"

 Another Policy 
(moved from personal talk page)
There is also another policy here: its called consensus, which holds precedence over being bold (the latter of which is a guideline, and thus not canonical). Consensus for this article is to not refer to badvista, and discuss any such changes before making it live (I already said, the discussions in this effect can be found in talk pages). 

Btw, I am preserving the original state of the article, nor ""making them without discussion"". Propose your concerns, and let others comment. This is how such articles are handled. Each party has to accept the majority decision.

Btw, you are not supposed to edit archive pages.  Comments should go to the talk page. And removing comments from user talk pages without a pointer to where it is also frowned on. Btw, sorry for coming of as bitey, that wasn't my intention.

 I haven't removed any comment from this page. If I don't edit the page, how can I add new comments?  

I suggest again, you propose the changes in the talk page, and let others respond. My comments are already there. The ball now lies with the community, and not either you or me.   talk 
Sorry, didn't notice you already did.  talk 

I find it very confusing as I read more.

 keep saying we need to propose changes in the talk page before we can edit it. However first I saw you don't discuss before you revert changes. Second I found that you didn't discuss every time before you edit pages or add new contents by viewing your own edit history, so it appears you are asking someone to follow some ""rules"" which you don't follow either. You are setting a bad example since you are an admin. After all no page saying we have to discuss pages before we can edit. Please point it out if I'm wrong since I have no time reading all minor policies and rules in Wikipeida. 

If  is right about what it says, I could say Wikipedia gives you a false impression that anyone can contribute the article freely, as long as you are acting in good faith. Try to read WP:bold or Wikipedia does not have firm rules. The reality clearly tells you the other way round.

Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules states that it is an official policy. It reads:

Then could anyone try me why I received a serious warning from  said you must follow this and that or you will be banned? I don't think I have violated any major policy or I am deserved to be banned (eg vandalism). Is it enough to issue a ban simply because you don't know ""BadVista.org is a bad source as the admin claims""

This further proves the so-called official policy above is non-existent. From the sound of it, the admin has been closing all room for argument once it is decided. It doesn't really allow you to ignore a rule in reality, no matter how sound you are. Let's say I think we should present all popular claims  (BadVista.org is one of them) because we shouldn't filter on behalf of the readers. We should present both sides of the arguments and let the readers should judge by themselves. Of course I can't choose to ignore even if the official policy grant me to do so. Admin is always above the policy.

On 14 Oct 2007, the page was locked up because ""I made some bad edit"" according to what  said. I assume a lock up is not a decision made so lightly. As a matter of fact, I couldn't edit it anymore.

In reality the admin essentially  controlled everything. Although there are official policies in place, I seriously doubt whether admins will obey it. As a matter of fact, he once reverted all my contributions. Of course he offered no reasons when he first did it, clearly against the revert policy which said you should explain to the contributor before you revert. 

{{cquote|Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of ot