First and foremost, as it stands, this is a clear violation of WP:OR. Without a published source to check, there is nothing. However, if the editor could be persuaded to see if there was some published material that was a source for the aunt's original research, then there may be some room for compromise later. Until the published sources come up, the material must be removed. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Remove it all, and topic-ban the guy - politely, with many nice remarks about his aunt - and prohibit the use of the non-RS. We don't have time for anything else. A good journalist would investigate, check the quality of the aunt's research, take it to reputable genealogists, have them pronounce on it, and so on. We aren't required to do any of that. Oacan is, if he wants it accepted. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Try to stop it getting this far, but now it has: give stern warning, then move onto topic ban with clear warnings about dire consequences. Emphasise five pillars. Dan Beale-Cocks 23:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Combination of 2 and 3 - See if it's possible to reconcile his tree with established, published, documented source material. If not, get him to stop. Applejuicefool (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully, he should have been blocked by now if his subversion of the article is as gross as the problem statement claims. A nice ANI thread with community sanctions or consensus for a lengthy block would be in order. shoy 16:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Allow a note that it is a theory about that, but we must show every side ~ AmericanEagle 03:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
What Oacan and his aunt feel is irrelevant. Is his aunt's work a reliable source? It doesn't sound like it has wide acceptance or even minority acceptance, but only a tiny view. If it has some kind of wider base of discussion by independent reliable sources, then include it (but not to the extent of undue weight or dominating more mainstream views on the points in question). If not, remove entirely. Last, consider issues such as COI, NPOV, OR, EW, TE, and decide whether admin intervention to explain the issue from a user conduct and policy viewpoint will help. FT2(Talk | email) 11:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Block the article until the two get their ducks in a row. Edit wars suck bad, and are severly annoying. Habeouscorpus (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
No original research, verifiability over truth, edit wars suck. Warn, then topic ban. --Iamzork (talk) 04:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
AGF does not allow editors to make things up and drive off other editors. Ban him. --Logical Premise (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
This editor does not seem to be willing to adhere to many policies. Do the warnings, deletions and blocks as needed. GB86 06:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
