Are useful links allowed or not? -------> Ban appeal for SMZ_

[concepter]

If you want to refer to an external article is it possible to insert the link without being banned as happened to a friend?

If it is not possible to insert a link without being banned, why is there the possibility to insert links in the options?

Should the moderator who decides to ban for the presence of a link notify the OP of the fact?

[1714508600]

1714508600

[1714508600]

1714508600

[Upgrade00]

It is not against the rules to insert links into a thread, I have done that a lot. It's only against the rules when it's done with malicious intent (lik a malware), solely to advertise a site (like a referral link), if they used link shorteners, or if you're spamming the forum with links to a particular website.

Should the moderator who decides to ban for the presence of a link notify the OP of the fact?

Moderators already have a lot of work, notifying members of rules they should have read isn't one of them.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Your friend most have been banned for spamming the forum with referral contents (links) or malicious ones as highlighted by Upgrade00, the forum doesn't ban for just posting a link. Infact it's mandatory to input a link source if the content you're posting was gotten from an online source that's why there's a possiblity of inserting a link in the options.

It is reasonable that this is the case, but my friend was banned for linking to a very long external article, of which he reposted the initial part: title, summary, index, link.

Again I doubt this to be true but can you drop the supposed link to your other account (your friends account) let it be reviewed and the cause of your banned will be told.

[isaac_clarke22]

~

Well yes it is possible, OP, in fact you must as what others mentioned above.  

Adding up all the points above, I would advice to use [url] tag when the link is a really really long one and just insert title of your source in between the tags, especially if the link is outside the forum.

[concepter]

post canceled due to lack of interest and support.

[Poker Player]

Without knowing more specifically about the case, we can't say more, but as you have been told, the most normal thing is that he was spamming. I don't think that a simple referral link will get you banned.

You can tell your "friend" to look in the email inbox, where there is usually a quote of the deleted post to post it here so we can analyze it better.

I usually post a lot of links too and I've never been banned for that.

This leads me to think that the use of links can be an excuse to be banned at any time, depending on how the moderator on duty at that moment thinks! (not necessarily with malice but only for the rush to act!)

No way.

[Rikafip]

It is reasonable that this is the case, but my friend was banned for linking to a very long external article, of which he reposted the initial part: title, summary, index, link.

First to say that this "asking for friend" thing always make me chuckle.

Now that you mentioned that "your friend" get banned for reposting a very long article, did he just copy/pasted whole artile and just shared link at the bottom, without providing own comment on the matter? I am asking because someone might report it for being a low quality post, which it is if it was made that way.

By the way, what's your "friend" username? Posts are archived here so we should be able to see the post that got him banned?

[concepter]

post canceled due to lack of interest and support.

[isaac_clarke22]

I guess OP's friend is this user SMZ_.
The user only has 3 posts based on the scraped posts - https://loyce.club/archive/members/336/3367517.html
From the scraped post, it seemed like the user copy-pasted a snippet of the medium article including the table of contents. I guess that led to the user's ban?

[concepter]

post canceled due to lack of interest and support.

[Xal0lex]

I assume that your friend was banned not for plagiarism, but for spam. Why create three(!) topics about the same thing?

[concepter]

post canceled due to lack of interest and support.

[actmyname]

Unfortunately, your friend probably was not directed to the Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ topic.

If they had read these rules, they probably would have been able to follow them. It's too bad - they should have known better.

[LoyceV]

my friend was banned for linking to a very long external article, of which he reposted the initial part: title, summary, index, link.

What exactly does the ban message show? If it's for plagiarism, it's usually mentioned.

their thread has been deleted with no explanation.
Then he tried to reopen another thread with the same content in the same section, and also in another (in doubt that the deletion was due to a wrong destination).

The thread being deleted should have been a strong hint. Creating the same thread again (and again) makes it spam.

This behavior cost him the definitive and no appeal ban on access!

There's always a possibility to appeal a ban, for instance by creating a topic about it here in Meta. Before doing so, it's probably wise to read the rules.

This leads me to think that the use of links can be an excuse to be banned at any time, depending on how the moderator on duty at that moment thinks! (not necessarily with malice but only for the rush to act!)

Mods are human, they make mistakes. Not often, and usually the spammer deserves it. But if mistakes are made, an appeal will give the case the attention it need to be corrected.

[actmyname]

The thread being deleted should have been a strong hint. Creating the same thread again (and again) makes it spam.

Having a link to the rule list would be a good idea for turning the hint into an explanation. You wouldn't even need to have moderators change anything (i.e. adding a reason for deletions)

[concepter]

post canceled due to lack of interest and support.

[Upgrade00]

What exactly does the ban message show? If it's for plagiarism, it's usually mentioned.

IIRC, all the banned messages are similar for all users regardless the reason with a hint to why the user was banned, using the two too reasons for ban. It should look something like this;

"Sorry banned user, you are banned from posting or sending personal messages on this forum.
You have been permanently banned by a forum moderator, probably due to spam or plagiarism. You may appeal here, but your chances are not good: banappeals...@ appeal mail"

The hint was recently added to the ban message.

My friend told me that he tried to appeal, but before he did, there was a warning that the chances of being accepted were almost non-existent

The chances are unlikely, but if they have a strong case, they should go ahead and appeal the ban.

[concepter]

post canceled due to lack of interest and support.

