I'm pretty sure that my response will not make either side happy, as I conclude that both sides are wrong in this controversy *and* that neither side needs to be banned. There's a long analysis here and then a conclusion at the bottom. People only marginally following this can just skip to my CONCLUSION.
Clutch launched the article on Sep. 26, 2002, apparently thinking of it as a "scratchpad" where people could work "until what is factual and what is not can get hashed out sufficiently to be put in the article on Jehovah's Witnesses in a neutral manner."
He included some external links, presumably so newcomers to the discussion could get up to speed on the criticisms being discussed.
For the next 14 days, the only activity was a low grade edit/revert war with Modemac. Modemac kept deleting the external links; Clutch kept restoring them.
I think that at this point, Clutch was clearly in the right. Those external links were valid and useful. Eventually, he lost this battle, as the links are not in the current version at all. Maybe he just gave up.
Finally, on Oct. 10, discussion took off when Wesley added some new information. Modemac weighed in again, by simply deleting the external links again.
Then, on Oct. 14-15 Modemac weighed in, usefully this time, by adding the bulk of the text that is still there. This was edited and expanded in the usual wikipedia fashion by Vicki Rosenzweig, RK, Ed Poor, and Soulpatch.
On Oct. 20, RK returns and adds section headings and introduces the first "Changing Doctrines" material.
There were only a few other edits, relatively minor in nature, until Dec. 12, when the current controversy broke out.
At this point, Clutch returned and removed a ton of material from the article, with the stated reason "Removing material already incorporated on the Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses page". I have not verified this claim, but if true, it is consistent with Clutch's originally stated view of the purpose of the page.
After that, there's a ton of edits back and forth... delete/revert/delete/revert.
It does not seem to me that IN THIS CASE, RK and Clutch are disputing anything about the actual _content_ of the article in question. Clutch feels that this article needs to mostly go away because the information in it is in other articles. RK feels the opposite, but mostly opposes what he sees as heavy-handed unilateral action by Clutch.
There is NOTHING on the talk page about this particular controversy. (There is discussion there of various _content_ controversies.)
On the talk page, RK says "The problem is that I have already tried to do so three times. Each time I started doing this the pro-JW faction came in and vandalized the entry by immediately deleting the material I was adding, which included many specifics." (To fully understand what he's talking about, you need to read the full context on the talk page.)
He wrote this at 15:07 Oct 14, 2002, but he must be referring to some other article, because his first edit is at 14:07 Oct 14, 2002, and he had only made that one edit. I'm assuming he's referring to the main Jehovah's Witness article. Were people deleting stuff from there?
Is there really a "pro-JW faction"? Are there any Jehovah's Witnesses working on this article?
--------------
CONCLUSION
I conclude, preliminarily, that Clutch and RK were both wrong to engage in a pointless edit war without also, at least, opening a discussion on the talk page about the merits/demerits of getting rid of the article or keeping it. But neither do their actions amount to bannable vandalism.
I further conclude, preliminary, that Clutch and RK both made claims about consensus which are, at best, unverifiable from the talk page. When there is no discussion on the talk page about what should be done with the article, no conclusion can be drawn about consensus.
Generally speaking, making claims about consensus is wrong. If it really were consensus, then there would be no controversy left about it.
Unless more information is pointed out to me about this controversy, I will conclude by simply asking two things:
1. Folks, please try not to get into simple back-and-forth edit/revert wars. Let the other person win for awhile, and make your case on the talk page. Try to meet the other person halfway.
a. For people in Clutch's position here: Ask before making any major changes. Apologize if you make a major change that upsets someone, and let the reversion stand until you can resolve the other person's concerns.
b. For people in RK's position here: rather than merely reverting, revert and make a comment on talk page, a comment that presumes good will on the other person's part. Try not to call people names like "pathological liar".
2. Let's not be so hasty to call for bans, nor so hasty to cry vandalism. Not every asshole action the other person takes is vandalism.
------------------
I have no opinion about whether the material in this article is in other articles. I have no opinion about whether this article should continue to exist. I only have the opinion that the right way to figure it out is to *talk* about it, not to engage in demands and counter-demands, edits and reverts.
--Jimbo