Wikipedia and Christian Abuse of Wikipedia

Exhibit 3

(The KMH03 Easter Affair)

This Case study is primarily concerned with the systematic abuse of privileges by DWEEC Administrators.

Secondary functions are to show up systemic weaknesses in Wikipedia processes, and also to give the first proper account of what has come to be known as the KMH03 Easter Affair.

It is presented in five parts:

• An account of events taking information from Musical Linguist, Essjay, Tom Harrison and other DWEECs and DWEEC sympathisers, combined with the few hard facts available. Rather than confuse it with our account, we have tried to state the DWEEC version as objectively as possible, and have then annotated this account in a separate column with our observations.
• Some arguments from three Wikipedia editors who have been banned as a result of the affair
• Some reasons to question the DWEEC account of events and accusations against the three editors
• Some Observations about Wikipedia Processes
• A hypothetical scenario which best explains the known facts

For Clarity we distinguish between two types of deletion of Wikipedia text. Normally, where an editor has deleted text the event is logged in a history file and the deleted text is retrievable. Similarly for reverted text. We refer to this kind of deletion as "removal". Administrators are able to delete text or whole pages without leaving any trace. Ordinary editors will be unaware that a deletion has been made. No entry appears in any history log, and the deleted text can only be retrieved by another Administrator. We refer to text that has been deleted in this way as having been "disappeared".

Otherwise we assume a basic knowledge of Wikipedia terminology.

Events constituting the KMH03 Easter Affair.

The DWEEC version

Our Observations

Early in 2006 a puppetmaster created a number of sockpuppets including John1838 (aka Simple Pilgrim), KH30, and Trollwatcher

Requests for user checks have failed to reveal any evidence of sockpuppetry. The only evidence against these three is that they broadly agree with each other, as do a number of other editors.

Simple Pilgrim incidentally clearly identified himself as John1838

Around this time, the same person created the doubleblue.info website

We have seen no evidence that Simple Pilgrim, KH30 or Trollwatcher are associated with this site, other than that they share its views on the DWEEC phenomenon.

We see no reason why we should need to state who runs it and we expect to have our privacy respected.

In the week before Easter, Trollwatcher posted links to the doubleblue site on Wikipedia pages.

This is true. As far as we know there were two links in total - one of them on the Christianity talk page in response to Musical Linguist's accusation that the doubleblue website belonged to Trollwatcher

Just before the Easter weekend the doubleblue site posted personal information about KMH03, including his name, his photograph and a link to his personal website, which contained information about his family.

This is almost but not quite true. The link was posted to a Church site which proclaimed his Church's mission to convert the whole world to Arminian-Wesleyan beliefs. This page contained further links to a number of KMH03's church pages along with personal pages.

After this Trollwatcher, Simple Pilgrim and KH30 all posted links on Wikipedia pages to the doubleblue site.

We have not seen any evidence that Trollwatcher did this. Simple Pilgrim and KH30 both did. Neither of them seem to have known that this was contrary to Wikipedia's rules (In the real world outside Wikipedia of course there is nothing remotely wrong in posting links to people's websites)

At or around the same time someone contacted KH30 with some form of threat, also contacted his superior and employer, and also posted something offensive addressed to KMH03 on at least one Wikipedia page. The clear suggestion is that all of these actions were carried out by the Puppetmaster.

We are not aware of any evidence that these events took place at all. If they did we have no reason to suppose that any of the editors was involved. We do know that no-one associated with this website was involved.

There are a number of reasons to doubt the accusations (see below)

The links on Wikipedia to the doubleblue site were removed by Sophia, but replaced by KH30, and subsequently "disappeared" by Musical Linguist

This seems to be correct

At around the same time the offending entries on Wikipedia pages were "disappeared" by Musical Linguist

We have no reason to doubt this, though we have seen no evidence that such entries ever existed

At the same time Musical linguist took the opportunity to remove entries that could be useful to the editors in defending themselves. For example, she removed an exchange between herself and Trollwatcher that established that his links were posted well before the Easter weekend.

At around the same time Simple Pilgrim, KH30, and Trollwatcher were all banned indefinitely by Musical Linguist

True.

No coherent reason was given and all three had to work out why they had been banned.

Whether by accident or design, the accusations were phrased in such a way as to be meaningless: for example Trollwatcher was accused of associating with Simple Pilgrim. Simple Pilgrim was accused of associating with Trollwatcher. KH30 was accused of associating with himself!

Over the next week or so all three editors / sockpuppets objected to the ban and lodged requests to be unblocked.

