1:17 AM
Anyone around to cast the final close vote here?

Gotcha

@MikePierce Yay!

6 hours later…
7:04 AM
@XanderHenderson @amWhy: It's open for deletion.

1 hour later…
8:19 AM
As far as I can tell, this is a non-answer and it can be safely deleted: Finding the radius of excircles from a right angled triangle.

9:00 AM
Worthy try here, by a known mse user, to transform chaff into wheat (see the comments).
2

9:13 AM
@MartinSleziak It was deleted - revisions/timeline. The remaining delete votes came from review.
@Did Your comment "@ArturoMagidin Yours is a worthy try but you will not succeed, I can tell you. Sorry.." might sound a bit cryptic. (At least to users which are not familiar with your crude-related activities.)
In any case, it is nice to see that Arturo Magidin back here again. Although his profile still says: I remain "gone for the foreseeable future" from math.SE, tex.SE, and meta.SE. Though I may very occasionally post a comment or an answer, these do not signify a desire to re-start my participation.

9:35 AM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Offensive answer detected, potentially bad keyword in answer, toxic answer detected: How to solve $4\sin \theta +3\cos \theta = 5$ by ßàťýàm on math.SE

4 hours later…
1:55 PM
Regarding the answer Smokey just pinged, the question is a straight-up trig PSQ.

2:34 PM
@MartinSleziak What would you have me do with this question (other than not to have asked it in the first place)?

3:11 PM
@ProducerofBS This is probably question for somebody who took time to look at that question in detail.
Maybe somebody else who visits this room will be able (and willing) to suggest something.

3:26 PM
@MartinSleziak Yes, apologies. I wasn't trying to get you to read the question. I jumped to the conclusion that having read the comments you would already have done so.

2 hours later…
5:33 PM
@Did @amWhy @XanderHenderson @ZacharySelk: For closure: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
Closure/deletion: 6, 7, 8, 9.

@user21820 What action have you taken on "5", yourself? You hadn't voted to close, but you're asking us to?

@amWhy The popup dialog tells me: "You voted to close this question Apr 6 at 5:16". Is that good enough?

@user21820 Ahhh, my guess is that it was reopened then. No problem. I cast my vote, let's hope for others.

@amWhy No, that message means that my vote expired. So I can't vote again until quite a long time later.

Wow, #7 has more downvotes than I think I've ever seen a post incur. Good riddance!!

5:48 PM
@amWhy It's easy to guess why it got undeleted. But I won't tell you otherwise it will take the fun out of the deduction. =)

5:58 PM
@user21820 It's clear BD, aka "Number" has his rep invested in having it answered, but he would not have been able to delete vote after early October 2017 (suspension through 10/18). I wonder how @AlexanderGruber let himself get suckered into undeleting it?
Especially surprising is that he did so given the well known fact that Doug Spoonwood is a trolling crank here. If Alexander likes the question, he can improve it, (which would require altering it significantly), to post as a new question, while migrating the answers to that improved post. Frankly, IMHO those who chose to answer it should have to live with the loss of ill-gained rep.

Ah, I cast a third undelete vote because though the guy is kind of a dingus, I actually like the question
I'm willing to be talked out of that opinion. Why do you think it's bad, because he's wrong?

@AlexanderGruber Because he is a standard sort of crank/nut that refuses to learn the basics of the topics he wants to talk about, such as logic, and yet insists on using the most irritating notation while thinking he is superior in doing so, such as here.

I take it you were never really aware of the extent to which DS trolled answerers to logic questions, wrote crank-style answers himself, trolled the logic chat room, etc.? But then I don't remember you following much in the way of logic.

I too am glad that the era of Doug Spoonwood seems to have passed
But I don't think that a question being written by a crank can't be useful to future users
When it comes down to it the question is about whether unique factorization is considered before or after commutativity, which is a question I could see others having (particularly those who are interested in higher math but have no formal training in it)
I'll concede your points about notation, though. The question could use some editing.

