Bitcoin Forum

I have a question for the community.
Yesterday I discovered plagiarism, which was made on purpose, there is no direct copy-paste, but there was deliberate copying and some modification of the text. That is, the person understood his actions, and it is difficult to call this act accidental if we recall the story with Mpamaegbu.

Then he saw that there was a complaint of plagiarism against him, after which he cowardly adds an alleged link to the source, but this source is not correct.

I don't remember exactly what LoyceV said, but recently he advised that if you add sources, then they must be real.
edit:
There and then, this user just stupidly referred to Google.

The moderators did not ban it.

Question: if we copy anything from the Internet, and then just write that everything is taken from Google, is that correct?
And the second question: Everything on the forum is archived, why the user remains unpunished in case of obvious plagiarism and further editing? I mean after it became known to the public. Does it change something? After all, everyone can see perfectly well that this is the act of an ostrich, which hides its head in the sand, but its mistakes remain in full view of everyone.


https://i.ibb.co/MMzvbNw/Screenshot.png (https://ibb.co/SRkj2vY)
https://loyce.club/archive/posts/5697/56977531.html

EDIT: case 2

In this case, until he had time to write that he gets all the information from Google, I ask the moderators to consider another of his posts. Please note, there is no link. The post is also copied in excerpts. But the plagiarism search engine shows the result of copying.

https://loyce.club/archive/posts/5685/56858097.html

https://i.ibb.co/tQLs197/Screenshot.png (https://ibb.co/wBcW2f9)

https://www.bbc.com/news/56858980
morokbarok.ru/news/56858980
https://princetoncouncil.org/india-covid-crisis-did-election-rallies-help-spread-virus/

It is intentionally response to plagiarism accusation that is bad, obviously.

Initially, if a poster takes content from somewhere else, it should be a link. Even it is taken from Google, it should have a link because when you use Google search engine, the search results will give a kind of abstract of found contents. If you want to read a full text, you must click on it and Google will direct you to a specific page at which you surely can have a link.

For this case, leaving a source as Google is very lazy and unacceptable (in my opinion) ^{at least, it shows that poster does not claim the ownership of that content}.

One exception (in my opinion) is when you recall that you read a content from somewhere else, from someone but you can not find a link again. For that case, you can leave something like "I recalled this statement is from A" and if possible - "Unfortunately, I can not find the source link for now".

Content ^{I recalled this statement is from A Unfortunately, I can not find the source link for now"}

Well, maybe the moderators are taking a more lenient approach, after the Mpamaegbu case. To me what LoyceV said the other day comes to mind: we are in a forum that does not ban you for stealing money but for copying two lines. Maybe a more lenient approach would not be bad, especially in cases of someone who only plagiarized once or twice in the past, since we are writing forum posts, not PhDs.

The case you comment on seems to me a bit ridiculous, and that he has put google as a source, very poor. I guess he was in a rush after being discovered.


I don't think so. As tradinghunt says:


But



Well, I tell you, I don't know if the moderators act more leniently now, but this is a forum, not a Doctoral Thesis tribunal. I wouldn't mind a slightly more lenient approach to cases of plagiarism (especially minor ones, not from someone who has copy-pasted dozens of posts), although what I think counts for little.

And that should be good enough for not getting banned. I want to be able to post something I read somewhere even if I can't find the link right now. Of course when you post a large amount of text that seems to be copy-pasted, and not a paraphrased sentence, you probably should have a proper link, but it still should not lead to a ban. Is it a low value post that should be deleted - perhaps, depending on circumstances.

Same with editing posts. Moderators should not ban for something that no longer exists. Honestly I'm not a huge fan of posting plagiarism findings publicly (just report to mods) however there are circumstances where I could clearly see there was no intent to plagiarise but rather a mangled quote, or a copy of a well-known text that moderators may interpret as an attempt to claim as your own, so I would warn the poster that they should edit it to clarify the source. Let's face it, real plagiarists will get caught eventually anyway. Banning slightly careless users is not necessary.

