JAY JG said:
Some of the editors writing in this thread seem to believe there are teams of editors willing to delete original research wherever they find it, so that no editor is ever left isolated dealing with a POV pusher who's inserting nonsense. That just isn't true
I assure you that it is. Any time you spot a POV pusher filling an article with unverifiable tripe, just leave a message at [[User talk: Tony Sidaway]] and you and I, we'll be that team. If there are two of them, we'll get a third guy; and that way there's no way anybody will have to breach 3RR.
Unless you're on vaction or something. I think systemic fixes are far more reliable than "don't worry, I'll make sure this doesn't happen" assurances.
You and I are not the only editors on Wikipedia.
And in the example you gave, Charles has already given a good critique of your claim that this would constitute "original research". There would in any case be no need to revert in this case; simply edit the contentious statement so that it is verifiably true and cite your sources. Then everybody will know that you're right and you'll encounter no problems persuading others to deal with this chap if he tries to replace the verifiable statement with an unverifiable one.