delete 1, 2, 3, 4

Bad PSQ

delete Wrong answer

@JoséCarlosSantos Considering older PSQs are more likely to have work attached to them, and also runs into philosophical concerns about applying today's yardstick to yesterday's standards, it would seem a much higher priority to deal with PSQs, say, within the past year, of which I'm certain there is a neverending supply of.

@JoséCarlosSantos I don't know how you're searching, so perhaps the question age is just a by-product. But considering that combatting fresher PSQ's is more likely to stick and minimizes controversy and has just as much value, it might make sense to order and filter results that way.

and P.S. I wrote 1 year at the time but didn't intend to say that was a good limit. Two or three years could be argued for.

@rschwieb Note that all those four posts whose deletion I suggested a few hours ago were posted only 2 years ago.

@rschwieb I would hope that active users in this room would discourage not only that, but also said targeted voting. Such behavior highly tarnishes this room. In the past there have been numerous moderator warnings here about user-targeted voting. As such, I'm greatly surprised to see such behavior still being practiced here by an active member, without any other active members noticing or objecting.

If I were still a moderator JoseCarlosSantos would currently be suspended for such targeted deletion votes of posts of one of his biggest critics.

@JoséCarlosSantos Noted! Thanks for pointing this out. When I put my two-cents out that's all I meant it to be. I'm not tracking stats on your actions or anything :)

Even worse, the targeted users is currently suspended for a year, so she cannot even defend her posts. This is another problems that has happened here many times in the past (abusing suspended users).

@rschwieb Does your remark imply that you condone user-targeted voting?

Dear @BillDubuque : As your remark is of the form "so does that mean you support strawman?" I will not be dignifying it directly with a response. If you think there is something new that should go into meta about what you think is happening, you can consider posting it in meta. This room is not the correct place to get too far into such things. If it is truly an issue, it should be discussed with a wider audience. Regards.

@rschwieb You made a remark an oblique remark on the topic. So do you or do you not support user-target voting? Why is it so difficult to answer such a simple question?

Dear @BillDubuque Since your previous comment is discourteous and is an overt attempt at provoking a response from me on a subject I have already deferred for reasons given above, I will not be responding until there is a new development on the subject. Regards.

@rschwieb Since when is it "discourteous" to ask a question? Not to worry I won't waste any further time attempting to have a rational discussion with you since that rarely proves fruitful (as is clear why from the nonsense above).

@BillDubuque Why do you assume that the voting is targeted? @JoséCarlosSantos has indicated that there is no targeting (but this is exactly what a guilty person would do!), and there are other possible explanations (amWhy amassed quite a lot of reputation; one way to do this is by being very active; this activity makes it more likely that a random question will have an answer from amWhy; this is particularly true for the tags in which she was most active).

On the other hand, publicly calling José Carlos Santos out in chat is unlikely to be productive. If you believe that there is an attempt to target a particular user, communicate with the moderators.

@XanderHenderson Because the odds are astronomically against that being pure coincidence. If your biggest critic started targeting your posts like that would you feel the same way, esp, when you were suspended for a year so could do nothing about it?

@BillDubuque Great. You've made your case. José Carlos Santos has rejected your assertion. He said / she said. What more do you hope to gain by continuing to harp on it here?

Contact a moderator.

@XanderHenderson The point of mentioning it here is to warn users that some of these lists posted may be composed with ulterior motives, so that one should not simply robotically vote on questions in these lists.

psq math.stackexchange.com/questions/3122843/…

For deletion: D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8,

For deletion: D9, D10, D11, D12

@BillDubuque I understand that. You accused someone of targeted voting. Great. You are on the record asserting that targeted voting has been going on. Anyone can scroll up the chat log to see that. Why do you keep bringing it up?

@XanderHenderson We seem to have very different definition of "keep bringing it up". This is only the 2nd time I've brought up this topic in many years.

You have brought it up at least three times in the last two days.

@XanderHenderson And your point is? It's a topic under current discussion. Many topics are discussed for much longer than 2 days.

@BillDubuque I've made my point, which is the following: There is nothing to be gained by continually calling out a particular user and accusing them (with scant evidence) of intentionally targeting another user. You made your assertion. It is in the chat log. Give it a rest. Having said that, I have grading to get to, and have no interest in continuing this conversation. I am going to take my own advice, and give it a rest. Have a good day.

@XanderHenderson You have a very strange definition of "scant" too (or maybe you didn't pay close attention above). So please stop pinging me if you aren't interested in such topics.

For your consideration: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3122954/…