UNBLOCK - the question of integrity is not an issue for moderators?

Regardless of the WP:TRUTH that you seem to think you hold, Wikipedia works on a) WP:CONSENSUS, b) reliable sources, and c) a collegial editing environment. Your edits clearly show you're harassing an editor that you disagree with. You will not be permitted to continue that way. Please also note: stop typing in ALL CAPS - it's considered to be shouting, and that doesn't go over well on the internet (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 

Regardless of the WP:TRUTH that you seem to think you hold -  No, those rules are from WIKIPEDIA not me. What i dont see is you addressing the blatent biased opinion, synthesis, on an article which is viewed by others.

Please tell me does wikipedia allow ADMINS to hold a biased one sided opinion? When SIKH HISTORY admin have openly declared adherence to a strict orthodox viewpoint, you as MOD should really be enforcing wikipedias own rules on your own admin. You unblocking me is secondry to the blatent disregard for wikipedia rules on diet in sikhism. So its NOT MY truth that i hold, its wikikpedia rules that i hold, which YOU disregard. Now you have barred me, because you deem me argument on integrity an attack on ADMIN, when i have repeated over and over again, its an ISSUE of an article which is purely one sided. Now does wikipedia allow blatant disregard of rules from their own ADMIN? 

From the same scholar, same book, same ISBN NUMBER, one rejected and one accepted, the accepted statement fits in with the ADMINS own orthodox stance which he has openly declared on his Wikipedia page. 

1.QUOTE FROM ARTICLE - Gobind Singh Mansukhani states how vegetarianism and meat-eating has been left to the individual Sikh. 2.QUOTE FROM DELETED PASSAGE -scholars hold a view that Sikhism has an ambivalent view on diet, yet some accept that there are, 

“passages against meat eating”. REF for both 1 and 2. Gobind Singh Mansukhani, Introduction to Sikhism, Delhi: Hemkunt Press, ISBN 81-7010-181-6, “There are passages against meat, in the Adi Granth”. Both references from the SAME scholar, yet one is accepted which is favor of an ambivalent view towards diet, while another assessment from the same scholar admitting their are passages against meat eating, is not accepted. Why the Double standards? 

Why does the ADMIN on sikhhistory, blatantly support their own ideological stance, to the point of synthesis, and selectively using texts and passages, from authors who they cite, and then reject the same authors when going against their position? 

How can you adressing harassment, yet make no attempt on addressing the issue of BIAS in your articles? Do you only protect the Orthodox Sunni islamic view? and the unorthodox shia view?...IF that is not the case, then please can you tell me why sikhhistory ADMIN have taken the biased stance of only abiding by an orthodox POV.

I dont think these questions im asking is harassment, but if my objection is avoided time and again, and the same allegations being made towards the same ADMIN for being one sided, you again have AVOIDED the issue at hand, which is a biased article protected by ADMIN to support their own beleifs, i think that is a greater offense than my trying to get some sense from the ADMIN in question. lol.