Since I’m quoted here for meriting (albeit this being an irrelevant fact) the thread being deconstructed, I’ll provide my input as to what I saw when reading through the referenced thread.

What I saw was an elaborate thread, that contained interesting information, far from the usual type of content, and that was appealing to read. I’ve already merited @Ratimov multiple times, so there was no need to vet the content like I often do with first-timers. By vet, I mean see if there was a reference to the source, and determine whether the content surpassed the copy/paste that many newly created accounts resort to (without link -> plagiarism; with link -> unsubstantial post in general).

I did enjoy the read, and the structure looked like the typical layout of a posting author’s compiled and worded set of comments, with embedded verbatim quotes. I therefore did assume, as I’d generally do on mentally vetted profiles, that the non-quoted parts of the post were indeed essentially @Ratimov’s wording, not original content, since drafting original content when laying out historical information is not that common.

I do recall seeing the reference to the sources, and clicking on the first two. Having no wish for further readings on the topic at the time, and being thrown back by the (understandable) format of the first two sources (*), I scrolled back to the top, pressed the Merit button, and went for my puffed-up hyper generous procedure of awarding 2 sMerits (as opposed to my mean 1 sMerit usual).

Now is this plagiarism?
It depends on the prism we are using. From the perspective of the forum, the reference/s are there, so it complies with what is ordinarily common law around here, and cannot be deemed as Bitcointalk rule-type interpreted tradition plagiarism, as (unofficial) rules stand. From an academic point of view, any thesis with this degree of non-original wording would be pointed out, and the author would by all means fail his thesis.

When are we going to have a original wording indicator (percentage) for each post?

(*) The third source is of course the key, but being in Russian, I would probably not have really looked at it upon reflecting on the fact, thus missing the visually similar layout, which, dealing with a vetted profile, I would probably not have looked into.