CURED

@amWhy I don't remember making any specific accusations. I try here and in all places on MSE to write _moderate_ly. At any rate, I speak now in my capacity as an ordinary user. I would speak/intervene more carefully as moderator for obvious reasons.

As I've said many times, I think that we should be fast to close and slow to delete.

Dv/D PSQ & dupe of FAQ, nothing novel, frequent high rep PSQ/dupe answerers

We can quibble about the value of the feedback given, but the essential fact remains: you cannot vote to close without some explanation / reason / feedback / whatever.

With respect to the specific question being discussed, had I seen it earlier, I likely would have cast a reopen vote. I don't see anything wrong with it. A solid citation is given, and the question about the stated theorem seems clear and narrowly focused. I understand the close votes, but don't necessarily agree with them.

@Peter: You say that you don't understand the reopen votes. I don't understand the close votes. The difference is: I actually explained the reasoning for why I think the question should be reopened, whereas none of the five close voters explained theirs. Nobody on this site is obligated to explain the reasons for why they vote, of course, but I find it a bit ironic that you are incredulous about the reopening, whilst not providing any reasoning for why the post should be closed.

I genuinely have no idea what “context” is supposed to mean at this point

This room is now twelve years old. Happy anniversary!

So (1) we are aware of the backlog, and (2) we will get to it, but please be aware that it is going to take a little time.

(2) EoQS has never been about questions. It has always been about answers. EoQS is about more aggressively enforcing quality standards with respect to answers to low quality questions.

C/D PSQ and dupe featuring a diamond-mod answer that duplicates answers half-hour prior, sigh. Nothing novel.

@amWhy The still deleted comment is not simply a request that another user explain themselves. The deleted comment also accuses another user of being argumentative. On balance, I am disinclined to restore your comment, nor the other three or four comments which I left deleted.

@Peter Can I please suggest that you moderate your tone? It is perfectly fine to say "I don't think that this question is useful. It doesn't make sense to me." It is quite different to declare that the a question is "utterly pointless". Please dial it down a notch.

@user2661923 It should not be reopened since it is a solution-verification question that lacks the required context.

@ТymaGaidash EC are the initials of probably the most prolific numerologist on this site, cf. here. Though that user is suspended for a decade, new accounts continuously arise advertising "EC primes" (likely sockpuppets as on MO). It is unfortunate that a very active user has encouraged such numerology (matters like these led to the downfall of sci.math)

@XanderHenderson There are countless high-rep offenders, for which no escalation in suspension occurs. That bothers me greatly, given strict escalation in length of suspension given to a few. If you want me to name names, who have frequently been suspended for one week only, please create a private chat, and invite me to it. @BillDubuque correctly expresses the very real paucity in enforcing EoQS, which you (et al.) initialized in 2020.

please close/downvote/delete - the super high rep users keep answering everything , whether it ha s context or not , whether it is about a famous open conjecture or not. Terrible !

Dv/D very unclear, dupe, with high rep cherry picking (by frequent offender), nothing novel.

Delete (crank banned from physics.SE physics.stackexchange.com/users/457578/user77952, now trying out garbage here): math.stackexchange.com/questions/5001738/sophit-ideology

@XanderHenderson It's part of a much larger problem - that many of those who are caught up in the rep game can't believe that there are others who couldn't care less about it. They view every action through gamified glasses. Please let us teach mathematics unecumbered by such puerile matters.

A simple "Hey, heads up, I answered this question. I think it is a good question and should be reopened" immediately dispels a lot questions about someone's motivations. In the end, I think that this is more likely to lead to happy outcomes for everyone.

And I really didn't appreciate the implication that I might not "seriously believe" what I am saying, and am therefore commenting on bad faith.

So, while you are correct that it is not a "rule", I think that your assertion that this recommendation is something "that some users attempt to force on others" goes too far.

@BillDubuque I'm not sure what "gamification" has to do with this. There is a general consensus that one should disclose affiliations one has with a post (see, for example, math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/34447, where the post simply asks that people explain if they have affiliations with the question).

@Jakobian Disclosing "affiliation" is not a "rule" but only a recommendation that some users attempt to force on others. Not to mention that it is a waste of time stating what is completely obvious to anyone who spends the proper time evaluating such requests. Gamification is the root of all evil on this platform. We should strive to ignore it - not over-emphasize it.

