I'm sure I'm not the only one who checks out the running sore known as the Wikipedia article on Rawat to see new scabs form, get torn off and then form again.  It's like our own living Alice-in-Wonderland by installments, Cynthia and Patrick sharing the current role as reasonable protagonists in a world gone mad.

Recently, Patrick's taken to stronger, more direct language than usual.  As anyone familiar with him knows, it takes a lot to get him to that point.  Naturally, he's immediately met with advice to heed Wikipedia policy to "assume good faith" in the editors he disagrees with.

Nota Bene: the good faith policy has its limits:

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include constant vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Editors should not accuse the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith in the absence of reasonable supporting evidence.

In this case, there is ample evidence of lying, ample evidence of malice.  Good faith is passe.  Wiki doesn't offer much assistance past this point but I just wanted to note that that milestone's long past.