Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ

[suchmoon]

~

If someone copied a bunch of English text, prefixed it with "I think ..." and provided a source at the end - is this plagiarism or not? The particular example (Ratimov's case) has very little to do with translations, other than perhaps it's harder to spot translated copypasta. Or if he translated the text without using automated tools it would still be the same issue.

[1714691019]

1714691019

[1714691019]

1714691019

[1714691019]

1714691019

[1714691019]

1714691019

[1714691019]

1714691019

[mprep]

~

If someone copied a bunch of English text, prefixed it with "I think ..." and provided a source at the end - is this plagiarism or not? The particular example (Ratimov's case) has very little to do with translations, other than perhaps it's harder to spot translated copypasta. Or if he translated the text without using automated tools it would still be the same issue.

If he provided a source, AFAIK it isn't plagiarism. As I've mentioned in my reply to nullius, it might be deemed low value (specifically low value automated translation spam; that is if it was an automated translation of non-english content).

Added an edit / clarification to my reply to nullius as well.

[Csmiami]

Coming from another perspective, but I also believe that a revision to rule #27; or at least to its interpretation would be benefitial.

Ddmr correctly pointed out that online translators have come a long way since this rule was first created, and it was most likely first created to prevent people from posting some incomprehensible gibberish. We are at a point in which it's getting hard to tell when a person has written the post by themselves or used a tool to do so. I've also explained how I can think of a couple of use cases for this kind of tools, but it'd be good to see that a line is clearly defined between "commercial" and "personal" translated posts.

I know you don't really make the rules, but again, a revision from the upper desks on this matter would benefit local boards, cleansing them from a plague of wannabe translator looking for a quick buck.
I'm not going to make any comment regarding the rest of the mentioned posts; as I haven't had enough time to follow the corresponding threads and make an opinion out of it

[airfinex]

If he provided a source, AFAIK it isn't plagiarism. As I've mentioned in my reply to nullius, it might be deemed low value (specifically low value automated translation spam; that is if it was an automated translation of non-english content).

Added an edit / clarification to my reply to nullius as well.

1 of the users shared these quotes.

For it to plagiarism, you have to have the intention of passing the text off as an original work by you. In all of these recent cases (unless we make a mistake, which is rare), it's extremely obvious in context that the person is copy/pasting to make money. Usually they're copy/pasting someone else's post and not adding anything else, in fact, which makes it very clear.

Plagiarism is what gets people permabanned, not just copying. Plagiarism is copying with the intent of passing the work off as your own.

Anything that'd get you expelled from a university for plagiarism (which all of the above-banned examples would) will get you permabanned from this forum, regardless of your rank.

If someone copy/pasted something that was amazingly high-quality and on-topic, I'd understand more (though you'd still get banned)

[mprep]

If he provided a source, AFAIK it isn't plagiarism. As I've mentioned in my reply to nullius, it might be deemed low value (specifically low value automated translation spam; that is if it was an automated translation of non-english content).

Added an edit / clarification to my reply to nullius as well.

1 of the users shared these quotes.

-quote snip-

Indeed he did. However, if a user clearly provided a source he got the info from, it's a bit difficult to argue he's trying to pass the content off as his own.

[suchmoon]

Indeed he did. However, if a user clearly provided a source he got the info from, it's a bit difficult to argue he's trying to pass the content off as his own.

If you say "I think that <copy pasta follows>" what other intent is there? I'm not arguing for a permaban here but I think (and this is indeed my own personal thought LOL) that we are getting bogged down in technicalities too much. Yes, technically a source was provided. But someone reading text like that would reasonably assume that it's indeed the person's own thought. IMO moderators can and should issue a warning / edit the post / delete the post / tempban the user / use other non-fatal tools available to them in cases like that, depending on the severity.

Reminds me of some trolling sockpuppets that are getting a free pass because technically we can't prove they're sockpuppets, ban evaders, etc with some bulletproof blockchain evidence... so they go on even though there is zero value in allowing them to continue.

[mprep]

Indeed he did. However, if a user clearly provided a source he got the info from, it's a bit difficult to argue he's trying to pass the content off as his own.

