Q:

Banned for failing to recognize/check for plagiarism, 1st time... Draconian?

Today I came to review and I was informed I've been kicked off for the review queues for awhile for this:
https://stackoverflow.com/review/suggested-edits/14843211
However, to lose full review queue privileges for this seems particularly unfair to me as a first time offense, and a much grayer area.
Note that 3 other reviewers also approved it, so there is clearly some confusion and need to educate users better and more reasonably in that area. There have been no audits to teach/indicate show that this kind of thing is an issue. I have seen many other tag updates like this, so thought it was the norm. 
Does this suggest that reviewing tag updates requires us to google the text and try to figure out the source and wording of every tag wiki update? Should we hire a lawyer or a law firm or research agency to check IP too? I'm just saying it can be hard to know where to draw the line on that stuff when it comes down to it.
To me, this is a whole new gotcha to me and I was completely caught of guard unprepared, and I think, in this case, nailing me to the wall for it is really hitting below the belt or shooting me in the back because there was really no fair warning.
It makes me want to just skip all tag wiki edits in the future so I don't guess wrong or have to spend 5 or 10 minutes or more trying to check source or authenticity on the off-chance that I'll get my derrier in the wringer if someone happens to find out it was taken wholesale from elsewhere.
I mean, even in the real world there is something call "fair use" where you're allowed to copy excerpts from proprietary documents/media. I just didn't realize plagiarism was something that happens here, or that we all as individual have to police it. It seems maybe wiki tag edits should have its own queue due to its different nature from most of the edits, which can be reviewed with more forthrightly.
I don't think you can really say (or treat me) like what I did was egregious neglect as though I was educated, trained, forewarned, and should have known better. I mean, now I know, it is an issue, but just don't think that ways the way to bring it to my attention, since I've put a lot of effort into serving and trying to do the right thing here, and I find this very discouraging.
Can I be let off with a warning this time?

A:

You are, of course, free to review or not review as you choose. You chose to review and missed a plagiarized edit. So you're off of the review queues for a week. No permanent harm done. This isn't a courtroom and you're not "guilty" of anything. We just want you to take a closer look at future reviews.
There are several ways you could respond to this:

It makes me want to just skip all tag wiki edits in the future so I don't guess wrong or have to spend 5 or 10 minutes or more trying to check source or authenticity on the off-chance that I'll get my derrier in the wringer if someone happens to find out it was taken wholesale from elsewhere.

That's one. Another would be:

Maybe I should review more carefully.

Neither one is "right". We're happy to have the community review posts, but we don't want it to become a tedious and unpleasant chore. It's your choice.

A:

I mean, even in the real world there is something call "fair use" where you're allowed to copy excerpts from proprietary documents/media.

This is important to address, because it is a common confusion. "Fair use" is defense against copyright infringement. Plagiarism is distinct from copyright infringement. You could raise a successful fair use defense against a copyright infringement claim, and yet still be deemed to have plagiarized.
Simple example. Alice writes an article in the school's newspaper in which she copies three consecutive sentences out of a 200 page book written by Bob, without attribution (no quotes, no name, nothing):

Copyright: if Bob were to want to raise a copyright claim, fair use would be in Alice's favor. She did not copy a whole chapter, it is unlikely that people would buy the newspaper instead of buying Bob's book, etc.
Plagiarism: This is flat out plagiarism. She did not attribute the copied passage to Bob. It does not matter one bit if a court found that it was fair use.

(You also open a whole different can of worms with the term "proprietary", but I'm going to just say that if you think "fair use" is a defense if you leak a little bit of proprietary information, you're in for a nasty surprise.)
So if you see something and think "well, this cannot be plagiarism because it is allowed by fair use", well, that's just plain wrong.

A:

However, to lose full review queue privileges for this seems particularly unfair to me as a first time offense, 

You seem to think that this is a particularly severe punishment.  We're not taking your first born, you're just being given a few days without reviewing to take some time to learn more about what you did wrong and how to avoid making the same mistakes in the future.

and a much grayer area.

It's not really that grey.  Plagiarism is a very serious problem, and this is a very clear instance of it.

Note that 3 other reviewers also approved it, so there is clearly some confusion and need to educate users better and more reasonably in that area.

Yep.  That's why you guys were banned, to help you realize what you were doing was wrong so you don't continue to make the same mistake.  If you have a suggestion for a better way to inform reviewers of what they need to be doing when reviewing, by all means propose a change.

