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