OK. Do you think this is his only plagiarism? In this case, I can add besides the second one, which you deliberately did not notice in the first post, another, which he carefully tried to hide. Did it all happen by chance? Yeah. ;D ;D
Then the first Pokapoka124 can calmly continue its publications, not paying attention to the fact that one day it will be blocked again.

[ archive (https://web.archive.org/web/20210912044713/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5330372.msg56774678) ]

https://i.ibb.co/WtNz77S/Screenshot.png (https://ibb.co/rsKpqqn)

On the left is the original source, on the right is a post that was carefully copied in an attempt to change some points.

https://i.ibb.co/XyXp7HB/Screenshot.png (https://ibb.co/Jxn2vZL)
https://copyleaks.com/dashboard/v1/businesses/report/pk4j27n10sxjprb6/preview?key=om3j50si42h8yebd&suspectId=a7c5383acc&viewMode=one-to-one&contentMode=html&sourcePage=1&suspectPage=1

original source:
https://www.nairaland.com/6692908/uchenna-christian-arrested-india-duping
https://ambrosymediainfo.com/a-reflection-on-the-good-old-days-in-nigeria-what-has-really-gone-wrong/

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1926895.msg57917614#msg57917614

At best, the user is not claiming the content as theirs, there are definitely better ways to go about it, but in the spirit of fairness; putting a source, regardless how sketchy or untidy would get one off the hook, as long as it is done before plagiarism is discovered.

No it doesn't. If it did no one would ever be banned for plagiarism, they simply connect to a notifier like TryNinja's telegram bot and check for quotes and mentions for accusation of plagiarism, then quickly add a source link before mods take action.
Adding a source after you make a post, but before you're caught out shows you did not intend to break the rules, somewhat, but after it's discovered, you're just trying to cover your tracks.

Hey lovesmayfamilis. I don't know if I'm not explaining myself well or you're misunderstanding me but this is the second time in 24 hours that you've responded to me with something that has nothing to do with what I meant.

Maybe I've gone too far in general on the plagiarism issue, but I don't know why you say I deliberately missed that post.

No, in this case, I would understand it is right for the moderators to ban him. It seems a clear case of deliberate plagiarism, in this case twice, and of trying to hide the evidence quickly when caught.

Actually some forum users is taking the forum for granted since the measure of plagiarism actions is not seem to be effective any longer, now people is using another means to violates the rules, editing post after you have be caught for plagiarism does not grant you not to face the implications or stipulates that you did not plagiarised article, except moderators want to consider the factor they have added source of the author after claiming authorship, from my perspective anyone that's caught for plagiarism and at the period of been caught the user began to edit and add source, let the user face the penalty of plagiarism, it's absolutely wrong and  if an adequate measure is not taken it will create a means to plagarise and edit when caught and definitely it will become norms of the forum.

I am looking at LoyceV quote from your OP. He seems to suggest that people should follow the links to get to the original source where the content came from. Personally, I don't think that's necessary. If I used this thread of yours as a source for something I am writing, I need to give credit to you by mentioning your thread as the source of some of the info I got. I shouldn't have to research what you used. It's your task to point to your sources if you used some to write a particular thread.

I do not agree. In this case, you can add any link that has nothing to do with the text at all. And this once again exposes the user to a ban. It's just that everything is elementary, if someone copies from somewhere, it shouldn't be a problem for him to copy and paste the source into his text, especially since it is nearby

Edit: I'll clarify, an example with the addition of Google as a source of information can also be evidence, in the opinion of the person who added the source. But I'm not talking about scouring the internet for the original. Sometimes this is simply not possible.


This is where I saw the problem. Seeing the time when the plagiarism complaint appeared, and the further editing time, is not a problem for moderators.
Therefore, I conclude that it is considered acceptable for the administration to add sources.
And also, by sending several reports directly to the moderators, you don't have to wait for the user's ban at all, provided that the text has been well edited and changed. Everything that I send to the moderators in the plagiarism topic is processed in the best possible way.

Do quotes of plagiarized content count?

