Talk:Alt.usenet.kooks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on October 2, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on December 14, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

I think we should not adopt the tone of the newsgroup when describing it.

They refer to the labels they hand out as "awards" - reminiscient of the "Big Screw" award given out at MIT - like it's all in good fun.

But our article should emphasize that the recipient of the "kook" label might NOT take it so kindly.

Let's use words like label and brand in the article.

Also, the mere fact that the article is "protected" is no reason to revert my changes. The protection is against vandalism, not against ordinary changes made by a contributor in good standing. Please don't use "protection" to win an edit war. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 13:55, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, Ed. While I'd prefer to see this person's name removed entirely, I'd go along with your compromise suggestion of rewording the context in which his name is used. I also don't like the way the article has been protected in this case. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:14, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
I've requested unprotection. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:26, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Silsor. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:00, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

To the anon editor(s), I've tried to argue for Wollmann's name to be deleted, but so far I've been outnumbered (though this is a wiki, so the situation could change). However, as things stand, the best I can achieve here is to make sure the context in which the name appears is NPOV. If you're around, can you say what information you would like to see added so that the reference to that name is fair and accurate? For example, we could add something about who Wollmann is (a very brief description) and how the award came to be made (also very brief). Please bear in mind that editors are not allowed to make legal threats if they want to continue editing, and if another revert war ensues, the page may be protected again. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:08, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I've weaselled, alleged, branded, labelled and insinuated my way through a version I hope is more acceptable, but do improve on it if you see a way. JRM · Talk 20:38, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Joost, we just had an edit conflict and I've overwritten some of your edits inadvertently. Now I'm not sure whether to add them back or what. I've edited in roughly the same direction as you. I've added the names of more award winners so the disputed name doesn't stand out so much, and have added a link to the award winners list, so people can see that it's not a serious thing in any way. I also added that the subscribers are anonymous. I felt a bit silly editing it, but I think it's slightly more NPOV now. Let me know what you think. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:42, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Seen it, edited it, got the t-shirt. Keep on trucking. JRM · Talk 20:50, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
It looks a lot better, thanks.  ;-p SlimVirgin (talk) 21:01, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Exal links

Looks like E.W. had a rough usenet past, and flew off his rocker a few times, but has distanced himself from it a bit over the past few years. And anyone who loves painting can't be all bad; I added a link to his art gallery (which is still the top hit for 'edmond wollmann,' something he can be thankful for) to the links section. I hope it stays there; it provides some context for the one unlinked award-winner. +sj + 04:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I felt I had to remove it. This article is about the newsgroup, not Wollmann. It's on topic to mention what titles the newsgroup gave Wollmann, but any further detail specifically about Wollmann himself not related to that should go into an article about him (provided one is warranted). I didn't see anything in that external link that was about the newsgroup. Bryan 07:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Policy Dispute

The dispute is between:

  1. those who insist that they "may" or "ought" to mention in the article that certain people (possibly anonymous) have labelled a specific, named individual a "kook"; and,
  2. those who say that this is either not nice, or that it smacks of endorses the slur

Now, in the case of a very famous and well-known person - someone who has name recognition from 10% or more of the English-speaking world, let us say - there is no question of "privacy" or being "non-notable". We can say that many Democrats and other leftists have called Bush a "moron".

But are we really obliged (or even permitted) by Wikipedia's Mission, to perpetuate this slur on Mr. Wollman? Would it really HURT the project, if we omitted his name from the list of those persons that a Usenet newsgroup (which permits anonymous posting) has branded as kooks?

I'd prefer to have a link at the end of the article, referring curious readers to the newsgroup FAQ. Let them satisfy their curiousity directly from the source.