If you say "I think that <copy pasta follows>" what other intent is there? I'm not arguing for a permaban here but I think (and this is indeed my own personal thought LOL) that we are getting bogged down in technicalities too much. Yes, technically a source was provided. But someone reading text like that would reasonably assume that it's indeed the person's own thought. IMO moderators can and should issue a warning / edit the post / delete the post / tempban the user / use other non-fatal tools available to them in cases like that, depending on the severity.

Reminds me of some trolling sockpuppets that are getting a free pass because technically we can't prove they're sockpuppets, ban evaders, etc with some bulletproof blockchain evidence... so they go on even though there is zero value in allowing them to continue.

I've expressed my own personal opinion on the matter - other moderators can (and some probably will) disagree with me and crack down on it much harder than I would. Do note that I'm not arguing for these posts being completely-100%-a-okay, more so saying that unlike regular plain plagiarism (taking content and posting it as your own without a source) such actions won't get you a permanent ban for a single post. Depending on the context (e.g. it's a single post / topic or it's a recurring pattern within a user's post history) and content, the post itself may be considered as low value but that's going to have to be decided on a case by case basis. Same with what to do with such a post / topic (delete, edit, lock, leave it be, etc.) and the one who posted it.


EDIT: In regards to automated translations from non-English to English, I've PMed theymos about it, specifically with the following questions:

• What is the exact policy on automated translations (both English -> local, as well as local -> English)?
• When is it [read: automated translations] prohibited?
• When is it allowed (e.g. possible scenarios or situations)?
• When is it arguable and up to the moderator's discretion?

Here's what he had to say (publishing this with his permission, of course):

One of the main points of there not being official, hard rules (aside from the few legally-required ones) is to prevent rule-lawyering. If something is wrong, mods should not do it, regardless of any perceived rules, and especially if someone is trying to wield the "rules" as a weapon in order to attack someone who they dislike.

The main problems with autotranslation are:
 - Translating other people's stuff is often used as a bulk source of posts, which is a sign of a bad poster, and it results in a big pile of useless garbage.
 - Local users find it annoying to have their section filled with posts that are much more difficult to understand. It's jarring to keep running into posts that can't be read smoothly.

However, some local mods do allow machine translation if the outcome is good/useful, especially when the above issues are avoided. For example, it's often been allowed to autotranslate a question that you post as a new topic in order to get the local community's take on something. This case is less of a problem because the bad grammar is contained, and because it's a case of someone engaging in honest discussion. Local mods set their policies on autotranslation, and they may choose to ban it entirely or allow it more freely.

In the English sections, the policy should generally be to ignore whether or not it's autotranslated, and evaluate the post on its merit. Bad grammar is obviously not disallowed, but if it's so bad (due to autotranslation or otherwise) that the post is basically incomprehensible, then it's a useless post and should be deleted. If it's translated from elsewhere, then you should generally act the same as if the source was originally in English, asking questions like:
 - Is the quote useful/on-topic in the post's context (especially after being mangled a bit through translation)?
 - Is the user just finding stuff to copy in order to bulk up his posts?
 - Is the user passing this off as his own when it's actually not?

Taking his response into account as well as the concerns I raised in my reply to nullius, I think I'm going to leave the rules as they currently are. Rule 1 (and rule 23) cover the situation well enough. I might slightly revise rule 27 in the future but I don't think it's a pressing concern and in the majority of cases (e.g. article or ANN topic spam) the rule applies as it is written. A lot of the, let's say, "creative" interpretations of the rules (what theymos refers to as "rule-lawyering") are probably gonna be invalidated by rule 23, unless they are following the spirit of the rule / policy.

[nullius]

Cross-reference to an example for the below:  This is proper attribution of a copied-pasted post.

Thanks for your responses, theymos and mprep!  My inquiry about Rule 27 is well-answered.

Now quoting slightly out of context what theymos, mprep, and I each said about Rule 27, but now in application to Rule 33:

...resistant to hairsplitting and rules-lawyering...

In the spirit of the rules, so as for the letter thereof.

A lot of the, let's say, "creative" interpretations of the rules (what theymos refers to as "rule-lawyering") are probably gonna be invalidated by rule 23, unless they are following the spirit of the rule / policy.

