Thanks for info, i was totally unaware of the reporting thread
You’re welcome. There is some other stuff that should show up in that thread... Anyway, it is handy to know.
Plagiarism is a bannable offense on this forum. With some exceptions, it will invoke an immediate permaban. Ban evasion is another bannable offense. A ban applies to an individual person, not only to an account; accordingly, ban evasion is the only rule here that prohibits multi-accounting.
This forum has a little button called “nuke user”. It conveniently deletes
all of a user’s posts and bans the account, in one shot. It is intended for cleaning up spambot spew. I would
not suggest that for most cases of plagiarism! However, for a new account with 2/3 (maybe 3/3?) posts plagiarized, I thought it was justified to suggest “nuke user”. Needless to say, it is only my gentle suggestion. I emphasize that in the past, I have only made that suggestion about obvious spambots.
If you want to see results, watch by message number/user number (not name):
https://bitcointalk.org/modlog.phpOn a different note, another handy link: See all accounts that recently “woke up” after >6 months of no login, or that changed password or email.
https://bitcointalk.org/seclog.phpThe ittle blue flower got me suspicious, so i googled one sentence (inside double quotes) and it returned the one result pointing to referenced FB page. Since i have no FB account, i could not scroll to/find the post with the actual quote in it. Google could find it, so it was a clear case for me.
Good enough for you, but IMO not good enough to ban someone. My opinion. The evidentiary requirements are ultimately up to staff. Staff sometimes disagree with my opinion on various issues; but I hope they wouldn’t ban anyone based on a report alleging that something was seen in a Google search.
https://archive.ph/ and its variations can snapshot things permanently from Google’s cache, if you can get a cache link (not the search engine results page).
Also, plagiarism is in accordance with satoshi and
BTCiTcoin, it is all about sharing and replicating
. If you didn't understand till now, BTCiTcoin is communism. 
You are sick. Disgusting.
Plagiarism is theft. It is scamming. It is stealing credit for someone else’s work: It is not mere “sharing”.
Craig Wright is plagiarizing Bitcoin when he claims to have created it. Do you think that’s “in accordance with satoshi and
BTCiTcoin”?
You guys are f^cking cute and ridiculous in the same time.
What will happen if I take your PC's and your phones away?? Eh?? Eh??..
You would die inside and you will degenerate.
I recommend: Use your brains for once in a while. [...]
Doth protest too much? Why are
you so upset that someone is reporting a violation of forum rules, in the Meta thread intended for that purpose? 🤔
Anyway, stop bothering me. If you disagree with the forum’s administrative rule against plagiarism, go take it up with theymos. Tell him how ridiculous he is, to use his brain, etc. Have fun explaining to him that “Bitcoin is Communism”—hahahah, I’m sure he’ll be thrilled!
Don’t chicken out here. theymos believes in free speech. I have sometimes said very openly when I disagree with him—albeit in terms of rational discourse about the subject of disagreement, and not empty, profanity-laden
ad hominem insults.
I desire attribution for my contributions.
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.
Plagiarism is what gets people permabanned, not just copying. Plagiarism is copying with the intent of passing the work off as your own. In essentially all cases, plagiarism deserves a permaban because it usually proves definitively that the person is here for the wrong reasons: to fill up space in order to get paid, not to actually discuss or contribute. If someone was able to convince us that they were plagiarizing just to eg. impress people rather than to fill up space, then a lesser ban of a few months might instead be warranted. But this has never happened AFAICR. (Arguments based on plausible deniability aren't going to work; we don't need to prove that you had the motive we see in your actions.)