6:13 PM
@AlexanderGruber Lol! In my experience, I can often find interesting questions in anything, whether they be asked by a crank or not. But for recalcitrant cranks I am inclined to want to put a stop to it.
@AlexanderGruber If you see a good question to be asked, why don't you post it yourself and move all the relevant answers over?
Presumably, new good questions can take over the burden of hosting the old good answers, rather than relying on a crank post to do the (poor) job.

@AlexanderGruber So future users see a post existing which has incurred -73 net score. They also see highly upvoted "answers" basically pointing out to Doug what he already knows. So future answerers think it's perfectly okay to answer questions asking to verify their proof of one of the open conjectures, heavily downvoted, but, well, it's still worth it to answer and pointing out mistakes already pointed out hundreds of times on this site?

@amWhy One would think a -73 net score would be sufficient to signal even to a new user that the question was not well-received by the community

@AlexanderGruber It may, but it does not signal to a crank. Note that he got 41 upvotes on his question. So he gets emboldened to ask more, since he gained 41 supporters.

If it's already addressed elsewhere, point me to it, we could just close as a duplicate

In any case, @AlexanderGruber, I do still believe you fell hook, line, and sinker, into encouraging and energizing DS to continue, more fervently than ever, to continue posting cranky, nutty, meaningless questions revealing ignorance we've already pointed out hundreds of times, but refuses to acknowledge.

6:20 PM
@AlexanderGruber I do not agree with duplicate. As I said, you can post a proper question that you see under all the junk, and move relevant answers there, so that this trash can be deleted.
Even BD was highly critical of the question!

It doesn't really make any sense to evaluate individual questions based on the reputation of a user, particularly those that are old and inactive

You've asked a couple prior questions that explictly show nontrivial knowledge of matters regarding associativity of operations, e.g. this one. How can someone with such knowledge not already know the obvious answer to the above question? Is the above a serious question or, rather, is it yet another springboard for one of your critiques on the imprecision of informal mathematical conventions? — Number Aug 22 '11 at 22:15
@AlexanderGruber It's not the reputation, but the attitude.

@user21820 that's what I mean (not rep points)
@amWhy How has DS's behavior evolved since then? I don't follow his tags.
(I do think the trends of his behavior are orthogonal to the merits of a singular question, but I do consider that relevant as a separate issue)

Ohhhhh, I get it! I did not scroll down enough to see all the answerers, @AlexanderGruber. Indeed, you answered the question, and received a bounty, and all from DS, plus all the upvotes. Your motivation is all to clear to me now, Alexander! Personally, I think you have a vested interest in seeing the post remain, undeleted, for your obvious gain. If any other moderator had voted to undelete, I'd ask the same questions I originally asked you, knowing none of them answered.

@amWhy the rep doesn't go away when the question is deleted
(also, not to nitpick, but the bounty was not from DS)

6:30 PM
@AlexanderGruber I think your unilateral vote to undelete, at this point in time, shows a conflict of interest. Sure you like the question! You received 430 in rep from answering that one question from good ole' Doug Spoonwood, on that question alone!!

@amWhy My vote was not unilateral, it was a third vote.
And again, me being motivated by preservation of reputation doesn't make sense when deleting the question does not retract the reputation, so I'm not sure where you're getting that

Okay this is probably going nowhere. Let's see what other users here think about the question in question. @AloizioMacedo @Did @JohnMa @ZacharySelk @XanderHenderson @CarlMummert @MartinR

Your vote is, nonetheless, unilateral. A Vote from a Mod means much more to many users than a vote from a user. I'm done talking about this. If I had seen you had answered the question and took away 430 in rep, @AlexanderGruber, I would have no reason to ask for any rationale behind your vote. Two mods this month alone, acting to perpetuate the existence of their answers, despite objections.

I answered the question because I liked it, and cast a third undelete vote because I noticed it had been deleted and had two undelete votes already. I don't appreciate the implication that I have somehow been bribed.

@AlexanderGruber Of course you liked the question. What user doesn't like a question that they've garnered 430 rep for having answered?