One of the main points of there not being official, hard rules (aside from the few legally-required ones) is to prevent rule-lawyering.

Is the excuse, “but he provided a ‘source’ link!  (somehow—sort of—without really identifying authorship)” not rules-lawyering at its worst?

Copied text from somewhere: check.
Has a good reason for it: check.
Link to the source: check.

Ergo, Ratimov did not commit plagiarism as defined by the admin of the forum.

^^^ Rules-lawyering, Exhibit 0.  From that thread alone, I could provide many more examples—some of them from people who have no personal animosity towards me.

If he provided a source, AFAIK it isn't plagiarism.

In the context of the Ratimov case, and the types of so-called “source” that Ratimov has provided in multiple copied-pasted posts, what you are saying means that plagiarism is acceptable on this forum, and is not against the rules.  That would be shocking to me—and, I have no doubt, to many other veteran users, who accord to this forum a respect undeserved by the many forums that are cesspools of plagiarism.

This post confuses plagiarism with copyright, which is one of my pet peeves; but at least theymos’ heart was in the right place here:

I desire attribution for my contributions. WTFPL, at least, seems to suggest that I would be OK with people plagiarizing, which I am not. Copyright should be abolished, of course, but I don't want to encourage people to take my work without attribution.

...[such-and-such copyright licence] clearly indicates that plagiarism is not acceptable.

Note for theymos:  The complete works of Shakespeare are in the public domain.  No copyright, no licence!  Nonetheless, it is unacceptable to plagiarise Shakespeare.  Plagiarism and copyright are different issues.  I am not the only one who says so.

What if I were to find an old essay posted by theymos on some obscure website, copy and paste it into a topic OP on this forum, and just toss in an anonymous “source” link at the bottom—without prominently identifying the author by name (“by theymos”), or even naming the author at all?  Would theymos consider his own desire for attribution to be satisfied?


I think that too many people are applying a rules-lawyer’s logically fallacious, absolutely mechanistic misinterpretation of the exact letter of what theymos said here:

If you copy some text from somewhere, then you should have a good reason for it, and you must link to the source. Doing otherwise is plagiarism.

My own reading is that theymos was expressing what he himself deems to be a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition.  That theymos statement has been twisted into a loophole to avoid crediting authors by name—and even to avoid making it clear to readers the person who copied the article is not the author!  Whereas in substance, proper credit for authorship is the most important part.  The link is secondary to that, although I fully agree that a link should be provided when a webpage is the principal original source.

The interpretation of that statement being argued by others not only violates academic and publishing industry standards:  It defies common sense.  I would be aghast if theymos were to say that it is in the spirit of the rules.


On the other hand:  If it be acceptable to copy and paste the text of a whole post with a vague link at the bottom, and no prominently displayed authorial byline, then the word “plagiarism” would need to be removed from the rules.  (And its equivalents, in all languages.)

The word “plagiarism” has a meaning.  That meaning is open to some measure of debate; indeed, it is the subject of much debate in academia and in the writing professions.  However, the forum should not make up a new definition of “plagiarism” which flatly contradicts what any intelligent person would expect it to mean.

In the abstract, plagiarism is wrong because it means stealing credit for another’s creative original work.  In every question about plagiarism, start by asking:  Does X tend to cause readers to give credit to the wrong person?  —Does Y show an intent to make the alleged plagiarist look smarter, wiser, or more knowledgeable than he really is, by stealing another’s glory?

plagiarism is the intellectual theft of credit for original work, which wreathes lazy idiots in a glory that belongs to another.

That is my own definition.  As I have demonstrated on several different threads in the past month or so, I can also cite numerous sources backing the essential substance of my opinion, from academic integrity resources to publishing industry best practices.

N.b. that inadequate attribution may not be plagiarism per se, if done in ignorance or clumsiness.  In that case, the user should be educated about how properly to provide credit.  For a post that substantially consists of a single copy and paste, that means an authorial byline, prominently displayed at the top.  —With the author’s name, not merely an unexplained, unidentified link.

