Did you mean to say "wikispooks" rather than wilispooks?
My attempt to retrace your steps just now, Raggytash,
was a dead end at wilispooks, but wikispooks worked.

Here's how all this looks to me.
If the Rev. Kevin Arnett were the "con man"
which some online responses make him out to be,
then he would have been debunked some years ago,
because he has been before the public eye longer than I realized.

Would that the problem were so simple.
Arnett appears to be nothing if not human,
and what comes to my mind in evaluating the information about him is
"but for the grace of *** , there go I."

Arnett's feelings and convictions seem sincere, they are certainly intense
and these feelings and convictions have stood up
to years of intimidation and rejection.
Does that justify not knowing how much you are making a bad thing worse?

I fear that a public figure as fanatical as this one
requires a lengthy and uncomfortable commitment to therapy and counseling
before he can hold himself accountable
for the intrusions and problems he has visited
on the very people to whom he ministers.

That is asking, sadly, a very great deal indeed.