transcript
Screenshot from Thomas Dietterich on X:
"Attention @arxiv authors: Our Code of Conduct states that by signing your name as an author of a paper, each author takes full responsibility for all its contents, irrespective of how the contents were generated."
With a reply from James Miller: "So this means you expect every author to check every citation and make sure that every citation is real and accurate? What if it's beyond the ability of one of the authors to verify one of the citations because that citation is in a language he doesn't know or concerns technical material he doesn't understand but another author on the paper does?"
But what if the interests in conflict do not come from the person themself, but someone else forcing the person to take a side they wouldn't otherwise? Such as mind-controlling aliens? (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
Serious now. I noticed this from a forum I moderated ~10y ago. The admin always asked us mods and veteran users for feedback, before changing rules; but even for rules we were unanimously in favour of, there was always a bunch of users complaining. The contrast was so obvious it made me check the users' profiles for context. It was always like this: the user claimed to be "deeply concerned" with the impact of the rule, brought up a thousand corner cases, and then as you checked their profile they were doing exactly what the rule was made against.
For example: the admin implemented a rule that NSFW content needs to discussed in threads tagged "(NSFW)" in the title. One of the users started complaining about the ideal way to format it, and if it actually counts as a NSFW thread if someone used square brackets instead of parentheses. That same user was temp-banned once for spamming multiple threads asking "tell me how to say 'piss in my mouth' in [insert language the thread was about]".