B. Wikipedia *MAY* report that those jerks on Usenet have branded >> you
a
kook. (Read the part about Wikipedia NOT endorsing that label.)
I think that, looking at the previous way that the report was presented, it was written in a way that possibly seemed more like the anonymous user was calling him a kook than reporting it. Thus, Wikipedia was calling him a kook. If it had been written as something along the lines of "Persons that the newsgroup have labelled a 'kook' include [name], who was given the title of 'Kook of the Millenium'" then there would be no reasonable argument against its inclusion.