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