I'm going to change the article radically. And if people start reverting it, well I get three reverts a day, don't I? (And if anyone goes over that, don't say you weren't warned.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:17, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

"Kook of the Millennium" seems a pretty notable title to me, at least in context of this article, and as I've argued on the mailing list Wollmann doesn't appear to be a particularly "private" individual. IMO removing his name simply because he's vigorously complaining and issuing legal threats (apparently without any real legal grounding or intent to follow through) does hurt the project; it shows that we're willing to remove information that people just plain don't like if they raise enough of a ruckus. I'm not terribly interested in this information or this article itself, but I am quite interested in the principles being established here. Bryan 15:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Please don't move the page around, while others are editing it. If you object to the page move, say so here and explain why. If there are repeated, unexplained page moves, than I will lock it into place. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:38, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I just spent the last half hour undoing what looked like a "manual move" of the page. Let's not go through that again. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:13, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the article wound up at the title "the alt.usenet.kooks newsgroup" instead of just plain "alt.usenet.kooks"? This doesn't seem to fit our naming conventions, I'll do an administrative move to put it back unless there's some specific reason it's here instead. Bryan 15:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what happened here. There is also some talk page history that got stuck here. silsor 15:56, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
In theory I could merge that page history into this one with a delete-move-undelete-move cycle, but I think at the moment it might be more trouble than it's worth for just a snippet of talk page history. Everyone's signed and datestamped their comments for the most part anyway. Bryan 23:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Treading the middle ground

My view is this: what some people are concerned about here is that Mr. Wollmann may be bullied by having his name included demeaningly in this article. Well and good. Other people are concerned that Mr. Wollmann is doing some bullying of his own by trying to force us to remove his name from an article in which it was rightfully included (refer: wikien-l). This concern is also well and good. I think we should be able to walk the middle ground here by including the data in an informative fashion. Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? silsor 15:19, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree. The list of notable "kook of the" recipients is verifiable, relevant, informative, etc. If giving such an "award" is bullying, it is not Wikipedia that's doing it - it's the denizens of alt.usenet.kooks. I'm restoring the list, IMO its removal is unjustified. Bryan 15:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Bryan, you wrote above that you're not interested in this article as such, but in the principles. I agree with you about the principles, and I've fought to keep material in WP that certain groups (LaRouchies, neo-Nazis) have tried to remove. But this is the wrong battleground. There are other principles at stake here, primarily that we shouldn't become bullies. This is a private individual who has done no harm except to act foolishly and be an irritant. Even a link to his website has been removed, so now there isn't even any information about who he is. I agree with Ed that the name ought to be deleted. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:18, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
But I've disputed the assertion that we are being "bullies" in the first place, and also that this is a private individual. If I don't agree with those, then as far as I'm concerned there aren't any other principles at stake here (at least not that I've seen anyone mention). I removed that external link to his website because this article's about the newsgroup, not the person. If Wollmann himself is notable enough to have information about who he is in Wikipedia, he can have an article devoted to him easily enough. Once upon a time he did, in fact, but it got deleted (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Edmond Wollmann). Bryan 23:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I've restored the list again. I agree with Bryan; and Ed's justification, in his edit summary, for reverting ("policy discussion on this matter has not been concluded (see mailing list)") is specious. Plus his treating the 3RR as entitlement to revert three times is not looked upon very highly by many Wikipedians, and makes the Harmonious Editing Club, which he founded, an even bigger joke than it already was. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 19:38, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
The burden of proof is on him who asserts that the target of criticism is "notable". For example, I might be pretty well known around Wikipedia, but I am otherwise a private citizen. If you want to see REAL ANGER, just try putting my name in an article. (Instead of performing this experiment, e-mail me privately and I'll tell you what Jimbo did to the guy who actually tried this. Hint: he only tried it once.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:25, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Beg to differ. The burden of proof is on him who asserts that the criticism of said person is notable within the context of the article. In an article on Bill Clinton, we would not write "the Usenet newsgroup alt.usenet.kooks has named Clinton Kook of the Month for..." because this would be completely out of whack; Clinton is notable, but AUK's slam on him is certainly not. In the context of alt.usenet.kooks itself, however, Wollmann is most certainly notable. I can Google and dig up posts that demonstrate this, but I hope you won't require me to. The fact that the unsurpassed scope of "Kook of the Millennium" was felt to aptly fit mr. Wollmann alone should be enough indication.
Incidentally, I am interested in the article as such, I am not arguing on principle, I am the original author, and I disagree with both Sarah and Ed on this. That said, I'm not about to start a holy war over it; I believe equally strongly in Wikipedia fixing itself over time. I think you two are in the wrong; if I or others cannot convince you of that, however, we'll just have to count on future generations setting the record straight—or agreeing that it was straight enough. JRM · Talk 17:36, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
As far as I know, you haven't been awarded any "Kook of the" titles so it would indeed be inappropriate to put your name in there. If you were given such a title, on the other hand, I might support adding your name to the list depending on the details (the list of kook awards is long, not all of them are relevant unless we were adding an exhaustive list). I would disregard your angry threats if there wasn't any other basis for removing it, anger doesn't give any extra validity to an argument. Bryan 23:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On moving alt.usenet.kooks to the alt.usenet.kooks newsgroup

