I think it should be the case that if an editor's inclusions are being challenged, there should be given a finite opportunity to defend his/herself. Likewise, challenging editors have a right to demonstrate why the inclusion is in error. In the absence of support (as is the case of the original editor in this scenario), the decision should be for removal. It cannot always be incumbent on the challenging editor to provide proof, as this opens the door for any editor to add virtually anything and establish a foothold in an article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Isn't this a block due to WP:LEGAL situation? Carcharoth (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:LEGAL, immediate block. If he rescinds legal thread, must be told that he can no longer edit war to incorporate that material. If he disagrees, then 38 times in 2 weeks is sufficient for a topic ban, which would probably receive ample support at WP:AN. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Mostly I'd stay away from stuff like creationism or homeopathy because I'd find it hard to keep NPOV. but 2)I'd start with a welcome template. I'd explain about WP policy. I'd ask the editor why they want that paragraph so much - why do they think it's relevant. I'd put some effort into getting them actually communicating with people, and letting him know that admins would block him if he carried on. Dan Beale-Cocks 22:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Editor appears to be very distressed. I wish we had better systems for dealing with people who come to WP in a state of mental distress. We need to take seriously the fact that we are one of the largest, probably the largest, volunteer organisations in the world. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The description is so bias I can not determine what to do. Sorry Filll. Zginder 2008-04-15T14:30Z (UTC)
This "test question" is loaded with irrelevant information. Clearing it away, the key questions are: a) Is the claim sourced? b) Is this a RS? c) Is this claim challenged by other RS, or better RS? If the answer to a is "no", don't allow claim and ignore protestations. If editor refuses to provide source but disrupts anyway, go through disruptive editor process and tune out the rest. If answer to a is "yes" but "b" is no, see advice given for a). If answer to c is "yes", then article should describe the "conflict", including describing the degree to which claims of each are respected or rejected.Professor marginalia (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:LEGAL, immediate block. Сасусlе 03:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Immediate block per WP:LEGAL DigitalC (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd take "X is going to be sued" as a legal threat and block until it is rescinded. shoy 16:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Inform the user about WP:LEGAL, and try to discuss the matter. RC-0722247.5/1 00:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I see there being two issues. The behavior of the editors, and the facts about the topic. just because the editor is behaving badly, does not mean his edits are wrong. The behavior should be addressed with blocking of the editor, the facts will be pursued with research. Rds865 (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe the Big ever Banged. :)---G.T.N. (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Block immediately per WP:NLT. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:NLT is pretty clear. Block him, and explain his block on his talk page. Pfainuktalk 21:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
With that legal threat he's dead in the water. -- Fullstop (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
If an admin, I would full protect the page and demand/politley request for discussion to take place on the talk page. The editor obviously feels that the text needs to desperatley be included in the article and is willing to violate policies to do it. If nothing happens, i.e. the user refuses to talk, then I would unprotect the article and warn the editor that if he/she continues to violate policy, I will block him/her accordingly. Dusticomplain/compliment 18:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Look for a source as a courtesy, include the material if I found a reliable one, delete the material if not, but in either case report the WP:NTL whether the material is sourced or not. Obviously for a statement such as this one would weigh the reliability of the source and it's claim to notability heavily if one could be found. --Nealparr(talk to me) 07:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I would place {{POV-check}} and {{copyedit}} in the section and {{confusing}} and {{fact}} next to the statement, letting another editor actually revert it and warn the editor about his legal threats. Bwrs (talk) 04:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I would ask him to please explain why he keeps inserting the sentence, and why he thinks it is relevant to the article. Hopefully by trying to explain why it is relevant he'll realize that it isn't. skeptical scientist (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Block with warning, then if he starts up again, ban him permanently. --Logical Premise (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
It's clear in my mind that the inexperienced editor doesn't know how to cite a source. I would give him a note about reading the WP:Referencing for beginners guideline. If he ignores that, and carries on reverting, I would block him. Minimac (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
