[Foundation-l] Conflict resolution on meta Wikimedia

[Christiaan Briggs]

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