It's not that nefarious. His deletion started out as rewordings. You can read the article history for the sequence. I am responsible for some of the strange indentation on the talk page section; I captured his 14 diffs from the outset and attempted to reason with Q, diff by diff; eventually  I attempted to recast his edits into inline tags; I annotated the disputed words, such as 'must' (current article) versus 'should'  (Q.g.s. rewording), etc. So you can see Qs views started out reasonably. 
As Q proceeded down the article, he started deleting entire paragraphs, etc. So we stepped in per WP:BRD… That got his attention. Q decorated the article with top-level tags.  We started discussion, change by change. Q is fundamentally a well-read humanist. He has a theory of science based on his voluminous reading and training in history. So we have a difference in perspective which I would like to explore with Q and incorporate in the article. I attempted to get him to formulate his POV but Q's responses became attacks,  so I called Time out. To me, this proves Q is well-meaning, but Q also has strong opinions which I am attempting to draw out, somehow, without sacrificing the article.   The article remained tagged for over a month. The article is basically back to the Jan 1 state, but it also includes Tetrast's latest improvements.
Qs reasoning boils down to 'There was Science thousands of years ago. Therefore there was scientific method thousands of years ago', which does not follow. But we were never able to draw that out of him in so many words. Q is also capable of categorical statements but does not follow up with sufficient detail to be convincing; he just got frustrated, unfortunately.
I/we very much appreciate your interest.     (talk  | contribs)