6:37 PM
DS got 41 upvotes on that question. Since upvotes is supposed to signal quality on SE, it is a clear signal to DS that such a question is a good one, even more so when moderators undelete it despite ordinary users thinking it is junk.

Well, sometimes people, including moderators, do have different opinions from yours.
2

@user21820 Indeed. And it doesn't take much at all to reinforce a cranky nut.

@AlexanderGruber Sure, and that's why I said I want to see what other users think.
Don't forget that some moderators are very reluctant to delete instances of crank output, when I point them out, so they should be equally reluctant to undelete the same, to be consistent.
Never mind. I'll just wait for others to give their opinions/votes.

@user21820 Again, not a unilateral vote. I'm sorry that you take issue with my opinion.
Anyhow, I do like your idea about extracting the useful part of the question and migrating the answers.

@AlexanderGruber I believe your vote was totally of your own discretion and not unilateral. I also see interesting questions in some crank posts. But at some point I feel that leaving such bad-faith posts around does not do overall good for the community.

6:44 PM
@AlexanderGruber Don't turn this on me. You're obviously humans, we all often disagree, but those elected to moderate have an even greater responsibility to anticipate conflicts of interest in their actions, and try to avoid them. Don't judge me. You're the one who may need to remember that other people, including me and other users, have different opinions from yours.
We can disagree, and in some matters, we have to agree that those elected into a position of power and privilege are elected because they are ostensibly, upon election, trusted to behave above board. That doesn't make them right all the time. But mods are to be held to a higher standard when it comes to reigning in some human characteristics, like ego and defensiveness, lest they betray the trust the community, upon election, endowed them with.

@user21820 I understand your position. If you or another member of the room would like to help write a new question distilling the useful parts of this one, I'd be willing to approve the merge, and edit the comments as appropriate to fit the new context.

@AlexanderGruber Maybe later. I need to go now. (But I still think the poor question should be deleted, whether or not a new one is created.)

Okay... Should I say something like, or preface my comments with: "No doubt, you had only the best of intentions in answering, and in undeleting. I also see how DS's post might come across as interesting... but...............................". Then would you give me the same audience you've given to others who disagree with the outcome? That is, to I need to think hard as to how I can manipulate the situation so that you don't get defensive and turn the tables?

@amWhy I take the duty that comes with the diamond quite seriously. I am sorry if I upset you, but when you accuse me of acting on a conflict of interest, it is difficult for me not to take that as a sign of disrespect, and a failure to extend to me same courtesy I extend to you.

If so, then @AlexanderGruber, good Buddy, hard working as you are, and so wise, as well, maybe I should try that approach. Thanks for the inspiration! Thanks for the conversation! Thanks for the insult! Thanks for being exactly who you are, @AlexanderGruber, my Buddy.
Now will you go back and read a few of the points I made? Of course, only if you have time, as I know your time is precious, and please don't overwork yourself, dear Alexander, my buddy. Have a super duper fabulous day!

6:55 PM
I've seen the post, and I don't remember having seen it before, nor the user (maybe this gives a more unbiased perspective). Looking at the question by itself, I don't understand the attention it received (both in terms of numbers of views and upvotes/downvotes). It is not a terrible question (imho). Reading here, I understand that there is a lot of context with that particular user. I think it is in general very dangerous to judge a question based on the user.
That said, it seems that the post has gathered a community context of sorts, and has been judged extensively by the community as a whole. I understand why a "ressurection" by a moderator can be seen as disruptive, and I think I agree that a moderator shouldn't intervene unless the whole situation ressurected itself. But I am not entirely sure.

@amWhy I was reading your points up until you accused me of wrongdoing. That's why I came to the room. My understanding of your position is that you think whatever value the question may have to future readers is outweighed by possibly encouraging DS to continue writing poor quality questions.
Where we left off, I had asked you whether DS has continued in these activities, since you follow his tags.
@AloizioMacedo What do you think about user21820's suggestion to distill the question into a less contentious context?

