Outing another user

[anson2995]

Is it against the rules to post the real life identity of another poster? I thought it was, but that's what happened in this lively thread.

Just because you can use the google to deduce who a poster is doesn't mean it's cool to do so.

[Giles]

I think that normally outing another user would be a problem, but

(1) envirocr has said that he has a connection with the website; and

(2) In post #35 of that thread, envirocr said "I will tell Mr. Wolfe", so the poster cited in the OP actually got it wrong -- envirocr works for Charles Wolfe, unless he's telling an untruth there.

[samclem]

I'm commenting on just this single incidence, the one to which you linked.

I don't think that Mr. Wolfe was "outed" in the classic sense. And, since Mr. Wolfe is not afraid to be a public person(his blog and many many web hits showing him, his qualifications, etc.), I saw no reason to do anything(as a mod) about this.

Mr. Wolfe was first "outed" by E. Thorp.

Originally Posted by E. Thorp

This is correct. I subscribe to the blog, saw the image, was intrigued by it and, since the city being depicted was unidentified, posted a link to the image here to ask about it.

I am a fan of myurbanist and have learned a lot from Chuck Wolfe's view of things.

Mr. Wolfe winked in acknowledgement

Originally Posted by envirocr

Thanks

I will tell Mr. Wolfe

Then, our member Bearflag70 tries to be helpful, but introduces a non-relevant link into the thread.

Originally Posted by Bearflag70

http://www.envirocr.com/

Not an intellectual property firm

Our member, Dewey Finn was the first to state that our guest, envirocr was probably

Originally Posted by Dewey Finn

... Charles R. Wolfe, who created most of the content on the myurbanist.com website. Mr. Wolfe's website says that he specializes in environmental and land use law. So perhaps he's not as well-versed in copyright law. (BTW, if he's still reading this, I'd like to know why he put a 2006 copyright on a photo taken in 1917.)

[Northern Piper]

the same issue arose a few months ago with Stoid's court case - she gave enough information in her threads to allow Dopers to identify her.

[Dewey Finn]

Originally Posted by samclem

Mr. Wolfe winked in acknowledgement



Then, our member Bearflag70 tries to be helpful, but introduces a non-relevant link into the thread.

Exactly. I didn't exactly divulge some deep, dark secret. I think that I just debunked some invalid speculation.

[twickster]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

the same issue arose a few months ago with Stoid's court case - she gave enough information in her threads to allow Dopers to identify her.

Not exactly the same thing -- stoid was (is) a long-term member who started numerous threads on her court case; in one that she started after it was resolved, someone posted a link to the actual decision. I removed that link.

This person came here after a link to something he or she had posted elsewhere was given here, and joined in order to protest that link.

[anson2995]

Originally Posted by samclem

I don't think that Mr. Wolfe was "outed" in the classic sense. And, since Mr. Wolfe is not afraid to be a public person(his blog and many many web hits showing him, his qualifications, etc.), I saw no reason to do anything(as a mod) about this.

Fair enough. I'll withdraw my objection to this particular instance. On further investigation, I see that the about page at the website in question identifies the blog's author (sorta). I apologize to Dewey Finn for characterizing his post as "uncool."

But I'll renew my question on the broader issue. One can choose to have a blog and also not chose to reveal his real life identity on this board. Is there a rule against revealing a poster's real life identity without their permission and/or when it's not otherwise relevant? I was under the impression that it always had been.

[twickster]

Yes, that is generally frowned upon.

[Lynn Bodoni]

Is there a rule against revealing a poster's real life identity without their permission and/or when it's not otherwise relevant? I was under the impression that it always had been.

I would consider this to be jerkish behavior.

[TubaDiva]

The thread in question has been closed.