The policy is that this was discussed on the articles talk page and you are the only person who believes the source to be unreliable You were warned by two people on the articles talk page that if you made unilateral edits that it would be reverted and when you did so a third admin reverted your edits and concurred that the source is reliable You are the one who has consistently shown a strong bias on this article From your desire to insert a fringe theory of an individual into the article to your misguided belief that a source is not reliable if it has the word catholic in it You go to Editor Assistance seeking help where the person who responds says the whole idea of the legal suit is silly Three admins who aren t involved with the article myself and have spoken in opposition to your edits Evidence has been presented as to the sources reliability all you ve done is say that It has the word Catholic in the name therefore it has to be unreliable So far you have not remade the edit that was reverted but if you do so you are running the risk of being blocked So your policy not wikipedia s Cite the policy or drop it I ve already added to a noticeboard but since you re an admin it s clear that won t be enough I did not make a unitlateral edit against concensus and you can t cite it becasue it doesn t exist so stop that false accusation I opposed the fringe theory s inclusion so that s false as well how many times would you like me to repeat it I opposed the fringe theory s inclusion twice enough That s not my belief but it s a nice strawman to again support a clear agenda On any other topic you wouldn t accept it I can t see Nuclear s note could you cite it You are involved in the article and so is ThaddeusB and to claim otherwise is again being ridiculous I ve also specifically stated policies and what sections are relevant which you re ignoring It doesn t matter how many people user or admins you can get to support your agenda