Note to avoid nitpicks by rules-lawyers:  I think that a link may sometimes suffice for short quotes, if the site itself is being credited as the author; particularly, it may make sense for some Web publications.  But generally, unless the link is to the author’s own vanity domain or to a publication substantially run by the author, a link in itself does not really identify who the author is.

I am not trying to get people in trouble for honest mistakes, or occasional minor sloppiness with the author= field in <quote> blocks, or even things that may be honest mistakes!  I myself have sometimes PMed users a polite tip about how properly to cite copied material, with a warning that they may be accused of plagiarism.  I only take a hard line when it is very clear to me that a user has dishonest intentions—that he wants to trick others into believing that he himself is the author.

If a user is aware of this issue, then making copied-pasted posts in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to misidentify authorship is plagiarism.  By definition.  And if it is not against the forum rules, then the forum rules allow plagiarism.


Furthermore, as to a related issue about which I have been intending to inquire for awhile:

I suggest that the rule should distinguish between plagiarism, and insubstantive copies of one-liner shitposts, etc.  I agree that both should be against the rules; but they are distinct violations.  If e.g. a user copies and pastes a post in an ANN thread that says only, “hello good luck with project”, then it is not “plagiarism”, for there is no original substance to plagiarise.

To call that “plagiarism” trivialises the severity of actual plagiarism.  I suggest that the usual penalty for such no-value copies of no-value posts should be proportionately much lower than the usual penalty for plagiarism:  Temp ban for first offence, versus permaban.


Whereupon I request a review of Rule 33:  Either the word “plagiarism” should be removed, or it needs to be clarified that simply tossing in a link somewhere does not suffice to avoid plagiarism; and some distinction should be made between plagiarism, and no-value unattributed copying.

I do not want to suggest any rigid format for citations and attributions of authorship in all cases.  I don’t think that such a thing should be made a rule, as such.  However, to show how one should act in the spirit of the rules, I have created a new topic with a copied-pasted OP, as my example of optimal attribution of authorship in some types of circumstances.

Thanks again for your attention to this matter.  I hope that this discussion will result in constructive actions both to prevent the evasive gaming of the plagiarism rule, and to help increase awareness of the issues by people who may simply be clumsy in attribution.

[mprep]

<...>

Whereupon I request a review of Rule 33:  Either the word “plagiarism” should be removed, or it needs to be clarified that simply tossing in a link somewhere does not suffice to avoid plagiarism; and some distinction should be made between plagiarism, and no-value unattributed copying.

I do not want to suggest any rigid format for citations and attributions of authorship in all cases.  I don’t think that such a thing should be made a rule, as such.  However, to show how one should act in the spirit of the rules, I have created a new topic with a copied-pasted OP, as my example of optimal attribution of authorship in some types of circumstances.

<...>

As with automated translations, in the end the rules are enforced by moderators. Me trying to zero in on what is and isn't plagiarism more than I already have would only reflect my own approach towards the enforcement of said rule. As theymos mentioned numerous times, there are reasons as to why there are no "official, hard rules (aside from the few legally-required ones)" - it's up to individual moderators to decide whether acting on amperceived violation of forum policy is the "right" thing to do. As such, I don't think there's a need to expand or adjust rule 33, at least not at this point in time.

[Halab]

Hi mprep.

Can we have a small update in the OP about SEO ?
Right now I'm facing a massive attack from "search engine optimizers" (well OK, I've 4 cases in a month, but for me it's a lot ) and without the vigilance of another member I wouldn't have seen them because it's very vicious and dishonest.

I have two examples of these "attacks" :
A newbie comes to ask a legitimate question in a topic and a few days later, he comes to edit and add a link to his site (which is not related to cryptos or the topic).
And another newbie quotes a message containing a link and changes the destination of the link to put his site. In this post, Yogg's link has been changed.

Maybe we should add "No SEO links" (or something like that) in rule 1, 4, 5 or 6.

I know that SEO is not new and we won't be able to eradicate it, but at least if it's within the rules, it would encourage members to report this kind of thing.

[mprep]

Hi mprep.