Do we have two articles going on here, or does the page just keep being moved? Maybe we should agree on a page title? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:50, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Is there anyone besides Ed Poor who sees any sense in the new title? And is it not inappropriate for him to move this without explanation and at the same time threaten that "If there are repeated, unexplained page moves, than I will lock it into place"? NoPuzzleStranger 18:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it is. He shouldn't haul out threats like that. You were not helping matters by reverting it as dedicatedly as you did, however. Now that we're here, let's talk. My hope is that we can convince Ed the title he picked is not appropriate, at which point we can peacefully move back the page. There is no excuse for aggressively moving the page back and forth. People who go to alt.usenet.kooks will still find it. I left a notice on Ed's talk page before picking up the discussion here, which might have been a mistake in retrospect.JRM · Talk 18:08, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
Hi NoPuzzle, I don't think the old title needs to be deleted for this to be moved back, so I reverted your speedy-delete notice. Maybe we should wait until Ed responds to JRM's query about the title before deciding whether to move it back. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:07, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
My only preference is that we're probably better dropping "the." SlimVirgin (talk) 18:21, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
That would do nothing to fix the problem Ed moved the article for in the first place—the capitalized "A". However, that problem admits no solution in the current Wikipedia configuration. There's talk of change, but until that's a fact, this abject monstrosity of an article title (there, I've said it) should not remain. Otherwise I'd like to hear some impressive arguments for why we should ignore the naming policies in this case as far as going with the most common name and not needlessly disambiguating are concerned. But see also User talk:Ed Poor. JRM · Talk 19:12, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
I'm not sure we have to care about the first letter not being lower case. That the first letter is upper case is simply our house style, albeit for technical reasons. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:17, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
We now seem to have the article at Alt.usenet.kooks, but the talk page at The alt.usenet.kooks newsgroup. We're going to end up with Kook awards ourselves if we're not careful. ;-p SlimVirgin (talk) 22:45, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Fixed. Bryan 23:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:06, May 12, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] 68.105.83.225's vandalism

+protect until the vandal goes away? Flawiki 20:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. silsor 21:06, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Jesness, Bullis, and Grubor

Given the extreme (and frankly surprising) amount of discussion about Ed Wollman, I hope the explicit mention of three more individuals virtually unanimously regarded as kooks won't meet with great opposition. Ataru 00:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Identifying individuals by name on the Web is grounds for civil defamation suits. Administrators of news readers, the folks that archive news group messages to the Web so it could be available to the search engines, have to grant removal requests all the time. That's the advice given by Google attorney. "We're just a conduit, but the web sites, the secondary publishers, and the original authors are culpable. You are well advised to go after them, and they're likely amenable because they know they can be sued." If you cannot be identified or located (like some of the stalkers in alt.usenet.kooks), you are not vulnerable.
I know that two of the fellows you have identified in this forum have only recently become aware of the Wikipedia entry. Apparently, a high school reunion committee coordinator found it in a search of the person's name, and the person is ticked off to say the least. He was already shopping for an attorney. Apparently, it's much simpler than plodding through Wiki's prohibitive and bureaucratic arbitration procedures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs) .
Which ones, by the by? I don't buy the notion that one could successfully sue over this page, it's just reporting what's being said by other pages. If someone who's won a kook of the year award wants to sue someone over it, they should try suing the people who awarded it to them rather than someone completely unrelated who merely reports the fact. Bryan 01:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not at liberty to disclose the identities of the persons seeking legal relief, and I don't want to compromise them. You are correct to suggest that the original authors in Usenet are culpable. But this does not exclude your culpability (and identifying and locating the original and often anonymized authors in Usenet is cost-prohibitive). Under civil law (and under the Communications Decency Act), you are a "secondary publisher" or "re-publisher" and you share in the liability. In some cases, the original Usenet messages are not even archived to the Web or do not show up in the first dozen pages of results. But yours does, and therein lies the grounds for the lawsuit. The immunity you seek (just reporting what others said) is restricted to "conduits" (e.g. Google, telephone company). - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs) .
Well, I still don't find this remotely plausible, and you're providing no references to support your proposition so I don't see any reason to change anything about the article as a result. You may also want to read Wikipedia:No legal threats, I don't think making vague threats against Wikipedia as a whole technically violates it but it still seems against the spirit of it. If your mystery award-winners think they've got valid cases against Wikipedia as a whole, take it up with the board. This isn't the place for it. Bryan 16:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, this is never just about winning a kook award. You know as well as I do what those who win kook awards are subjected to. They become targets of all sorts of malfeasance, and this entry in Wikipedia puts them at risk for far more egregious damages than just some benign "kook award." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs) .

