Anthony DiPierro wrote:
"In the particular case of Martha Stewart, Anthony takes matters into his own hands, breaking long-standing rules that Anthony knows all about."
I think you have mischaracterised this severely. There is absolutely *no rule* saying that Raul has the right to do whatever he wants on that page. He merely has been permitted to do whatever he wanted in the past because he wasn't doing anything that people disagreed with. If this were an article, this would be clearcut. See [[Wikipedia:Ownership of articles]]. But for some reason because it is a template suddenly people are claiming that it can be owned, and that a single person can do whatever he wants? Well, perhaps now that it is clear that people will be blocked for disagreeing with Raul on a template that can be considered a rule, but it certainly wasn't a long-standing rule before that.
I certainly mischaracterized one thing - I was thinking of Jim Henson when I wrote Martha Stewart (!) - Stewart was the object of a parallel dispute on the talk page.
More seriously, the "long-standing rule" I wrote about was the three revert rule, which you did break. Thus all the rest of your post about some "ownership of page" rule is a bit of a red herring.
Pete