Can we have a small update in the OP about SEO ?
Right now I'm facing a massive attack from "search engine optimizers" (well OK, I've 4 cases in a month, but for me it's a lot ) and without the vigilance of another member I wouldn't have seen them because it's very vicious and dishonest.

I have two examples of these "attacks" :
A newbie comes to ask a legitimate question in a topic and a few days later, he comes to edit and add a link to his site (which is not related to cryptos or the topic).
And another newbie quotes a message containing a link and changes the destination of the link to put his site. In this post, Yogg's link has been changed.

Maybe we should add "No SEO links" (or something like that) in rule 1, 4, 5 or 6.

I know that SEO is not new and we won't be able to eradicate it, but at least if it's within the rules, it would encourage members to report this kind of thing.

The wide majority of SEO spam already falls under rule 1. Adding additional cases that are relevant right now (but will change / disappear in the future) would only hurt the readability of the rules.

[hosseinimr93]

After reading this topic, I noticed that one of FAQs should be edited.

Q: Why do I get the "The last posting from your IP was less than 360 seconds ago." error when I haven't posted today?
A: Logging in, sending PMs and reporting posts to a moderator will also be counted as posting and extend this limit back to 360 seconds. ...................

In addition to Logging in, sending PMs and reporting posts, searching is also counted as posting.

Reference:

- Searching is now subject to the same spam protection limits as posting. So newbies have to wait 6 minutes between searches and users with more posts have to wait progressively less time.

[mprep]

After reading this topic, I noticed that one of FAQs should be edited.

Q: Why do I get the "The last posting from your IP was less than 360 seconds ago." error when I haven't posted today?
A: Logging in, sending PMs and reporting posts to a moderator will also be counted as posting and extend this limit back to 360 seconds. ...................

In addition to Logging in, sending PMs and reporting posts, searching is also counted as posting.

Reference:

- Searching is now subject to the same spam protection limits as posting. So newbies have to wait 6 minutes between searches and users with more posts have to wait progressively less time.

Not sure how I missed that one. Adjusted the answer, thanks.

[btcb3g1nn3r]

I've read first page and last posts here so sorry for potential double.

about following rule

Sending unsolicited PMs, including but not limited to advertising and flood, is not allowed.

in the way it's written (eg. bold text) it means you cannot send any unannounced PM to anyone, meaning if I want to write to someone, I should ask permission on public message somewhere

[Csmiami]

----

That could be partially true, but the unsolicited part is also important. You can always send a PM if it makes sense; but spamming, begging, flooding, bribing or whatever stupid activity someone decides to do is against forum rules. The bolded part is most likely bolded to prevent someone from trying to exploit a grey area on the interpretation of this rule

[btcb3g1nn3r]

no, I edited it as bold to make my review remark easier to be understood by OP

[logfiles]

I've read first page and last posts here so sorry for potential double.

about following rule

Sending unsolicited PMs, including but not limited to advertising and flood, is not allowed.

in the way it's written (eg. bold text) it means you cannot send any unannounced PM to anyone, meaning if I want to write to someone, I should ask permission on public message somewhere

It's quite clear, there are so many forms of unsolicited PMs that are not allowed, apart from advertising and flood.
It could be;
"Hi, look at my post, what do you think about it?"
"You silly bastard. Why did you reply on my post?"
"Hi, Good morning"

In other words, don't send someone any unnecessary PMs if you have no business or serious issues to sort out with them.

[naim027]

Well, I was Wondering Why There is No Dedicated Page For Forum Rules. And Somehow I violated One Of The Rules And I got a Message With the link to this Topic. it's helpful. Thank you Very Much.

[mprep]

Well, I was Wondering Why There is No Dedicated Page For Forum Rules. And Somehow I violated One Of The Rules And I got a Message With the link to this Topic. it's helpful. Thank you Very Much.