Assume someone posted something stolen from the Internet and later deleted it or edited it with a link. Another user quoted that post before changes were made. Can it be used as evidence of plagiarism? It is true that quotes can be freely modified by the person quoting the post, but when combined with the archived unedited version, it gives even more evidence of plagiarism.

What if a user was caught immediately after he posted his message? What if he forgot to add a link and was found instantly by vigilant seekers? What amount of time can be considered normal to edit a message? Who are to decide this?

I remember one such case from a year or two ago on this forum.
It was a member from the Croatian part of the forum, who posted something in the English part of the forum, copy/ paste from another page, but didn't add a link because she had obviously not read the forum rules and didn't understand how important it's to add a source.
I and a few other local members alerted her to this, and within an hour or two she added a source link to her post.
I think she even got a report of plagiarism because of that post but as far as I know she didn’t get permaban.
As far as I know, after that she was very careful and it never happened to her again to make a mistake and publish a post without a source link.
So, a question for all of you: Do we really need to be consistent and punish every beginner mistake of a newbie (plagiarism) with permaban or should we simply warn of the mistake and give that member a new chance?
As someone has already mentioned, sometimes it seems that plagiarism is a bigger mistake on this forum than financial fraud.

This is a really interesting aspect of this discussion cause there is actually a possibility that a user can make a post that contains borrowed content but actually forgot to add the link immediately, or actually wanted to make the post first and then arrange the link(s) for a few minutes and then add them subsequently, but within that time another user could immediately discover that such post contains information that does not originally belong to the OP and archive such post as having plagiarised content.

I believe in such situations, the moderators would basically just handle the issue logically, since there is no rule on the amount of time for one to edit a message and add necessary links, they will just apply common wisdom in such a scenario, if the user actually edited the post within a day or two when no open reports have actually been made against the user, then we can assume it was all just a mistake and that the user forgot to add the link to the source, then again, if the user adds a link after an open report has already been made against the user and he claims to have actually forgotten to add the source, there is no way to know if such person is telling the truth, and it could be referred to as the user being malicious or trying to cheat, thus the moderators I think would actually decide the case on things such as: the reputation of the user, if that is actually the only case of plagiarism found in the users profile, is such a user one who makes shitposts with zero quality just to earn some pocket money, what contributions does such user have to the community, etc, I believe after a round up of all these, the moderators can easily decide if the user deserves a ban or not.

Every plagiarism will be treated case by case as per the admin statement so the moderators may decide whether the user can be banned or not depends on the intention behind that post and who knows the post can be completely intention or unintentionally.

But when someone edit their Post after getting caught then they may deserve ban for sure.

It's especially unacceptable if the source is Goggle.  I get that people forget to cite their source sometimes, but you can only forget once or twice over a long period of time before it becomes blatant plagiarism.  As for being reminded to put in a citation after the post was made, that's a tricky one.  I don't really have a problem with it, and it might be more constructive and a positive thing overall than just letting the member get banned--but that's assuming the member learns his lesson from that warning.

No. There is no "official" archive of the forum and in any case, if someone fucks up but fixes it later you can no longer claim that their intent was to plagiarize.


Don't post the findings publicly then. Report to mods.


So what? They fixed it, it's no longer plagiarism.


No. Just no.

---

The goal should be reducing shitpostery, not banning as many users as possible. Report plagiarism to moderators but stop sweating about users editing their posts. The 1% who care enough to do that might turn out to be valuable users or they'll get caught later.

Op, I asked a direct question to you in one plagiarism thread, I am seeing  the answers here.
IMO, according to the custom of the forum, plagiarism should be treated not only based on the intent of the plagarist.
We can have;
1. Plagiarism punishment as a result of denying the forum further opportunity to study the topic: This type can be seen as expressed by OP,  "Source: google". With such type of citation, it is obvious that the plagarist intention is not to take credit, as such can be exonerated or punished slightly for depriving the forum the opportunity to read further.

2. According to @Suchmoon, if a plagarist is informed through Pm to correct his plagiarism mistake, it might take years the crime was committed. There is possibility that he must have forgotten where he copied from. It will then be difficult to site. If the plagarist comes up with a horrific citation as "Source: google", I think he should be considered being remorseful rather than playing smart.