True

-

On the Monday after Easter KMH03 contacted this website by e-mail asking for his personal details to be removed from the site. This was done within minutes of the request being received.

Around the same time KMH03 retired from Wikipedia, as a result of the harassment and threats.

This does look like good evidence that KMH03 was harassed or threatened or both.

On the other hand, it should be mentioned that KMH03 did not give any reason for his retirement, and it is possible that his retirement was attributable to the public humiliation of having his fellow Christians on Theopedia confirm accusations of his systematic bias.

Alternatively he could have been embarrassed by hard evidence that his mission was to convert the whole world to his own sect - pretty much what he was accused of and what he had been denying.

At around the same time Musical Linguist claimed to have removed information from Str1977's talk pages that might have helped internet stalkers to have identified.

This may be true, though we doubt it.

This may have been a suitable cover for removing some of her friend's more bizarre observations which would otherwise have remained open to public view.

It also seems odd that Musical Linguist left personal information on her own pages, making it trivially easy for any stalker to identify her.

After about a week Simple Pilgrim was "disappeared"

Correct - without any response being given to his arguments or to his request to be unblocked.

About this time Essjay added the url of the doubleblue site to the list of sites regarded by Wikipedia as spam.

This site does not by any means fit the definition of a spam site.

Perhaps significantly, Essjay, a fervent Christian, is a known DWEEC sympathizer

Essjay's action was picked up and questioned by the Wikipedia Review. Essjay threatened the Wikipedia Review that they too would be banned if they did not remove their link to this site.

They declined and were banned.

During the course of this interchange Essjay repeated an assertion by Musical Linguist to the effect that KMH03 was going in fear of his life.

All true

After a couple of weeks, requests started appearing on various Wikipedia pages from new sockpuppets claiming to be intermediaries, offering to assist in any police investigation underway, and asking for police contact details. About 20 such requests have been made and all of them removed or "disappeared" by Tom Harrison or Musical Linguist.

As far as we know, there is no reason to suppose that these requests were made by sockpuppets rather than by genuine intermediaries.

If a criminal offence had been committed, as alleged, it is difficult to see why it would not be more constructive for Musical Linguist to simply give the contact details requested.

Various requests from third parties to lift the ban on links from Wikipedia to the doubleblue site have been refused on the grounds that they are likely to post more personal information in future.

The owners of this web-site have stated that they had no involvement in this affair other than innocently posting a weblink.

Having seen the consequences, they have since adopted and adhered to an explicit policy of not posting links to sites from which Wikipedia editors can be identified.

They are also sympathetic to the idea of KMH03 returning as a Wikipedia editor if he wants to, as they do not believe that anyone should be harassed or threatened in any circumstances.

They have also expressed a willingness to assist in any investigation into any case of stalking, harassment or threatening behaviour where they may be able to help.

Trollwatcher and KH30 are still blocked.

The three editors' objections have not been addressed, their arguments countered, or their requests heeded.

Sophia has been removing their requests to be unblocked - calling such requests inflammatory.

Defence Arguments of the Three

Different defence arguments have been put forward.

Simple Pilgrim pointed out that the accusation against him simply did not make sense. If he was in possession of KMH03's personal information and wanted to stalk and harass him, why would he not just get on with it anonymously, rather than leave a supposedly incriminating trail leading back to himself, and so getting himself banned for life on Wikipedia and open to criminal prosecution.

This seems to be his thread: According to the accusation outlined above, he discovered KMH30's identity, then posted it on the doubleblue website, then posted links on Wikipedia, then made threats to KMH03, contacted KMH03's superior and employer, and posted offensive messages on Wikipedia pages. But what possible benefit could there be in incriminating himself like this when he did not need to? (Incidentally, we have not heard that there is any actual evidence that he did any of this)

KH30 did not deny any of the actions attributed to him up to the posting of links from Wikipedia pages to the doubleblue site. He pointed out that he could not be expected to know that this was against Wikipedia rules. Nor could he reasonably be expected to foresee what use would be made of the link.

Trollwatcher confirms that he posted links to the doubleblue website, but these links were made before any personal information was put on the site. His offence therefore amounts to not being psychic.

Apart from posting links from Wikipedia to the doubleblue website which is not disputed, No evidence has been provided to support any allegation against any of the three editors, not of sockpuppetry, nor of contacting people, nor of making threats, nor of posting offensive material on Wikipedia pages.

