2. No original research!: In many ways, the “ultimate” Wikipedia problem is when different reliable sources say different things. For the most part, this doesn’t require any specific admin interaction, but I’ll offer my views. First thing, let’s make sure all the sources are reliable, also check for things like dates when the facts were claimed. Percentages of black chihuahuas may change over time, so before arguing continues let’s see if the problem can be simplified. In regards to SYNTH and OR, it should be considered as to whether altering of how the data is presented, even minor, should be scrutinized for any “spin”. Personally, I am in favor of staying totally true to the reliable source over the best presentation, I.E., state the 3 studies percentages, and quote the 4th as “x out of y” just like it is given. Of course, this could change depending on all the info given if this were actually happening. When you say that the admin “reveals that he is an admin and makes it clear that anyone disagreeing with his position will be blocked”, well, that would most certainly be eligible for an ANI thread, although I’d have to say that rarely is such a statement so cut-and-dry bad faith. In general, an editor acting like that, regardless of being an admin or not, needs to be reminded of some of wikipedia’s core policies.