If I might add my own two cents here...  edits have been incredibly tendentious and disruptive. His warring and insertion of false information derived from original research is worse than simple vandalism because it discourages editors working in good faith from improving the article.  People see a train-wreck of an article, where improvements are constantly reverted, and they walk away rather than get involved.  It also places a huge burden on other editors to clean up the scores of articles to which he's added misinformation.  His actions are all the more insidious because his content appears well-sourced, and so no one questions it. Many of have tried to talk to him, but he simply refuses to hear us or answer our concerns. This problem has dragged on since last summer, and there seems to be no end in sight.