Reasons to be wary of the accusations

As already indicated, there is no evidence against any of the three editors. Here are a few questions that might raise further suspicions about why they were banned. As Musical Linguist has been chiefly involved, most of these concern her:

• Why was no attempt made over Easter to contact this website to remove the personal information, until KMH03 himself made contact on the Monday after Easter?
• Is it just a coincidence that Musical Linguist regarded all three editors as her enemies well before Easter - they had all noted her systematic editorial bias and vindictiveness?
• Why did Musical Linguist not declare her interest in the banning process, and get some neutral administrator to take over from her in the prosecution of these three editors?
• Is it likely that anyone would really harass or threaten KMH03? Certainly he had annoyed plenty of editors in the course of his DWEEC activities at Wikipedia, but did any of them have enough cause to harass or threaten him?
• Why has the text of the various offending communications only ever been seen by people with an interest in banning critics of the DWEECs? Why can't these communications be published (with any names removed) as has been done in other genuine cases of internet stalking?
• If her friends were going in fear of their lives as a result of internet stalking, why has Musical Linguist left more than enough information on her user page for a stalker to identify her?
• Why has Musical Linguist refused to formulate proper accusations, or to answer any of the points raised by the three editors in their defences? Why has she made her hints, half-truths and innuendos on pages other than the accused editors' talk pages, where they could be seen and answered ?
• Why would Musical Linguist not want to assist the police investigation that would surely be underway if her accusations of harassment and threats held any truth. More curious still, why would she and Tom Harrison want to "disappear" honest requests to help track down the wrongdoers.
• Why is Musical Linguist and Essjay so keen to suppress all debate about this affair or inquiries into it? What can she have to hide?

Observations about Process

This case study throws up flaws in Wikipedia's way of dealing with controversial events.

Whether the above accusations are true or false, these observations stand as indictments of the process:

• Administrators are not under any obligation to formulate clear accusations that can then be proved or disproved. Neither is any sort of standard of proof specified. It appears to be sufficient for an Administrator to suspect someone of doing something.
• Editors can be banned indefinitely without any evidence ever being produced to support the case against them
• Editors who have been banned are restricted to editing their own talk pages, but there is no requirement for their accusers to make their accusations there, nor for them to answer points made in the banned editor's defence.
• Editors can be blocked and banned by their known enemies. Bad administrators - not just Musical Linguist - often have long records of banning those they regards as their enemies.
• Administrators are free to discount any number of their enemies. All they need to do is pretend to believe that they are all sockpuppets. Not only does this reduce all opponents to one but it also brands that one as a puppetmaster, and therefore to be distrusted. There is no need to provide evidence of sockpuppetry - just the accusation will do.
• Administrators are under no obligation to declare an interest.
• Administrators are free to "disappear" any text that might be used as evidence for the defence. They do not even need to leave a note of what they have done
• The same Administrator can play the role of prosecutor, judge, jury, executioner, court of first appeal, and prosecutor again in the higher court of appeal.
• Because they are restricted to their own talk pages, banned editors have no way of advertising their plight or of having their case reviewed by a responsible disinterested party. The fact that they are already banned, suspected of sockpuppetry and accused of heinous crimes is enough to keep other honest Administrators well away.

So what really happened ?

We do not know for certain, but on the available evidence here is our best guess at what happened.

The web links were posted as described above.

Someone less than sympathetic to KMH03 followed the link trail from Wikipedia to the doubleblue site, then to KMH03's missionary page, then to one or more of his personal pages.

This person then contacted KMH03 either directly or on his Wikipedia talk page and made fun of him - who knows what? Perhaps asking for a better photo. Perhaps offering to help convert the whole world. Snide comments. Something like that. Our guess is something innocuous rather than sinister. Whatever it was KMH03, his mission revealed and his privacy violated, decided to retire.

Administrators Musical Linguist, Essjay and Tom Harrison were furious at the loss of their ally KMH03. As they did not know who was responsible they lashed out at whoever was available - the three editors that they banned. This had the bonus of removing what they saw as their three main critics in a single blow.

Knowing that they have no real evidence, they have since done everything possible to prevent any proper look into what really happened - refusing to make coherent accusations, giving misleading accounts, removing evidence, refusing to answer questions, falsely making out that allegations of sockpuppetry had been proved, and even deleting offers to help track down the real offender. If our guess is correct they have also significantly embellished the story to make the offence sound much more serious than a bit of gloating or ribbing. They played up the stalking accusation knowing that, like accusations of Nazism or paedophilia, the accusation alone would be enough to blacken those accused - so that no neutral third party would be inclined to look into it and question their actions.

This scenario seems to us to best fit the known facts. If anyone is aware of inaccuracies or facts that we have missed, please let us know. Similarly if you can think of a scenario that fits the evidence better.