I attempted to post a replacement image that was consistent with qualities the opposing side seem to think the image should have: Talk:Oral_sex#WHY_ARE_ALL_THE_PICTURES_HOMOSEXUAL.3F

Comment:User has been repeatedly invited to provide equal quality images of a heterosexual couple, but could only come up with an image that is providing a suggestion of the fellatio (see current image in article , and suggested image at talk page ). The claim that it was consistent with the old one was not shared by many of the editors as the first is much more clear about fellatio, while the second only suggests fellatio. Various people have by now been accused of having an agenda, while those editors have stated repeatedly that they do not object against a heterosexual image of the same quality. I suggest that the requester acts constructive and provids an equal quality image that depicts acurately fellatio using a heterosexual couple. --KimvdLinde 15:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The only people who have said that "the editor who posted these images was motivated an agenda [sic]" are Nathaniel and other anonymous editors. The replacement image Nathaniel posted did not illustrate fellatio (this was discussed thoroughly at [1]). Personally, I do not believe that an image of a same-sex couple engaged in fellatio constitutes POV, any more than an image of an opposite-sex couple would constitute POV. The purpose of having an image in this article is to illustrate what fellatio is. Catamorphism 20:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I also note that there was no "edit war". The user who posted this mediation request, and several other anonymous users, repeatedly vandalized the article, and other editors reverted that vandalism. Catamorphism 20:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is seriously misleading of you to say that me, and several other anonymous users are the only people concerned with the "agenda" of the users of this page. The implication is that either I have used different IPs to post the same position through different voices, or that people without registered accounts have useless opinions. I have always signed my comments with -Nathaniel, although some of my comments have been deleted. Additionally, comments of others who supported my position were deleted as well.

Regionalsimp 06:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, comments where you and others made personal attacks and homophobic remarks were deleted. And it's correct that you have used many different IPs for posting, and that only anonymous users have expressed concern about "agenda". Anonymous users are not taken very seriously on Wikipedia, since it's generally taken as a given that if they wished to contribute to the encyclopedia (rather than sniping about the content of specific articles), they would spend 10 seconds creating a user account. Catamorphism 18:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to change about that?: ...I would like you to look at the discussion and the edits and decide whether 1) the current images should remain and 2) whether my proposed image, given the concerns many have voiced about the POV expressed about the current images, is a suitable replacement for fellatio.jpg. (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Billed7.jpg); I hope that you will not give undue weight to which of the people involved in this discussion are registered users, and which are not.; Also, please note which comments are actually in support of the opposing side's argument and not just saying something generally. (For instance.. the comment "homosexuals are people too" does not seem to fairly address the issue presented.)

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?: ...I have no preference about your level of discretion.

Would you be willing to mediate yourself and accept an assignment as a mediator?

...Yes

Comment: I object agianst assigning the mediatorship of this case to this person. --KimvdLinde 15:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given my comments about this person's conduct below, I also object against assigning mediatorship of any case to him. Catamorphism 19:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about Wikipedia just gets rid of the pictures and just discribes it. There are plenty of other sites that show pictures now days.

Mediator response

Comments by others

The user Regionalsimp, when posting anonymously, has made repeated personal attacks against KimvdLinde, myself, and possibly others. I originally encountered the user on Feminism, where his response to my countering of his POV edits was apparently to follow me to Oral sex. I warned him not to make personal attacks, and he responded to this warning by calling me an "angry dyke from Berkeley". At this point, I stopped engaging him on Talk:Feminism.

I never "followed" you, do not be so self-concerned. IS it possible that we have similar interestS? Additionally, my discussion of the people that are editing concern their motivations for editing the article. For instance, if the Pope or the director of planned parenthood were editing the article abortion, wouldn't that seem useful information? Regionalsimp 06:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several weeks later, Regionalsimp started reverting images on Oral sex. His actions were reverted by a number of different editors. In this edit, the user indicated that he followed me to Oral sex from Feminism, as follows:

I have discovered you on yet another wikipedia page, spreading your hatred for heterosexuality and tradition. Just as you bullied me in the talk page for feminism, you are going to bully this discussion into keeping those pictures up. Does it matter that those pictures repulse the majority of people who view the page? You seek to create approval for your lifestyle in those pictures, even though your lifestyle is decidedly abnormal. If that's not POV, I don't know what the fuck is.

Warmly,

Nathaniel

"I have discovered you" doesn't mean: "I followed you." In fact, I would think it means the opposite. Regionalsimp 06:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has implied that editors who revert his blanking of the images are gay people with a "subversive" agenda. In another comment on Talk:Oral sex (viewable under the section "WHY ARE ALL THE PICTURES HOMOSEXUAL?", he wrote:

Kim, Cat, there is a consensus of reasonable people who believe the removal or replacement of the present pictures is important and significant. The reasons for replacement of the original picture were purely pretextual, and the continued presence of the homosexual pictures is a testimony to how special interests twist wikipedia policies to inject their fringe POV. When reasonable people object to your injection of POV, you take it as some sort of civil rights crusade. Nobody is trying to opporess homosexuals here. I even tried to play your ballgame by posting an alternative picture of fellatio that would not present the POV problems. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Billed7.jpg This was replaced because it wasn't graphic enough. We are not creating a how-to article here. I'm sure you would have replaced whatever image I found with another pretextual reason. KimvdLinde and Catamorphism will probably win, and the images will remain. But let us all stop and marvel at what a terrible job they are doing as wikipedians. Sincerely, Nathaniel

In short, I believe this user's conduct suggests he is uninterested in contributing constructively to Wikipedia.

I also note that Nathaniel spent over a month editing anonymously (using different IP addresses, so that it would be difficult to warn or block him), and only created an account just after Oral sex was semi-protected to prevent anonymous editing. Catamorphism 19:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a friendly narrative, cat. In point of fact, I created an account only so I could request mediation on the subject. It seems that is required to get mediation. Additionally, I did not use the word "dyke" to piss you off. I used it to describe you. I have encountered the usage of "fag" and "dyke" by gay folks I have known. Whatever offense I have cause, I apologize for. The reason I bring up information about you is to call into question your disinterestedness. Frankly, I do think you have an agenda here and that you have demonstrated it time and time again. Regionalsimp 06:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have a request not to address me as "Cat" in my user page, I have a hard time believing that you're not trying to "piss me off" (though it's not succeeding). If you do not personally identify as gay or queer, you should not use the words fag and dyke to refer to others (I'm sure the articles on those subjects explain that). Accusing somebody of having an "agenda" is a personal attack. Discuss content, not people. Catamorphism 18:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I disagree with your characterization of my behavior, I would request that any interesting party follow the link to the discussion of feminism: "Talk:Feminism#.22Effect_on_heterosexual_relationships.22_section" I'm not going to waste my breath defending myself. Regionalsimp 07:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The backjustification of the clearly-offensive use of "dyke" by Regionalsimp and the diminuitive "cat" are patently offensive and the insistence of a utterly non-descriptive image (can't have a penis! then you might be gay if you look at it!) solely because it features a woman submitting to a man, rather than simply being descriptive of the act involved is POV-pushing nonsense. Given the absurdity of the whole issue and the constant attempts to belittle and demean Catamorphism, I can't possibly see how his complaints can be taken seriously. He is not acting in good faith at all. --juli. ^{t ?} 09:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]