@AlexanderGruber Poor little ole' me. I clearly see the respect and courtesy you've shown @user21820. You have not extended parallel respect or courtesy to me, despite your claim. You say I failed to extend to you the same courtesy you extend to me. Where? How? All I see or hear is defensiveness and personal attacks.
Whatever, this is what I've come to expect as MSE, in part, because I'm a woman, and for some reason, a woman expressing concerns about this that and the other is considered a "Bitch", while a man doing the same is considered "assertive, and strong".

I'm afraid you've lost me, @amWhy. I have always made it a point to extend courtesy and respect to you through the years in every interaction we have had, including this conversation.
2
If I've insulted you, it was not intentional, and I apologize for it. I see no reason we can't be cooperative going forward.
2

Someone can act, where there might be a perception of a conflict of interest, without intending to act that way, @AlexanderGruber. This comes up in law, with judges, wrt financial support, or relationships of parties... Seldom is it intentional. I do think that your actions, while non-intentional, lend themselves to the perception of a conflict of interest. I don't think you intended anything, but informing another of the perception of a conflict of interest is not disrespectful.
@AlexanderGruber Indeed.

7:10 PM
@AlexanderGruber Given the heavy context and community participation in this question, I think I agree with distilling it into a less contentious context, although a little reluctantly since I honestly do not see "crankiness" in that particular question. I see confusion, mostly. However, is there really no other question about clarification of what means unique factorization? That is impressive.

I've written a candidate for a less cranky version of the underlying question in case anyone wants to deal with merging and carrying the useful answers over. Please do edit to improve it. (also, can you not mark questions as community wiki? do they have to be edited a bunch of times first?)
2

@amWhy I took your statements as asserting my motivations. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted. My point was that since reputation gained from answers is not reversed when the answer is deleted, there would have been no illicit gain on my behalf. I appreciate your warning that it may be perceived that way by those who do not know that.
@MikePierce I think you have to flag for CW now, due to its history of being misused

I've flagged it for mod interventions

@AlexanderGruber Just to be clear, I do not think there is much value in the question, as it is not a sincere question. Or else, it was asked in the spirit of Socrates, who already knows the answer, but is trying to teach through questions. My interest in its deletion is not primarily because it's existence rewards DS for his behavior. Such a question as asked attracts many who believe the question is sincere, to answer with an answer the asker already knows. That's dishonest.

@MikePierce OK, I've merged it. I'm going to look through for obsolete comments. Let me know if I miss anything.

7:21 PM
I think it may be appropriate for users who know the context of the question to wait a bit before interacting on Mike Pierce's question (upvoting, downvoting, commenting, voting to close etc), so that we can let people evaluate the value of the question by itself without the bias we have (just my two cents).

@AloizioMacedo Experience isn't necessarily equivalent to bias. Otherwise, we'd have newborn babies, toddlers, small children, and teens, who haven't much experience in politics, eligible to vote in presidential elections. I'd suggest that you also wait a bit before interacting on Mike's question, so we can let people evaluate the value without the bias you have about the bias of those with more experience.

@amWhy Yes, I'll wait (I also have context now! :P). Your analogy is not appropriate, I think. I am not talking about what experience, in the sense of being capable (babies/toddlers etc are not capable). People voting in MSE are capable. I am talking about bias. When something should be judged by its value alone, it is best to let people with no bias judge them.
"(...) about that* experience (...)", sorry

The merging of the two questions is/was premature, because the original has again (third time) been deleted.

7:47 PM
Alright, I think I've got most of the crankery out of the comments. Not much DS left in that thread. The discussion that remains should be enough to help out future users who may share the same concerns. I feel a lot better about it than I did the original post.
Thanks to all of you for the help and opinions. I'm headed out, but feel free to ping any time. @AloizioMacedo @amWhy @MikePierce @user21820

1 hour later…
9:18 PM
@AlexanderGruber Just curious, in merging posts do you have the option of moving only some of the answers to the new question, instead of all of them?

@JohnMa no. But of course one can delete answers.