David Gerard wrote:
That's not even close to vandalism by any reasonable definition. Wht it has done is concisely outline the actual situation that you appear not to wish to acknowledge in any way at all.
At best it was "disruption to make a point".
What Gerard actually did with the above edit was take this paragraph:
This page originated from a discussion on the WikiEN-I mailing list where some level of consensus was reached between the free-speech and content suppression parties that a technical solution is possible that will go a long way towards satisfying most mainstream positions in the debate.
and add the following text:
However, it should be stressed that this page is ''not'' intended to
imply that this is a <i>fait accompli</i>, but merely an initial exploration of the specification and feasibility of a possible solution. The features described below are ''not'' currently under development, and will certainly not be made live until their desirability has been firmly established.
Are you saying that this is false, and making out that saying this is "vandalism"?
Yes that is false, he did not add the second bit.
Christiaan