If reporting publically verifiable facts in an NPOV manner causes them trouble, I suspect they've got problems that suing Wikipedia isn't going to make go away. Would likely make it worse since a lawsuit might be notable enough to mention in the Wikipedia article as part of this encyclopedia's history, possibly making the rounds of the blogs and whatnot and generally just increasing exposure. BTW, please sign your messages with ~~~~, even when editing anonymously, to make it easier to follow who's saying what and when. Bryan 16:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Then I don't think you'd mind if they dropped your names on a web site, factually citing your defamation. I don't have any interest in going out of my way to save your hyde by providing citations on the civil and communications law. If you're interested, you can look it up yourself. It by no means guarantees victory for the plaintiff, but it's definitely a legal basis for a lawsuit (and one that could prove expensive either way for the defendant, win, lose, or draw). As for the "proper place for it," I just thought I'd alert you in the event they proceeded, because you folks would be named in the lawsuit as well. I have no interest in seeing one. The whole thing ... from Alt.usenet.kooks to lawsuits ... is really quite juvee. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs) .

Please take your legal concerns to the Wikimedia Foundation. We're just volunteer editors. If you feel that something in this entry violates Wikipedia policy, feel free to discuss that, but vague "warnings" of impeding lawsuits falls under the policy Wikipedia:No legal threats. Gamaliel 19:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm tempted to just wipe this whole discussion thread at this point, since the anon doesn't appear likely to provide any specifics and without them this "warning" is pretty much useless as far as work on this article is concerned. Bryan 06:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The lawsuit threats are laughable. In the US, where the Wikimedia servers are located, libel and slander only apply to false statements of fact represented as truth. In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., the Supreme Court explicitly stated that "under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea". Opinions are never libelous. You can call someone an asshole, a shithead, a kook, a rotter, a moron, all to your heart's content. Only specific false claims qualify as libelous or slanderous, and even then only under specific, delimited circumstances. In effect, libel law in the US is almost (though not quite) a dead letter, and deliberately so - to do otherwise would have a chilling effect on protected speech. None of the information on alt.usenet.kooks is "defamatory" in the least from a legal standpoint. Firebug 05:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by User:Braloj

But there is certainly a totally negative report of alt.usenet.kooks as well. Here is a totally independent assessment and report of newsgroup stalking and harassment, where alt.usenet.kooks appears prominently and over and over; this independent report is by a Ph.D. in Social Psychology: http://www.fireflysun.com/book/sci.psychology.psychotherapy.PUBLIC.php This psychologist has no reason to misrepresent alt.usenet.kooks and a search of that web page shows the newsgroup, alt.usenet.kooks, coming up several times as an abuse newsgroup, with the FACTUAL details of its role in stalking and abuse DOCUMENTED and made clear.

The fact that the main FAQ for this newsgroup (www.lart.com/auk/) appears on a web site whose domain is 100% bogus as far as responsible person, contact person, responsible name, etc. supports this view. In short, lart.com is a totally anonymous domain because, IN VIOLATION OF ICANN RULES, it is totally falsely registered. Correspondingly, alt.usenet.kooks is inhabited largely by similar anonymous and unseemly people -- often looking to harass others for kicks. A google search for the posts of most of the regular participants of alt.usenet.kooks shows them going off-topic to OTHER newsgroups frequently to HARASS people.

