Timeline for Proposed resolution : Quoting cannot be called plagiarism
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
35 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 4 at 1:44 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek Mod | to what's wrong and what our expectations are. Our methods of operatons haven't changed much over time. Hopefully outside common sense - and both rules as written across the network (aka the COC and such), and the site, the X factor SHOULD be communicated to affected users based on the situation. | |
| Nov 4 at 1:42 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek Mod | On the other hand, I am not going to take kindly to what have felt like multiple attempts to pressure or intimidate moderators into a certain course of actions, which feel like the case here. We're not going to dig our heels in cause of this there's a lot of behind the scenes communications, and reviews by staff here. We've generally got a ton of oversight, above and below our levels of operation. Its needfully invisible but we're not just suspending high ranking users, or targetting people willy nilly. There's a process - least to people involved, as much visibility as possible | |
| Nov 4 at 1:40 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek Mod | We're going to try our best to be evenhanded. We'll warn when its a first or even second offence. The problem is really when someone decides the rules (which are fairly similar networkwide) dosen't apply to them. The X factor here is - repitition and how you deal with feedback. I still consider a suspension a last resort, and subsequent suspensions are a result of either failures in communication or a unwillingness to take multiple attempts at feedback. I'd note this isn't OP's first post on the same topic. | |
| Oct 29 at 18:44 | comment | added | music2myear | Reading the post, the replies, and the comments here it appears that, practically speaking, the Mods accept that a fully credited quote that is the majority or totality of an answer is valid, except when it isn't. There is an X factor at play here, and I am not in a place to judge that or its impact on the rightness of one side or the other. What it does do, though, is erode a little bit some of the trust I had in certain of the moderation staff. Not entirely sure what all this means, how it will impact; but I don't like it. | |
| Oct 27 at 8:51 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek Mod | From my own perspective? That's not what the question was about. OP wanted to change the standards and my answer focused on that, and this one focused on the effect it has on how OP's viewed, and was a balance to franck's post. We didn't see any value in specifically going through questions here, but rather address the broader issues. | |
| Oct 27 at 8:46 | comment | added | Mark Amery | @JourneymanGeek I coincidentally stumbled across it while searching for discussions of a more-or-less unrelated issue, and felt strongly enough about what I saw to comment. | |
| Oct 27 at 8:43 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek Mod | Also I'm curious - why the sudden interest in a roughly 6 month old post? | |
| Oct 27 at 8:43 | comment | added | Mark Amery | @JourneymanGeek If it's actually broken, then fixing or deleting seems usefu, but (IMO, and I infer OP would agree) not just because it's quote-only. It would be pointlessly harmful to purge all your or David's properly-attributed quote-only answers. What's missing from all the answers here is any discussion of what it was about the OP's answers that in your view warranted seeing them as a rules violation when other quote-only answers are evidently accepted as just fine. (I suspect from what has been said that the mod messages also didn't explain this, though I obviously cannot know.) | |
| Oct 27 at 8:36 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek Mod | fair. And considering the answer didn't work as per the feedback I got, and one of the links I quoted's dead, I'll see if I can fix or delete that answer. Looking at it, though, I'm unsure what I can add outside the primary source. | |
| Oct 27 at 8:33 | comment | added | Mark Amery | @JourneymanGeek No, he said you have posted many quote-only answers. Certainly you have multiple answers that primarily consist of blockquotes from sources and at least one that contains absolutely no information beyond what's blockquoted. Obviously this isn't an "accusation" because the OP thinks this is 100% fine (as do I and as do you); his question, which I cannot see an answer to in anything you've said despite your repeated insistence that the explanation is documented, is what distinguishes his primarily-quote-based answers from yours or David's. | |
| Oct 27 at 3:10 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek Mod | I mean, I'm called out by name (and initially accused of plagiarism - Which , is a joke cause I'm very picky about these things in my answers). OP picked out posts by another mod specifically. Not examples of plagiarism. Least on my part I feel OP had a personal attack. I'd also note - we treat OP exactly the same as any other user. OP would have gotten a stock or near stock mod message - and by his own admission has been suspended multiple times. I'd note the question isn't about guidance. Its demanding we recalibrate the rules "or else" | |
| Oct 27 at 2:53 | comment | added | Mark Amery | @JourneymanGeek The tone of the question certainly leaves something to be desired, but I see no outright "personal attack" in it besides pointing out the uneven application of the rule at stake, which is highly significant to both a discussion about the wisdom of enforcing it against the OP in particular and also to any discussion of what the rule should be. | |
| Oct 26 at 21:46 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek Mod | A little late but - considering the broader history of the user, and well, the accusations of moderatory abuse in the question, we felt it was generally a good idea to keep the posts reflecting the sentiments of regular users in place. We'd kinda hoped OP'd see the effect they'd had on the community, and honestly considering the personal attack in the question, one would argue by that merit, the entire question should go, but that raises accusations of censorship. | |
