|This boils down to: "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a (content) dispute; " 
Diannaa is blocking because of a hot,  one-on-one, personal conflict;  there is no evidence of disruptive editing,  any perceived "abuse" towards a user was one-time (and barely discussed!),  ie,  no repetition of any alleged behavior occurred.  Diannaa's block is in retailiation to a comment placed ON MY TALK PAGE (my userspace),   "how can I disrupt my own talk page?"  commenting on her behavior,  and warning that I might seek admin action against perceived abuse by her.

Calling another editor's behavior "schoolmarmish" and expressing that one believes that pursuing petty conflicts is highly negative and toxic,  is certainly fair and within the bounds of the "abuse policy."  Responding to such a comment (placed on own talk page) with a block,  is simply a personal,  personal-conflict-motivated attack.

And with all respect even assuming previous "warning" was valid in its concern,  block per the user abuse policy requires multiple repetition.  This was and is a single incident,  and only attempts at discussion (however phrased) have ensued.  The block appears to be because Diannaa is in an active disagreement with me,  and I'm challenging her behavior,  and what I see as abusive,  inappropriate use of threats.

The above is highly negative behavior,  abuse of the blocks system,  a "personal attack" on its face, reflects negatively on WikiPedia and its environment,  contradicts the "blocks are a last resort to prevent (true) disruption,  use discussion first" policy,  and seems to be an attempt to suppress discussion of dissenting ideas on various policies or just plain,  Diannaa's reaction to being disagreed with.

In the end,  threats,  including threats of blocks,  are not discussion.  If one says "well,  the rules aren't so clear,  let's talk about this" and gets back,  "you're violating the rules,  I'll block you!!!",  then the system isn't working.  If one replies to the previous,  "let's take it to talk,  let's discuss" and gets in return "there's nothing to discuss" ... well,  I've read WP's policy documents,  and you may disagree with me,  but I think they could use some revision and clarification.

That's where this dispute began,  and how we got here.  One should not be blocked,  for expressing a contrary opinion in discussion,  on one's own talk page,  and informing an editor or administrator that one finds their actions abusive.  One should not be blocked,  for expressing a contrary opinion in discussion,  on one's own talk page,  by the person one is debating.

In the end,  what's the rationale here?  What ongoing disruption or pattern of abuse is this designed to prevent?  That I'll post disagreement on my talk page?!?  One is supposed to *think* before issuing a ban,  not fly off the handle!  This is personal retaliation there's no ongoing abuse or disruption,  other than some strongly-worded opposition to the current phrasing of the abuse policy,  itself quite far away from "using disruption to make a point."

{{unblock