3. Sometimes, great readers might have moduled their brain from different sources. Their post can be original but looks spinned, or guilty of the "five consecutive words" rule. In this case, I think the user does not deserve a ban. But any user that lifts something more or equivalent to one paragraph without citing it should be responsible for whatever outcome he sees. It is very rare to hover the mouse over a very long text, copy same and paste in the forum without remembering the forum strictness on plagiarism. In this case the users past record could be the only deciding factor to moderators.

This reference is incorrect because it leads nowhere, but the posts are not plagiarized. I believe the forum needs to understand the difference between citation and reference; they are often used interchangeably, but they are not the same thing; in academic publications, both are required, but I do not believe they are required on the forum; if you want to cite a few contents from the internet, you should simply put them in a quote; a link is not required; a reference source is only required when you copy/paste a full article


Tbh. After looking through their posts and how long they've been on the forum, I've PMed a few members in the past to notify them of their mistake. I believe that a member with 1000 good posts and 1 bad post doesn't deserve to be kicked off the forum, and that such a member should be given a chance to correct their mistakes rather than being parmam ban, a newbie who plagiarized in his first posts and a member who plagiarized after a few good ones should not be treated equally If a suspect destroys evidence at a crime scene before an investigation, the case is meaningless.

I am not sure what you don't agree with. It seems that you and I are talking about different things, hence the confusion. I wasn't taking about adding any kind of link. I mentioned adding the correct link in my previous post, not "Google" or "Internet" as the source. If I use your post as a reference for something I am writing, I am supposed to post your link as my source. That's it. Is that the part you don't agree with? 

Of course it's not a problem. I never suggested it should be. All I was saying is that you need to provide a source that you personally used, and that's it. I think what LoyceV was suggesting is that you make a more detailed research into the original source of the information. Where it all came from. The source of the source until you find the first. I think doing that is not necessary. 

I don't think they should. You said it yourself. You can edit the quote to say whatever you want in an attempt to frame someone. LoyceV's and TryNinja's bots are reliable source unless they have a way to edit the post content. I have never heard any complaints that might be the case though. 

It only happens if the author composes a huge topic with dozen of resource links. I think, it is acceptable if the author forget one link in dozen of links for that topic. I guess moderators will be keen on a softer solution, ignore plagiarism in such case and not use a ban hammer. At least, the author shows clear signals that he/she does not intend to claim the authorship of those contents.

However, cases in OP (and in this discussion) is different. Copy & paste from only one source, so it is absolutely unacceptable if the author says I forget a link of the content.

Before answering this question, I want to tell you about the types of plagiarism.

1.Copy and paste the original text directly-------Ban account directly

2.Part of a paragraph or a paragraph, directly paste and copy-----Ban account directly

3.By extracting multiple articles, piece together into one article, without indicating the source-------Ban account directly

4.Quote the opinions of others and change the original article into your own language---------Mute for 7 days

5.Citing the article, but the source of the article is not marked or the source is ambiguous------Mute for 7 days

6.Abuse of citations, fewer original articles------Mute for 7 days

7.Large-length article, quoted in one sentence------Not plagiarism

8.I copied myself without citation------Not plagiarism

Plagiarism is shameful, but it is not a death sentence. You need to see whether the plagiarism is harmful to others (bounty program market, very chaotic)

Ratimov once said something about that (editing and citing an accused post), which somehow put editing for citation on the right and I understood why. Trying to right your wrongs isn't such a bad thing, is it. Here was my response to that;

Here was the pointy finger manifestation. So, it doesn't matter where you turn, its about who is raising the alarm.

Plagiarism is a no just course for anyone and I understand why the forum fights it so much. Bitcointalk is a forum that treasures originality and the crypto community hnags on trusts between parties. If you aren't virtuous enough to credit the sources of a content for which you got a valuable information, how then can you be a trust worthy person. I'm just saying!