--

Of course what "Braloj" leaves out is how his own six domains,

http://www.danrogers-unethical-psychologist.info http://www.joejared-asshole.info http://www.joejared-is-taylorjimenez.info http://www.lesliepacker-tourette-psychologist.info http://www.unethical-psychologists.info http://www.bradjesness.org

Have been taken away from him for abuse, lies and as Yahoo put it, fraudulent activities. So that only leaves "Braloj" with easily discovered lies how how Lart.Com is in violation of ICANN WHOIS rules. Brad has called the owner of Lart.Com many times, as he has the valid telephone number and since the PO Box is valid, sent mail too.

REPLY -- Brad attempted to register those domains with the one registar that upholds civic standards (Yahoo). By contrast, an individual harassing and stalking Brad registered his bradjesness.com using the one registar with a reputation for bulletproofing cyberstalkers (Go Daddy). Brad had every right to contact the Lart.com admin, as it is standard cease-and-desist request protocol. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.149.8.228 (talk • contribs) .

What "Braloj" also leaves out is how the "independent report" is nothing but a Brad Jesness SOB (supporter of Brad) who is 100% invalid WHOIS contact info. This so called "independant" admits his name is fake and use it for his WHOIS contact info. When he got caught using a fake Tacoma, WA address, he then switched to a fake address in Utah. Yet "Brad Jesness" never speaks about the fake name and fake address because Brad has few SOB's and needs all the help he can get.

REPLY -- Research revealed that the independent reporter is a social psychologist. His domain data (i.e. actually that of a staffer) was valid in every respect except for the telephone number (who wants to be contacted at home?). He claims that he was deliberately tardy in updating the information once his staffer relocated because his staffer complained about being stalked by a Usenet gang (which may have included the author of these remarks about Brad). He claims it took some time to find a solution to the problem of cyberstalking, hence the most recent domain data ...
... The new domain data can be traced to the address of a Web hosting service, which appears to be that hosting the independent source's Web site. I might write the company to confirm whether he has secured permission to use its address as proxy for his own. But if he has, he's simply found a viable solution to a personal problem of cyberstalking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.149.8.228 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Making the "list of kooks" more NPOV?

Much of the controversy about this page has centred on the use of individual names in the article. At the time of writing, the list of names is as follows:

Past "winners" include people of Usenet notoriety such as Archimedes Plutonium, Kenneth Pangborn, Vito Kuhn, Sollog, psychologist Brad Jesness, John Grubor, Richard Bullis, and astrologer Edmond Wollmann, who was voted "Kook of the Millennium", but also prominent people like Bill Gates, Pierre Salinger, Gary Glitter, or Bill Clinton

It seems to me, as a participant in the newsgroup, that this list is somewhat arbitrary. Vito Kuhn is the most recent winner of the Kook of the Month award, but is no more notable on Usenet as a whole or in AUK than any of a few dozen other winners. On the other hand, Bill Gates is notable everywhere, for more important reasons. There is no objective criterion for inclusion on the list, although it seems to be generally accepted that some examples should be given.

I therefore suggest that the list be changed to include only

  • (a) Winners of exceptional "kook awards", such as Kook of the Millennium, Kook of the Century, and Kook of the Decade
  • (b) Winners of "kook awards" who are considered notable enough to have Wikipedia articles in their own right.

This would, at present, produce the following list of names:

This would exclude two of the names currently listed (Mr Pangborn and Mr Kuhn), on the grounds that they're not considered particularly notable in the newsgroup. It would also exclude Pierre Salinger, who won his award for "trolling the media", and is not regarded in the newsgroup as a "kook". It would thus be less subjective than the existing list.

In this and other respects, the article certainly needs revision. I'm reluctant to make such changes myself, since I'm closely associated with the newsgroup and might provoke further vandalism by people who would consider me biased. So this is just a suggestion. The article certainly needs some attention. Peter J Ross 21:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You raise good points, so I've gone ahead and updated the list as you suggest. As for the other things, I suppose in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety (and accusations of Wikipedia:Vanity) you could post rewritten chunks here on talk and have other editors incorporate them into the articles instead. That way there's always at least one other person giving their "stamp of approval" to the text before it goes "live". (I'm not really qualified to revise the article myself, I've only got this article watchlisted as a relic of the vandalisms of Christmas Past. :) Bryan 00:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, Bryan. I've adjusted your version of the list slightly. I think my Wikipedia reputation will be enhanced if I concentrate on other topics for a while now. Peter J Ross 02:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/l/t/Talk%7EAlt.usenet.kooks_597b.html"