CURED

@weeab00 SE isn't really a social media site, and discussion about specific users is off-topic on both the main site and the meta site. Why do you think that this NEEDS to be a topic of conversation on the site?

I moved SmokeDetector's messages to reduce noises, but the spamming situation is getting worse.

NAA: math.stackexchange.com/a/5034622/29335

Experienced users answering a FAQ and a PSQ with banalities.

@Ѕᴀᴀᴅ My guess is that the account was deleted after the user started the bounty. In that case the bounty is “moved” to the Community user, see here: meta.stackexchange.com/a/89614/196432.

Actually, it's now pretty clear that this is AI garbage: math.stackexchange.com/a/5030808/28111

Reclose PSQ mentioned by Jyrki above was reopened

This room is now thirteen years old. Happy anniversary!

@JoséCarlosSantos Consider what would happen if someone came into this room to see that you have called their post "useless". Do you think that this is an approach that is likely to be welcoming to those people? Do you think that people whose work is discussed in this way are likely to want to hear further advice about how they can improve?

C/D vulgar question, by a diamond mod

The latest self-reopen is just another addition to his list of behaviours. I am not surprised at all. No one reading a thesis (in algebra/number theory/related areas) cares about a reference to a fact as trivial as when -1 has a square root in a finite field and hence, the question was deservedly, downvoted.

What do you think about this moderator self reopening?

@amWhy: I'm not seeing any instances here of FShrike "clashing" with anyone (as opposed to just expressing respectful disagreement). Can you point to one?

@user2661923 Generally speaking, "Does this process looks okay?" is not really a good fit for the SE model. They are not highlighting some specific problem that they are having, and are essentially asking the SE community to grade their homework for them. I'm not in favor of reopening.

This particular behaviour has occurred even in other chat-rooms where there are no starred messages criticizing other users.

And, it is pretty rude. I can only speak in the way that I am able to. To say that I am using some kind of innuendos or silently accusing me of bad faith, is stepping dangerously out of boundaries of what's appropriate.

@FShrike Why not close it now, wait for the OP really adding the context, and then ask for reopening? The fact that the post in its current state is eligible for closure is unaltered by a yet-to-be-fulfilled promise, and the curation process, being a state machine by analogy, would be unnecessarily complicated by introducing more promise-dependent states, IMHO.

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

@Peter I disagree with this. There's nothing wrong with that answer; a now-deleted comment criticizes it for taking ultrafinitism seriously, but (and I'm far from an ultrafinitist FWIW) that doesn't make it a bad answer. I think using CURED in this way comes dangerously close to an abuse of its purpose: we shouldn't ask for downvotes on answers just for countenancing philosophical positions we disagree with.

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

@FShrike Your perception is very different from my own. If anything, I get frustrated by the large number of low-quality questions which get highly upvoted and reopened without getting improved.

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*

@Peter Creating a question-and-answer pair, as a reference to future users, is not only entirely acceptable, it is encouraged. If you think that you can provide a reference for others, in the form of a question to which you know the answer, you absolutely should post that question, and then post an answer. You are wrong in your belief that it is not acceptable to do this.

However: (1) Sure, you can curate old content. But (a) it shouldn't be where you focus your energy, and (b) it certainly shouldn't be where you ask others to focus their energy.

@Jakobian I am not going to engage in rules lawyering with you. As a moderator, I felt that the discussion had devolved to a point where it was not healthy or useful to keep it around. It is over now. Let it die.

Please strive to keep the communication from exchange of personal attacks, thank you.

It is ALWAYS reasonable to ask someone to explain why they want action taken by the denizens of this room.

Though I do think that a lot of people use the tag as a way of avoiding closure, as evidenced by the fact that so many of these askers give the green check to duplicate answers which have nothing to do with the post of the proof being questioned.

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.

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.

Maybe we need math.stackexchange.onearmtiedbehindyourback.com to field questions that end in things like "without using l'Hôpital's rule" or "without the axiom of choice." and so on.

I think that the problem that a lot of people have is that they assume that closure or deletion is a judgement about the quality of a question in an abstract sense---"the question is closed, therefore the community here thinks it is a bad question, period".

A flood of proofs of open conjectures is the worst thing that can happen to a math-related sites.

@FShrike Please don't explicitly call out people.

From my pov I, at worst, sometimes mildly disagree with Xander. I'm not in the business of fighting or disrespecting moderators

I think it is wrong to say I clash

@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

(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.

@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.

@Ѕᴀᴀᴅ seems like there is a small rebelion of people that think its okay to ask PSQ's as long as the question is "difficult"

@AttilaVajda Look, you are making the same arguments across the various posts and chatrooms associated to the Math SE website. This needs to stop. Many, many people have tried to help you, and you have accused them of hostility and bullying. I think that you need to step back from this question (and possibly the website on the whole) for a while, so that you can calm down a bit, and reflect on what people have told you.

A user here has posted four times in little more than a day, urging that this question on whether the equation a=a+1 is true for infinite cardinals without the axiom of choice should be closed/deleted. And they seem frustrated that members of the community are upvoting and voting to reopen. It's not the most elegantly written question, but it's perfectly reasonable, and has attracted a good quality answer.