I checked up the meaning of plagiarism lately in the Merriam Websters dictionary and it made perfect sense. The meaning was more incriminating than the copy and paste without citation portrays. I'll paste it here. Merriam Websters dictionary definition of plagiarism/plagiarizing; Transitive verb: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source.
As an intransitive verb: to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.

Note the words: "steal" and "theft". Sometimes, we don't realize this is what we do each time we plagiarize. Well, some plagiarism could be unintention and we ought to own our mistakes. After all, we are here to learn and learn we would still. Let's deal honorably and maintain the decorum of bitcointalk. We good!

This is wrong and could be potentially misleading for other members. The forum does not have any clear cut rule for plagiarism besides;
There is no specifications on what type of ban one would get for variants of plagiarism, rather it is handled case to case, with one outcome not influencing another.

this is plagiarism for sure, let's look at the wide picture.
He finds some text on Google  ??? and post it here. without any discussion on his part and a possible explanation as to why he quoted it.
So, what is next? He will create 20 new topics per week, copy/paste something over the internet, put "Source: Goggle" and voila, he fulfils signature requirements. he did not even participate in the further discussion on the topic, he may not even understand what he wrote. certainly this was written just for the signature campaign or hunting for merit. (Opening useful topic in Beginners and Help section, easy can bring some merits)
do we really need such posters here?

There are no rules stating that you must contribute to whatever you copy from the Internet; sometimes the topic suffices; however, in this case, the op is a super lazy poster who did not claim the work as his own, and on that note, I do not believe he deserves parmaban for making silly mistakes. As I previously stated, the forum needs to establish a standard on plagiarism.

Of course they can modify the archived posts at any time. I'm quite sure LoyceV has removed or edited some doxing attempts once or twice. But they're staking their reputation on it and we can trust that they wouldn't do it for malicious purposes about as much as we trust them not to scam or otherwise deceive in general.

(the following is not necessarily in response to you but on the topic of the thread in general)

I do trust both TryNinja and LoyceV but I would still argue that moderators should not use those archives to ban users, particularly if the ban reason itself no longer exists in this forum (the post has been edited by the author).

Imagine this scenario:

1) I make a copy-pasta post, forget to add a link, edit the post 10 seconds later and add the link. LoyceV's archive has my original without the link.
2) I edit the post a year later for an unrelated reason. Some shithead finds the archive and reports it for plagiarism. My last edit date makes it look like I made the edit recently and the plagiarism existed for a year. Archives don't really capture every edit to show what actually happened.

Do we really want to go that far into the weeds? For what purpose? To catch one or two more plagiarists? There is always many others we can find with far less effort. And if we ever get to the point where the few sleazeballs who edited their posts after being reported are the only shitposters on this forum, I think we'll be fine.

However, the Pablo James account was banned. Also, yesterday's case with the plagiarism warning of newcomer DanielBroonze about adding a link to his post was also banned. He was warned several times, but he didn't fix anything. Probably not everyone needs it?
https://ninjastic.space/topic/5359660

As for getting plagiarism out of the archive, and further persecution of the one who committed it, this is madness. And I did not create the topic for this at all. The topic was about human behavior at the time of detection of plagiarism. Trying to deceive anyone, knowing that everything is in the archive, is disgusting.

Once again, I respect Mpamaegbu, he didn’t pretend to be innocent, didn’t begin to destroy his mistakes, knowing that everything is already in the know anyway. It is worthy of a man. Accept everything as it is, and then act according to the situation.
The act of today's blocked Pablo James is very cowardly. This once again shows who is in front of us. All the more insulting to add a link to the worldwide network, mistaking everyone for idiots. After all, so, everyone understands that all information exists in Google.

Funny, I never finished a post and then thought, "Oh I forgot to add the source of the words I wanted to appear were my own." I know I said this a lot lately but why don't people just try coming up with their own thoughts? Seems like some people go through a lot more work for undesired results.


And that's why the best way to ban people for plagiarism is to just report it -- so they don't get the chance to change their post.