| Oct 26 at 17:41 | history | edited | Giacomo1968 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Oct 26 at 17:08 | comment | added | Mark Amery | The hostility in this answer appalls me, and frankly I don't know why it wasn't deleted by the mods. The OP posts a specific policy proposal and the response is multiple paragraphs of unrelated personal attacks on him, followed by another user piling on with more irrelevant personal attacks in the comments section, and the mods here allowed all this to stand? There is not a single sentence to be found in this answer that addresses the substantive merits or downsides of the OP's proposal, or even tries to. It ought to have been deleted on sight by whichever mod first laid eyes on it. | |
| S Jun 21 at 0:05 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| S Jun 21 at 0:05 | history | unlocked | CommunityBot | ||
| S Jun 13 at 23:14 | history | notice added | Journeyman GeekMod | Comments only | |
| S Jun 13 at 23:14 | history | locked | Journeyman GeekMod | ||
| Jun 9 at 17:29 | comment | added | Franck Dernoncourt | @Ramhound Thanks, point taken. That'd be a good answer. It is still not plagiarism though (and imho quote-only answers can be helpful, but that's another debate). | |
| Jun 9 at 17:13 | comment | added | Ramhound | @FranckDernoncourt—This time around, There were only close to a dozen answers. There is a history and a pattern. I could likely find at least 500 quote-only answers submitted by Harry this year if I took the time to do so. The only reason I won't is because I have a feeling Harry won't be submitting quotes, only answers in the future. If that does happen I will be the first to flag them. I will also submit a comment linking to this very discussion. | |
| Jun 9 at 16:58 | comment | added | Franck Dernoncourt | @Ramhound thanks, that would be a more informative answer. Still not plagiarism though, and a dozen quote-only answers is nowhere close to the other mod. | |
| Jun 9 at 16:50 | comment | added | Ramhound | @FranckDernoncourt—"You don't address the fact that the OP was suspended for doing so in a few answers."—Here is the thing. HarryMC submits dozens of answers daily, which is perfectly fine, but he didn't have a few answers deleted. They had nearly a dozen answers directly deleted with regard to this single instance. | |
| Jun 8 at 20:14 | comment | added | Vomit IT - Chunky Mess Style | @JourneymanGeek For the OP, you've certainly explained the situation well. For most people, reading this post (meta.superuser.com/questions/13351/…) — including the question, all answers, and comments — will provide the clarity needed to understand and follow the rules of the topic. Regardless of historical content they may come across, that post clarifies the topic points people mainly seek. I've learned my lesson and aim to avoid past mistakes. While some may take it personally, the topic itself is straightforward for me now. | |
| Jun 7 at 3:50 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek Mod | OP was informed of what was needed to be rectified. We've pointed out what was in the help section. We've done our part. There's an entire answer explaining what the issue is. My comments were about 'why' this response was left in place. I think my 'ideal' expectations to be followed going forward are very clearly set out in my answer. | |
| Jun 7 at 3:26 | comment | added | Franck Dernoncourt | @JourneymanGeek ok. did OP plagiarize? | |
| Jun 7 at 2:18 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek Mod | We don't discuss suspensions unless the suspended user brings it up but when they have - while a little blunt, feels like it reflects the issues here from the point of view of a community member. Lets just consider for a moment that OP's done personal attacks on at least two moderators in his response, and I've yet to be told of one post I've done that needs fixing up on my end. And semantics aside - there's been more than one moderator message/suspension for the same thing. Its not like we just hit him with suspensions without cause | |
| Jun 7 at 0:21 | comment | added | Franck Dernoncourt | Giacomo1968, your entire post is a personal aggression against the OP. You don't address the fact that the OP was accused of plagiarism whereas they only clearly quoted some text. And you don't address the fact that the OP was suspended for doing so in a few answers, whereas a mod did the same in ~200 answers. | |
| Jun 6 at 21:00 | comment | added | Vomit IT - Chunky Mess Style | I will say clear guidelines and consistent enforcement are vital for maintaining a healthy community which is what the real question should be about addressing. | |
| May 31 at 15:23 | comment | added | harrymc | @Ramhound: I stopped being worried about downvotes a long time ago, if they come without a comment that makes me doubt the correctness or relevancy of my answer. I will delete an answer if I'm convinced it's unfixable or the context is too painful, I don't need a downvote for that. | |
| May 31 at 15:17 | comment | added | Ramhound | @harrymc - You should be editing those incorrect answers in that case. There are several users which often will delete an answer they have submitted once it receives a single downvote. I rarely provide any comment about my downvote, for those users, because it's proven to be a waste of my time to provide feedback. | |
| May 31 at 15:10 | comment | added | harrymc | @Ramhound: Untrue. I delete an answer only if it's proven wrong or I have misunderstood the question or if interfacing with the poster becomes too painful. I leave downvoted answers without deleting them if I don't see them as wrong. You may check if you like. | |
| May 31 at 14:42 | comment | added | Ramhound | @harrymc - Here is the thing. You have a habit of submitting an answer, and the moment it receives a downvote, you delete it. I won't hold that behavior against you, even though I think it's toxic behavior, that the SE software should not allowed. It's my personal opinion that a contribution should not be deleted by the author unless it's peer reviewed by the community. With that out of the way, you have been warned about low quality copy and paste answers in the past, here is when you last had this discussion in 2020 | |
| May 31 at 9:43 | comment | added | harrymc | Not so - you're ignoring the fact that my proposition has nothing to do with me and is only future-looking. It's motivated by a personal event, cert, but its aim is to modify site rules to set quote-only answers as acceptable. What I stretch is the fact that, de facto, quote-only answers exist in large numbers on SU, so calling then plagiarism is just ridiculous. | |
| May 30 at 23:32 | history | answered | Giacomo1968 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |