Well, after reading your previous comments chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/44932051#44932051 it seems quite logical to consider whether or not the room is worth keeping. Or whether it still serves it intended purpose.

Another question is whether this room attracts troublesome users. If we should judge this just by number of messages posted in this room, two users clearly stand out. :-)

@MartinSleziak I understand that. But I'm still holding out hope, I guess, that it remains available. And yes, you are right, it's ultimately up to the mods.

What to moderators think about this proposal: Should we add external searches in some help pages about search? (Posted 6 months ago, score +14.)

Is it doable? Could it be useful?

I assume that pages in help center are not editable directly by mods, but SE staff can customize them per site.

I remember that Jack D'Aurizio (he was not a moderator at the time, he is now) even said he is for incorporating Approach0 directly into Stack Exchange interface. See the comments here.

This seems to me a bit overambitious. (And maybe also a bit premature? The project is still evolving.)

But slightly changing a page about searching in the help center seems like an achievable goal.

In related news - it seems that in the future we can expect that Approach0 will search also in AoPS posts: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/46148/2018/5/27

Hi @quid, the problematic user left some comments containing false accusations and offensive language at the question I posted. I would appreciate it if these could be removed as they serve no constructive purpose.

@quid: This comment seems to me to be express intent to circumvent the site rules.

@user21820 yes, which is why I had deleted the account (among others).

@quid Ah no wonder. Thanks!

@MikhailKatz Hello. I can see a case against discussion of your motives and hypothesized personal relations. Yet the fact that you asked a related question on MO that reference a particular paper seems of genuine relevance to the question to me. [I take it this is a fact, I did not see the post myself.] When I first saw the question I was scratching my head what this was about; the comment(s) clarified the situation a bit. In that sense I find them relevant.

@quid I can send you a screenshot...

@AsafKaragila Thanks for the offer. Is it interesting? If not, I'll do without, unless the claim is challenged.

@quid Well... Interesting is a subjective issue. :P

@quid, the article in question was sent out by Martin Davis to the mailing list of FOM (foundations of mathematics). I asked a related question at MO to get some input from the experts. Later Martin Davis informed me that posting the message about that article was an error. Whatever the case may be, I don't endorse the article's claims and I posted an unrelated question at MSE. Many logicians are bothered by the idea of a standard model of ZFC, among them Hamkins who developed the multiverse...

... scheme as a remedy. The idea that asking a question about a standard model of ZFC would naturally lead to the kind of abusive reaction my question got in the comments does not add to MSE's reputation for tolerance. @quid

@MikhailKatz Pfffffffffft.

@MikhailKatz it's a bit hard to accept that it is completely unrelated.