An edited and changed plagiarized post that points to the correct source is no longer a plagiarism issue if you ask me. What you explained can happen to anyone. I don't think the timeframe for how long the content was on the forum should be decisive. If the post was edited before someone reported you, I think you wouldn't be banned. Even if you edit the post after the report is sent, the admins might look the other way.

In the example you provided, the admins can't prove (unless they have some tools that I don't know about) how long the post was there without the source. Therefore the original achieve doesn't offer any clarity or additional evidence.   

I document all my censorship in this topic (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5167469.msg54180647#msg54180647).

My archiving was questioned by nullius (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5167469.msg56751417#msg56751417) 5 months ago, which I addressed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5167469.msg56754418#msg56754418). After this, I added hashes (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5167469.msg56771597#msg56771597) to archived posts, and addressed missing posts (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5167469.msg56887693#msg56887693).
If you want to detect foul play I might do in the future, by all means, please archive up to 10,000 post hashes at a time (https://loyce.club/archive/posts/5793/sha-256.txt)!
I can't really help being able to edit files, but I can make it easier to detect it.

Agreed. If the user corrects his mistake before getting banned, they may actually improve in the future.
If you want to report plagiarism without alerting the user to edit his post: click Report to moderator (http://) instead of posting in public.

Admin would still be able to confirm you didn't remove the plagiarism just then. Even better: if you remove accidental plagiarism within 10 minutes after posting, the forum keeps no record of it at all.
Basically, my archive is great for catching typos and ninja edits.

And that reminds me of the case where someone ninja-edited his post to make the user who posted after him look like he copied it (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5260668.msg55353463#msg55353463). Always be careful who to accuse :)

That's being done on purpose, if they are editing the post after detection, they must be punished as 99.99% time, they post it knowingly.
Citation should be mandatory while posting contents from other authors. It can be a link, can be the name of the author or a book or whatever but a clear mention of author or direct link to the content.

At least, if you don’t exactly know the author of the content, it's the best to quote the text as a quote would simply refer to this has been shared by someone else. That's what the use of quote.

In general, I believe that people posting only the content from a source and having no further opinion of their own, should also be punished, maybe a warning.

It's punishment enough to make small adjustments to the rules and give the moderators freedom to delete such posts and threads. When they fail to reach their signature quota, they will first complain about it and then look to change their habits if they want to get paid. Since those low-effort posts are mostly made to up the post count, their goal is to get paid and when they don't, you will get the wanted results.   

Yeah, well earned, a double case of plagiarism is deliberate, and it's my fault for not looking at it from the appropriate perspective. I don't support a case of double plagiarism; looking at Pablo's activity, it's clear that the forum isn't significant to him, or that he's bored of copying and pasting other people's work in an attempt to find merits, but failing.

Not everyone is this lucky though  :)

This is a resounding NO!!! Anything in the archive should be kept in the archive, and every action should be based on what proof can be found in the sands of time, rather than anything that was destroyed or tossed into the air a long time ago.

Per current available rule, depends on the content quality, only two possible solutions

• Move it to trash can (if content quality is low)
• No action if content quality is good enough.
  
  • At least it does not break rules but I agree that anyone share content should add his/her own opinion about it.
  • It leads to another issue, how to judge the his/her opinion is acceptable enough or simply write one short shallow and hasty sentence to regularize it in order to avoid trash can

You're right. Recently, I tried to complain to the moderators about topics that were simply copied and had a link to the source but did not have the opinion of the topic author himself. Such topics were removed, but I only complained about topics where there were no answers from other users or there were only two or three answers. From here, we can understand that just copied texts with the source can also be interesting for discussion.
But your second statement, where the user can change their habits, is also true. And so it happened. Now he quotes other people's texts, but besides, he writes something from himself. I am glad that he quickly realized his mistakes. I would like to believe that the same will happen to others who simply copy from the Internet with the source without their comments.

https://i.ibb.co/D9XtKjL/Screenshot.png (https://ibb.co/sKS23Xt)

I ask the moderators to carefully review my report. The post was removed after being discovered.
I really hope for your justice.

Justice has been served :) The user is banned. I found a lot of interesting (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5347222.msg59298892#msg59298892) things in his list of posts ;)