Christiaan, Gerard, et al:
* I have not previously been involved in any of the discussions over image suppression / self-censorship / content choice, and do not, at present intend to state any particular opinion about this issue. * I don't know what, if any, formal conflict resolution procedures there are on meta, but since you've asked here, I thought I would give some personal opinions about the conflict you are having. I would stress that I have no set opinion on this debate, so although these are my opinions, I hope they are relatively unbiased.
* Firstly, I do not consider Gerard's actions to be "trolling", but nor do I consider Christiaan to be "blinkered". This is a conflict of understanding, pure and simple, regarding the purpose of a particular page. This seems to be something of a problem on meta, because it is so unstructured, and lacks a coherent community of its own, so people vary greatly in how they perceive it. (I've been involved in similarly heated debates over pages to do with single login proposals.)
* Secondly, I don't think the use of a "disputed tag" is appropriate here: meta has no NPOV policy, or any equivalent, and simply linking to that of the English Wikipedia is irrelevant. Meta is a very different environment, and meta pages are more closely related to those of traditional wikis, in that they are a kind of on-going refactored discussion, rather than content aimed at presentation. Indeed, it's debatable whether many of them should have separate "Talk:" pages at all - a traditional Wiki simply refactors discussion ["ThreadMode"] into structured content ["DocumentMode"] as necessary. [Note that there is an exception in terms of "documentation" pages, but those are increasingly confined to the Help: namespace] In other words, disputed or disputable content is the norm, not the exception.
* Thirdly, I do think it is important for those creating a page with a particular purpose in mind to not only state what is on-topic, but provide an outlet for what is off-topic. If "philosophical" discussion about the proposal is taking place elsewhere, it should be referenced clearly. In other words, the introduction should read something like "This page discusses technical implications of implementing such a scheme; for discussion of whether it would be desirable, see: ..." If there is no page appropriate to end that sentence, it should be created, if only by adding a heading to the existing page under which the discussion can take place. It seems to me that there *is* a lot of existint discussion about this, so it ought to be possible for a central point to be found or created. [References to appropriate parts of the mailing list archives could also be added.]
* In summary: *in my opinion* it is perfectly OK for a page on meta to exist that discusses the technical measures needed for something that may never happen; however, it is also OK for people to discuss the necessity and/or desirability of the feature. Therefore, if it seems appropriate to separate the two, they should be adequately cross-referenced, so that it is clear to anyone entering the discussion how they relate.
I hope this helps, and I hope it doesn't read too much like legalese - I've been reading documents from my local Borough Council all afternoon...