QUOTE(Web Fred @ Sun 25th March 2012, 9:14am)
QUOTE(Tarc @ Sun 25th March 2012, 1:01pm)
QUOTE(Wikitaka @ Sun 25th March 2012, 6:39am)
For no reason, Xavexgoem
protected the Muhammad RFC "to avoid SPIs", which is not a valid reason for semi-protection.
What else does Xavexgoem have on his record?
It has nothing to do with Xavexgoem.
The WMF controversial content study recommended that the image discussion be limited to registered users, as the subject area has had a history of insipid "REMOVE IMAGES THEY OFFEND MEEEEEEE!" retardation from IPs and single-purpose-accounts over the years.
In any case they can always register and wait the 5 days. The RFC isn't over until April 19th.
I think you have to have 10 edits as well, but those can just be 10 garbage adds and reverts to userspace, even. The bar is low to be allowed to edit semi-prot articles, but it keeps out the bulk of the clueless riff-raff.
QUOTE
One thing I do find surprising, especially with regard to the arguments for hat notes and collapsing what-nots, is that no-one has hit on the fact that the problem isn't with Moslems seeing the images, it's the fact that they are there and they exist, regardless of whether they can see them or not.
True, there will always be protests that the images exist in
any for whatsoever. There's also Muslims whose opposition just registers on the scale at "strong dislike", but they won't protest others viewing them.
The RfC is going pretty much as I expected it to go so far, there's at most 6-8 editors calling for image reduction/removal against a boatload of "not censored" stances. Remarkable how the removal of
one user smooths out discussion, though.