[LoyceV]

I ask you on behalf of my friend to support his reinstatement in the forum

In that case you should change the thread title, something like: "Ban appeal for SMZ_".

From his posts, it looks like the typical link spammer who copies some text. But from your explanation, it looks like an unintentional mistake.

[concepter]

post canceled due to lack of interest and support.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

My friend told me that he tried to appeal, but before he did, there was a warning that the chances of being accepted were almost non-existent, and that's how he talked to me about the matter.

It's definitely true that in cases of plagiarism, the chances of having your account reinstated are slim to none--but this seems like a miscommunication issue if your friend did indeed write that whitepaper, because if that's true then no plagiarism was committed and he shouldn't have been banned.  But, without having mentioned that he was the author in his posts, someone probably looked into it and thought it was a copy/paste job, which happens a lot here.

I'd suggest your friend start up a ban appeal thread in the Meta section explaining the situation.  Mods can be led astray by reports if they look valid, and more often than not when someone reports plagiarism, it really is plagiarism.

Edit:  Sorry, I didn't read the last three posts or so in this thread and now I realize you're already going to do what I suggested.  Good luck, because I think you (or your friend) have a good case.

[suchmoon]

Your "friend" posted in Development & Technical Discussion (twice) and Press (once) boards.

Here are the relevant descriptions of those boards, shown at the top of the page so you can't claim you didn't know what you were doing:

Technical discussion about Satoshi's Bitcoin client and the Bitcoin network in general. No third-party sites/clients, bug reports that do not require much discussion (use github), or support requests.

Notable press hits.

Your posts were not about Bitcoin, and a Medium blog post is not "notable". Permaban might be a bit harsh though for three off-topic/spam posts.

[concepter]

post canceled due to lack of interest and support.

[suchmoon]

~

Stop talking about yourself in third person, stop evading your ban, and read up on Bitcoin consensus instead of making a fool of yourself. There is no problem to be solved here and that has been comprehensively explained to you by users who are much more patient that I am. But if you insist on creating a centralized blockchain with some hardcoded single version of client code or whatever it is that you're proposing - you should do it in the Altcoin section.

[concepter]

post canceled due to lack of interest and support.

[lovesmayfamilis]

First of all I'm not SMZ but a friend and colleague who works with him and who knows him personally.

You are disingenuous, speaking in the third person. Who is the real author of that unfortunate article? You are here claiming to us that this is supposedly your friend, but the facts show otherwise.

For this reason, the white paper entitled "Dissociative Blockchain Code" talks about the dissociation between the blockchain and the code that must manipulate it.

I see in this, as the author of the article, a big problem that could have repercussions on the entire system that is based on blockchain.

At the moment, you are evading the ban. And instead of okay, resolving the situation, you create a new account and keep pushing about your article.
I think your lies may not be a good sign for you.

[concepter]

post canceled due to lack of interest and support.

[suchmoon]

the problem encountered exists

It doesn't. You made it up because you don't understand how POW consensus ensures that the blockchain can't be tampered with.

the level of hatred

You're confusing your stubbornness with imaginary hatred.

[concepter]

post canceled due to lack of interest and support.

[suchmoon]

every activity of a POW code can now be carried out with potentially malicious software that does not correspond to the specifications

Nonsense. Invalid blocks will be rejected by other nodes.

[concepter]

post canceled due to lack of interest and support.

[suchmoon]

Of course, invalid blocks would be rejected by the majority, but no one can guarantee that a majority of 51% of the nodes have not already coalesced without everyone's knowledge and acted accordingly.

By definition the other 49% would know it the minute an invalid block is mined. So yes, I can guarantee that the block hash below represents a valid Bitcoin block and all prior blocks it links to are also valid and no one has "acted" on the blockchain in any inappropriate fashion.

Code:

{
  "chain": "main",
  "blocks": 696390,
  "headers": 696390,
  "bestblockhash": "00000000000000000011cfcdc65bf4042d1b2805b525f084a9c3e11b9dfd95ce",

Edit: formatting.

[concepter]

post canceled due to lack of interest and support.

[suchmoon]

~

Ok, now you're just making shit up and peddling your conspiracy under the guise of a ban appeal. I will not entertain this nonsense here anymore - move it to the appropriate board.

[PrimeNumber7]

It is not against the rules to insert links into a thread, I have done that a lot. It's only against the rules when it's done with malicious intent (lik a malware), solely to advertise a site (like a referral link), if they used link shorteners, or if you're spamming the forum with links to a particular website.

Link shorteners are allowed. What is disallowed is link shorteners that require you to view an ad in order to visit the linked website.

5. No link shorteners that require users to view an ad.

[concepter]

post canceled due to lack of interest and support.

[LoyceV]

If you all agree, I'll change the thread title as LoyceV suggested.

Lol. This isn't a democracy, you can do with the thread title as you please. You're not helping your case by making off-topic posts in this thread, promoting the same thing that got the "other guy" banned.

[suchmoon]

I admit that I am doing all this only because SMZ is a friend, otherwise I would have given up for a while now!

You know what they say - with "friends" like these, who needs sockpuppets.

[concepter]

post canceled due to lack of interest and support.

[concepter]

Is this appeal for the reinstatement of SMZ_ supported by someone or is there only indifference?

If you have any questions, ask.

If you are about to make up for a mistake, do it.