There have been no audits to teach/indicate show that this kind of thing is an issue.

Audits aren't going to bring up every situation you need to address.  They're there to filter out the worst of the worst—the most egregious of the bad reviewers.  Not getting banned from audits is a very low bar to pass.  And note that when people start failing reviewers for things above that super low bar; getting reviews that require them to actually know how to review, what the are and aren't supposed to do, and not just recognize the most obvious and abusive spam/vandalism, they tend to complain (but we're getting a bit off track now anyway, that's another issue).  Also note that generating reviews that really teach people how to review well is a very hard problem, unlike generating reviews that no sane person should ever fail.

I have seen many other tag updates like this, so thought it was the norm.

Yes, there are lots of bad reviewers out there.  That's why we have mods taking the time to go out and issue bans like this.  Now you know that it's not right, and you can do better in the future.

Does this suggest that reviewing tag updates requires us to google the text and try to figure out the source and wording of every tag wiki update? Should we hire a lawyer or a law firm or research agency to check IP too? I'm just saying it can be hard to know where to draw the line on that stuff when it comes down to it.

You should certainly be on the lookout for plagiarized content, yes.  It's one of the most common problems with tag wikis.  In this case, there were a lot of warning signs just from the edit itself: a new tag wiki with a fairly generic description.  For something like that, it's probably worth doing a quick search for, yes.  When it's someone fixing a typo, then obviously that's not going to be a case where you'd really need to consider plagiarism.  As the rejection reason for this issue mentions, just copying a generic description like this also makes for a bad tag wiki (in addition to being plagiarism), so that should also be making you look further and question the edit.  
You really should be catching the really obvious cases where low-quality tag wikis are suggested based on copying someone's description of their product.  If you occasionally miss some more subtle and hard to notice instances, where there aren't red flags, or the source material isn't easily found, then that's more forgivable.

To me, this is a whole new gotcha to me and I was completely caught of guard unprepared, and I think, in this case, nailing me to the wall for it is really hitting below the belt or shooting me in the back because there was really no fair warning.

But there was.  There's a whole rejection reason devoted specifically to edits like this.  Basically any guidance you find on how to review tag wikis is also going to address this issue, as it's one of the main issues that tag wiki edits face.  You didn't notice, but the resources were available for you to find out.

It makes me want to just skip all tag wiki edits in the future so I don't guess wrong or have to spend 5 or 10 minutes or more trying to check source or authenticity on the off-chance that I'll get my derrier in the wringer if someone happens to find out it was taken wholesale from elsewhere.

If you think that reviewing tag wikis is too time-consuming for you, then by all means.  It's much better for you to just skip the reviews you don't have the time for than to review them incorrectly.  Reviewing is optional; if you don't want to review these posts then don't.

I mean, even in the real world there is something call "fair use" where you're allowed to copy excerpts from proprietary documents/media. 

"Fair use" would, at a bare minimum, require a citation here, which was missing.  Without the proper citation, there's no shot at a fair-use argument, and even with it, I don't really see most of the points of fair use being applicable here.

I just didn't realize plagiarism was something that happens here, or that we all as individual have to police it. 

And now you know.  Had the moderator not banned you, you wouldn't.

It seems maybe wiki tag edits should have its own queue due to its different nature from most of the edits, which can be reviewed with more forthrightly.

Feel free to write a proposal for that, if you think it would help.  (Although check for duplicates first; it sounds familiar.)

I don't think you can really say (or treat me) like what I did was egregious neglect as though I was educated, trained, forewarned, and should have known better. I mean, now I know, it is an issue, but just don't think that ways the way to bring it to my attention, since I've put a lot of effort into serving and trying to do the right thing here, and I find this very discouraging.

Well, it was egregious neglect, you failed to address one of the most common, and a fairly serious, problems with tag wiki edits, and you did have the information available to you to know that it was wrong—you simply didn't pay close enough attention to it.

Can I be let off with a warning this time?

Well, it's not my decision to make, but the fact that you're working so hard to try to claim that you didn't do anything wrong, and to blame the system, as well as others, for your mistake, on top of your insistence on how unreasonable it is for reviewers to be expected to handle these cases appropriately, rather than taking ownership of what you did wrong, and really trying to convince us that you're not going to make the same mistake in the future, I know I wouldn't support it.  I'd personally only support lifting a ban for someone who was really convincing that they not only knew what they did wrong, but that they aren't going to make the same mistake again.

