User talk:Sfba

Violet Blue (author)[edit]

Sorry to have reverted your edit. I'm being a bit picky but you gave the real name of a Wikipedia editor which isn't mentioned on their user pages. This can be considered "outing", even if the information is there for those who choose to research it. I've left a message on User talk:BenBurch to see his response. I'm sorry again to have reverted a decent attempt to improve an article. --Simon Speed (talk) 10:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name was from existing citation for that same paragraph, but no worries. I've done a similar revision but without his name this time. Sfba (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani#.22outing.22_involving_personal_information.. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outing again[edit]

Hi, per the discussion on ANI it's pretty clear you violated WP:OUTING on the now deleted Talk:Andrew Storms. Instead of outing the person, you can take the issue to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Please be careful not to out the person in the process of taking the issue to the noticeboard. While this is not the first time this has happened, you should be aware that you may be blocked if this occurs again.

While I too despise editors who use Wikipedia to promote their businesses or are paid to promote individuals, outing is not acceptable. Tagging the articles with {{coi}} is about as far as you can go with identifying authors' suspected relationships with their companies. If an editor objects to the placement of the tag, you can directly ask him/her "Are you affilliated with XYZ?" In the case of Andrew Storms, the editor's editing pattern makes the WP:COI pretty obvious. Toddst1 (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had hoped that the information would be helpful in exposing the apparent COI violation, and did not realize that the outing policy was so strict. Thanks for the suggestions! Next time I will use the {{coi}} tag as you suggest. Sfba (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an easy mistake to make when you believe someone is pimping their company on Wikipedia. This isn't the only one I've run across in the past 24 hours. HealthWarehouse.com is in a similar state but not quite as blatant. Note that in that case the editor self-identified his/her affiliation with the company on his/her talk page and thus isn't upset about outing.

Anyway, I think you're on the right track now. Let me know if I can be of assistance. Toddst1 (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]