@DanielFischer please delete the last two one-sentence comments I made in this chat.

Serious question, I'm thinking mods might provide some input: I see that SE has posted lets plan the second iteration of the stack exchange quality project. When was the "first iteration"? In the post, it's mentioned the iterations will happen every 18 months, or so.

I ask because I still have issues with a former user whose purpose seemed only to "improve quality at MSE", with "quality" defined by said user, who felt completely righteous in imposing his/her definition of quality on MSE. This user knew far too much about the SE network to have, by chance, stumbled upon us.

@amWhy If there is one thing I have learned in my many travels, is that (1) one can never know too much about anything; and (2) one can always learn a lot more than what people think is possible just by observation and rudimentary experimentation, and in the case of SE by reading the meta.SE site, and the help manuals.

I know a whole lot about the way the SE system works, and I know that mainly by careful observations and reading the help guides (although often one has to use empirical evidence to understand how to read the help guides).

Perhaps, @DanielFischer we can set up a little private chat time.

Hey, @Asaf I'm trying to educate myself, but I don't aspire to know everything that can be known about SE and its sites. I am troubled when a certain user studies SE et al for the purpose of gaming the system to impose his/her definition of quality on MSE.

@amWhy While I do agree that in some sense, it was imposing some definition of quality, I do think that it served the better good of the site. And I think that anyone who had the better of the site at heart, and enough energy to put into this, would have figured out what is going on.

What troubles me, though, @Asaf, is that the network, the mods at MSE, and users like you (just based on what you now wrote), are willing to accept any means available, so long as it may help, in the end. The only just end worth having is accomplished through just means. No one wants to talk about that. "Alls well that ends well" isn't a universal sentiment.

@amWhy I don't mind talking about it. Because I was generally supportive of those actions, I took the rare opportunity to see how long will it take for someone to notice and say something. Admittedly, longer than I expected.

Because honestly, all you had to do, was to follow the "recent deletions" around 4AM (UTC), and quickly deduce that someone was doing something.

But I entirely agree with the sentiment, that the people who complained the loudest against this, could have very easily prevented this from happening just by voting more often.

I noticed, too. earlier rather than later. And it was my efforts to rally support to hold this user accountable) to challenge those deletions, that pretty much sealed the deal on my suspension. I know you know the party line. I'm not going to argue now about that.

If so much great content is added every day, and so many people are active, how come with only have ~360 users who voted over 2000 times?

Hell, even I feel that recently most of my votes are downvotes. And I don't always have the energy to add a meaningful comment, or improve the post myself. Although admittedly, the last six months were quite stressful and I didn't have time to leisurely peruse the website in search of hidden gems.

I'm not addressing you in any of my "said user" comments; not at all! I'm not sure what you are speaking to or about?

@DanielFischer: By the way, I guess it was you who cleared my last flag, and (1) I was having dinner with my parents, so I didn't notice everything; (2) I don't follow the education tag; and (3) why does it seem that the only action was to clear the flag?

I have no reason and never have had, not to believe that you are "straight up" and a "good guy", @Asaf.

@amWhy I know you're not addressing me. I'm speaking in general, about the negative reaction that summed in a few undeletion votes (most of which were countered by several users), and by most people continuing with their voting habits as usual.

@amWhy Well. Some might argue that I'm a shady guy.

I once received a "threatening email" from a user here, that claimed that they have a dossier on me and all my shady activities and they are going to talk to the SE administration to issue a network-wide ban.

So, you know, at least some people would disagree with you. :-D

@AsafKaragila Well, yeah, I heard that too!

OMGosh! Really? I know you wouldn't make that up; just glad I don't have my email posted publicly...

@amWhy Well, it wasn't to my public email. But the user had the private email for other reasons...

Ahhhh. Too bad...

@amWhy Well, no biggie.

That was meant to be sincere..

Hell, that's one of the least annoying things to have happened to me from being active with my real life identity here.

Ugh. I hate arguing with people about tags. Specifically about logic and set theory tags.

/me rolls eyes and sighs.

Unfortunately, that being the case, and adding my gender into consideration, I can't really afford to to disclose too much info.

@amWhy Well, for each their own.

I am very "out there" in terms of being genuine, about what I think, what I know, etc. Just can't afford to disclose email, full name, full location, where I work (I was literally stalked by an undergraduate student in one of my classes to the point that he had to be expelled, and served with a restraining order. But so far, I've been lucky online.

Sigh. Now I'm being blamed for someone not receiving answers because I removed wrong tags...

@amWhy Lucky you. You could have slapped him with a restraining order. I wish I could have done that.

Argh! Don't you want to just "slap them in the face!" sometimes! I've been a bit less tolerant of some users...(askers), not so much the "no clue" users but the "demanding users with a sense of entitlement, who want what they want when they want it!

And this user has 1k reputation. They should definitely be capable moving themselves to the "Tags" page and finding better tags.

Jesus, I hate the over-sensitive, over-protective, everyone's-a-winner culture that somehow came to exist in this world. I'm not saying that people should be treated like crap and be offended all the time, but growing up feeling entitled to everything makes you, well, an ass of an adult.

Yeah. And now I'm to blame for the lack of answers. Sigh.

I just read that thread! OMG! I think I encountered the user earlier today. He/she is probably taking "solution set" way too literally; just like those who want to understand the "logic" of proof, and use the tag <logic>. You must come across a lot of "set theory" tags that should be "elementary set theory".

And now I received two downvotes, and he called everyone retards.

Lovely.

I now have an answer with two downvotes from today. After the first downvote, I left a comment that asks for clarification, because I can try and improve the post unless the objection was to the user who posted it. And now I know the second downvote is definitely in objection of the user who posted it. :D

@amWhy And also many that shouldn't be tagged with set theory at all. And it's weird, because you don't see the same people use number-theory and/or elementary-number-theory for questions that involve numbers. (Although admittedly, some people do, and that makes me cry a little bit from the inside.)

I have to admit that I find it both amusing and concerning that people vote a comment saying "I blame you for every downvote I receive today, regardless to whether or not you voted, and I will execute retaliatory downvoting on you".

@AsafKaragila That's sad, very sad!

I agree. But, as they say, it takes all kinds...

I guess, as they say, nonetheless, I don't always like all kinds!

@amWhy Nope. It seems that people are very sensitive about the tags they choose.

This is certainly not the first time things escalated like this over tags (with me, anyway, I'm sure others have been burnt as well).

The one main problem being a high rep. user is that whenever you have any argument with someone, they will immediate enclose themselves in the position "Oh, he thinks his reputation gives him authority".