An archive of the strangest accusations made against this user, presented for your amusement[edit]
Nukeh/Doug youvan/MsTopeka
"...a consortium of editors from www.kcfs.org who edit under User:Hrafn and who illegaly use Kansas state funds (state salaries and facilities) to try to influence the Kansas School Board elections."[1]
"What is actually at stake is a fair election of Kansas School Board members. Opening a debate threatens the position of www.kcfs.org in illegally influencing this election by inappropriate use of Kansas state funded salaried positions and facilities that are used 24 x 7 by this consortium of editors who should be spending their time teaching, as salaried, rather than attempting to rewrite history 24 x 7 on WP."[2]
"There he is, hrafn, and I believe that to be a consortium of editors, and a proxy of www.kcfs.org with many editors on the same username. It's possible all edits are piped through Krebs at kcfs, but I don't know anyone who could figure out how to detect such technology. ...On the other hand, his goal appears to be only to influence public policy, e.g., the Kansas State School Board elections. They pervert scientific articles on WP simply to make Darwin stand and ID fall, because they believe ALL of ID is a trick to get Creation back in the schools."[3]
Anne Lukas
"So looking at the five most active users demonstrates that the majority can be affiliated to supporters of creationism. In detail: The five most active users are Joshua P. Schroeder (203 edits), Rossnixon (145), Hrafn (133), Dave Souza (116), Ungtss (109). The user Joshua P. Schroeder can be seen as the only opponent of the belief in creationism ... Hrafn posted on his profile the statement “Who says intelligent design doesn't make testable predictions: In the next five years, molecular Darwinism - the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the subcellular level - will be dead. —William Dembski, Touchstone magazine, July/August 2004” ... his demonstrates that the most active users do not write with a neutral point of view, four of the five editors are biased."[4]