In any event, I have explained the actions I took and cited the policy which I believe justifies those actions. I have done this in my capacity as a moderator. This is no longer an appropriate venue to debate the policy. You can either accept what I have said, or you can take it up on Meta.

@Peter I honestly have no idea what I have done to offend you, but these continued cryptic comments are not productive. If your don't want to participate, don't. If you want to participate, please do. There is no reason to preface every comment with aggrievement.

This question was answered, but the answer was essentially a link-only answer, and the link rotted. I have deleted the answer---the question is pretty marginal. Maybe it should be closed / deleted? *shrugs*

Duplicate of a duplicate of a duplicate which is itself a duplicate of a duplicate. This can probably be deleted. It would be easier if two people hadn't fastest-gun-in-the-wested some answers.

@amWhy Please do not delete / move on-topic messages to trash. This is an abuse of room owner privileges (esp. since the message critiques one of your actions).

Of course, the same moderator will come along and delete these comments. I once posted a comment saying I was critical of him downvoting well-written answers on topics like PDEs.. and it got deleted soon enough. It is just abuse of power, completely poor behaviour all around.

@ТymaGaidash That's wrong.

That moderator posts low-quality questions (and questions without any clarity too), posts trivial answers, begs for those to be accepted to increase their reputation, downvotes others’ well-written answers to stuff way beyond his expertise, closes others’ questions for ‘lack of context’ when the questions are perfectly fine and beyond what he can answer, and is basically an expert in browbeating on this website.

If you have nothing positive to add, is it necessary to break your silence?

@Peter Is it really necessary to so rudely express your displeasure at the reopening to the person who posted the question, and is asking for help?

@Peter It was suggested that you posted the same question in here four times. Please don't do this. Once or twice is fine, but if, after posting the question a couple of times, it remains open, you should take that as representative of the opinion of users of this room. It starts to look like you have an axe to grind.

@Ѕᴀᴀᴅ @NoahSchweber @Peter @JeremyRickard Just to be clear, I believe that this room should be used to discuss whether or not a question should be handled in a particular way. Discussion is healthy. However, please try to keep it to the content of the questions and answers (e.g. "I don't think the user understand the question" is not okay).

@Peter "the sense in which $a=a+1$ shoould hold is not clarified at all" There is nothing that needs clarification. The question states that a is the cardinality of the set A; both "=" and "+1" have completely standard meanings in the context of cardinality. (Note that "cardinality" is not the same as "cardinal" in the context of choiceless set theory - cf. "Scott cardinality.")

cv-pls probability PSQ. Was closed. Has been reopened. Does convergence of measures, with respect to the KL-divergence, imply almost sure convergence of the RN-derivatives?‭ - addition_man‭ 2024-05-03 22:59:23Z

please delete

@DS C1 is multiply-duped, and C2 lacks context (why a derivative-free approach? what effort for finding such an approach?)

@Peter I think everyone who wants to contribute should do so. But also there's no need to try and force it onto others. Its not such a pressing issue either.

(2) "Question A hasn't been closed, and it is of similar quality to Question B, therefore Question B should not be closed" is a logical fallacy.

@Sahaj (1) It isn't about "showing effort". It is about placing the problem in some kind of context. "I used a computer to verify this up to [n]" is not very interesting or useful context (IMO). I would rather know why anyone should care about the question. In what context does the question arise? What value does an answer have? etc.

@XanderHenderson OP tagged it as an SV, and OP's question is "Does my proof make it clear...." and the proof is a rephrasing of a proof from another thread (so a dupe), etc. There are many reasons why it is off-topic.

I think that it is also worth noting that the majority of the people who are active in this room are typically in favor of closure / deletion (there are systemic reasons why this probably should be true---Sturgeon's Law being what it is, but the fact remains). I think that this makes it very hard for people to request reopening / undeletion, particularly when those people are treated with hostility in a way that close / delete requests are not.

@Ѕᴀᴀᴅ It is neither of these things. Everyone who posts requests for action here should expect to be asked to explain those requests. This is entirely on-topic and reasonable. This room exists to create openness and transparency. A refusal to engage with the simple question "Why?" seems to violate the spirit of the room.

@BillDubuque The asymmetry on disclosure of reasons why to answer/close/etc. specific questions or in general has recurred so many times here and on meta that I don't find it constructive in any sense to reignite the exchange of words in this room.

@Ѕᴀᴀᴅ Why did you move those messages to trash? They contained useful discussion on policy that are pertinent to all here. transparency is important here.