The tl;dr of why there's no official page for Bitcointalk's rules is that the head administrator doesn't believe in definitive rule lists. To quote an older post of mine:

There's a reason why the stickied thread of mine still has the word "unofficial" in the title - it isn't officially recognized nor do I expect it to be in the foreseeable future. Just like it was back in the summer of 2014, the "Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ" thread is a personal project of mine, with the only sorta semi-official support being the fact that former global moderator SaltySpitoon stickied it (IIRC) and that some moderators have stickied translations or links to the thread in the boards they've been assigned to moderate (myself included). theymos has stated (on multiple occasions) that he does not believe in definitive rule lists:

<...>
But I don't believe in having a set of hard rules which is to be applied to all cases. Whenever an argument starts looking like it was written by a lawyer, or relying overmuch on precedent, you've stopped thinking about the real case and have started using rules to retreat into moral and intellectual laziness, divorcing yourself from the decision you're about to make. If you're making a decision about a case, then you're responsible for that case, and you can't say, "I don't agree with it, but I was just enforcing the rules." Every case needs to be handled individually.

- I don't believe in creating definitive rule lists.

So don't expect him to officially link to a page with a list of rules, let alone when said page is a thread maintained by a single moderator.

For reference, theymos is the head administrator of Bitcointalk.

[nullius]

I request guidance on what to do if a user repeatedly reposts deleted content in self-moderated threads—especially if the user reacts to self-mod deletions at a speed which raises reasonable suspicions that the user deployed a spambot to defeat self-mod.

I do not like to run to staff for help with this.  The whole point of the self-moderation feature is that topic starters are supposed to handle these problems on their own:  Anarchy, self-help, etc.  However, the abuse-handling tools for self-mod are quite limited compared to the tools available to staff.  Moreover, a self-mod topic starter cannot sit on top of a topic 24/7 to control abusive behaviour.

N.b. that this is a persistent problem.  The same user has repeatedly defied my self-mod rules before, and created a Reputation topic devoted to calling me “a cunt” because I banned her from my topics (!).  I never complained in Meta before, because it was not a Meta issue; I just dealt with it.  Whereas the user is obsessed with forcing her way into my self-mod topics; her escalating, seriously abusive behaviour motivates my question now.

On the flipside, I am asking because I admit:  I am a little bit evil.  Well, more than a little bit.  If this behaviour is fully consistent with the forum rules, and if I am assured it will not cause any reaction from staff, then I may be tempted to obtain my own spambot, and hammer the hell out of “very self such moderated” threads habitually started by the user who did this.  Yes, that user is a hypocrite who deserves a taste of her own medicine...  Anarchy, self-help, etc.  Of course, I would not engage in such grossly abusive behaviour if it is against the forum rules! 

The below quote illustrates the problem, but only partly.  The user rapidly reposted identical content 21 times; she only stopped after I started publicly counting the deletions in another thread.  If deletion had been done by staff, that would surely result in at least a temp-ban—regardless of whether the user disagreed with the deletion.  The reasonableness of the deletion is irrelevant to the abusive behaviour.

Observe the timestamps; they do not reflect my own relatively slow speed in manually responding to reposts.  I could only catch a few of these fast, by sitting there and repeatedly reloading the page; who has time for that?  Staff and administrators should have access to the corresponding deletion logs which show when each post was deleted.

Please advise of whether I should report this type of abuse, and how—or should I handle this on my own, whatever that may involve?

Thanks.

...forking hell, whom do you think you are impressing?  Even TOAA never pulled this level of shit; he did some annoying stuff, but he always basically followed forum rules and customs.  Also, I need to ask, are you using a spambot for this?  You made 12 identical posts within an hour (and now a 13th—and now a 14th...), sometimes within seconds my my hitting the delete button.  The only alternative explanation is that you really do have no life; and that is unsurprising, given that you are a worthless piece of shit.

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

>/dev/null

Edit, edit:  ...and a 15th, and a 16th—and a 17th, and an 18th...  Note all timestamps.  This is spam, by definition.

Edit, yet again:  ...19, 20, 21...  suchmoon does not know when to stop digging.

🗑️

Of course, this provided another banned user the opportunity to lie about the posts that I deleted:

Nullius - you deleted 23 of ibminers posts? (I know the last 2 are mine).

You've decided to turn right into cryptohunter, apparently.

Your first posts on the forum provided an injection of knowledge relevant to the main subjects of the forum, but then you became completely obsessed with starting witch hunts against everybody who had crossed you in the past.

What happened?