@amWhy Welcome! It felt good to contribute after what felt like an entire eon!

Bountied PSQ

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Blacklisted user (71): can you tell me which of the 2 methods converges faster and why? by parakaleiste on math.SE

C1 , C2

Oh sorry I didn't saw you already said C2 @SmokeDetector

even such questions receive answers. Please delete.

C/D

VLQ math.stackexchange.com/q/4187703/29335

C3, C4 duplicate mentioned in comments, C5, C6, C7, C8 although on borderline, C9

, C10 although on borerline

All these questions are very old questions which were PSQs but good that weren't bountied

@JitendraSingh FYI, most folk here prefer to focus on newer questions. There is little reason to dig up old low-quality questions.

@XanderHenderson Btw by word old I meant 4 to 5 months old. Instead of C3 and C4 all are 4-5 months old. C4 definitely needs to be closed as duplicate.

@JitendraSingh I did not follow any of your links---I simply replied to your comment that the questions were very old.

That being said, C3 and C4 are from 2014; C7 is from 2017; and C10 is more than a year old. I don't think that most people here are inclined to act on those.

hi

@XanderHenderson oh ya sorry I didn't had a better look at those

@lila hello

Typo in first comment: look at the time the question was posted

Please delete this answer: the question is asking why a metric space is complete, while this answer is more or less just "Hint: Show that every Cauchy sequence converges".

Oops wrong link. Should be this

@amWhy Hmm what do you mean? I did go through some, and voted on most of those I clicked. I couldn't decide for the one you posted just before me, because it seemed borderline to me. For the one posted by vitamind, I voted to close but wasn't around anymore when it became deletable.

PSQ

@Peter Up for deletion now.

@amWhy Up for deletion if you don't want to wait for roomba.

@amWhy Unless I am missing something that is invisible, that PSQ was undeleted and then edited to insert fake context. @XanderHenderson, I flagged but I would like a public record of any explanation here as well.

collatz-proof attempt

C/D

The collatz-attempt received 2 upvotes. Please counter this.

C/D

D

this is a duplicate, but I do not currently know the target. Can anyone find it, for example with Approach0 , which I do not yet have ?

close

@user21820 Ugh. Yes. I have reverted the edit and commented.

In the future, you should feel free to revert such edits and point folk to the policy on rewrites yourself. You don't have to, but you certainly should feel empowered to do so.

That is just someone being snarky, right?

I think that my sarcasm meter is not functioning very well. I am tired.

@user21820 Unfortunately, the post was not just undeleted, but also reopened. Nothing was done about that. I can no longer vote to close, the damage by that fake edit was done; rolling back the edit, @Xander, falls short of the damage done.

@user21820 Thanks for the notification.

delete

The post, @user21820, was reopened only as a result of (after) @AaronHendricks embelishing edit, which clearly kicked it to the review queue. Can moderators please, not only roll-back the illegal edit, but also undo the false improvement to such antics don't end up helping such a poor question?

It's a joke, @user21820, I should have left it all to you to notify Xander, because he's taken to ignoring me altogether. But of course this a a busy teaching day for him.

@vitamind Focus on closure first.

@XanderHenderson Thanks! I'm going to start vandalizing posts towards the worst representation, so after closure, you merely restore it, so that users voting to reopen it, but failed, can vote again after you revert my nefarious edit. I can play the same game Aaron played, and you reinforced by reverting an edit, only after the edit unreverted edit accomplished what it intended. Another one to add to my list.

@vitamind Where was your close vote? I was the one and only close vote on that post you linked.

I thought deletion is possible without closure. I did not want to waste a close vote on such a bad question.

close

@vitamind No, questions must always be closed, prior to deletion. No problem, @vitamind.

@user21820 Another PSQ gets saved, with a mere slap on the hand.

@amWhy The post was reopened by a vote of the community. I am currently trying to deal with a different post which should never have been reopened, and is causing me a great deal of grief. I cannot act to unilaterally close that question. I am not sure what else you want from me.

"How to do research?" math.stackexchange.com/q/4188091/29335

I also dealt with that post in the 10 minutes I had between classes this morning, so didn't have a lot of time to investigate beyond rolling back the edit, warning the user, and following the post to see how it evolves.

@XanderHenderson Weird... the review results say "Leave closed x3, reopen x2". That results in a reopen?!

Of course, by publicly admonishing me and making demands, you have put me in a position where I could act to close the question, but this would give the impression that I respond to these kinds of undiplomatically phrased demands, which is also a position I don't want to be in.

I will ping the other moderators, but I am in a position where I cannot act impartially at this point.

@rschwieb Votes can come from other places. Likely the edits bumped it to the top of the front page, where it got one or two votes.

@XanderHenderson So the review process is not just a function of five reviewers' input? That is blowing my mind... seems like all the input should be presented for viewers understanding of the decision.

I guess I don't rightly know how long it stays under review... is there a hard limit?

@rschwieb No, the question needs 5 votes to reoopen.

But not all of those votes need to come from the review process.

Wow... that last edit really changed the meaning of my reply.

@amWhy You wrote the following:

As a moderator, how am I supposed to act when a user threatens to vandalize posts unless I do what they ask?

→ 5 messages moved to Room for Xander Henderson and amWhy

@XanderHenderson I was making a point, that you no longer had credibility to sanction me, if I were to that, without playing favorites (slap on the wrist). I was also reminding you, that when you pretend one person didn't do more damage than they did, you risk other users resorting to "what aboutism", which is legit, when you treat different users differently. I apologize, that you may not have known the the post fraudulantly edited, was reopened immediately after the edit, and long before you

reverted the edit. It is likely you did not know that. but it took me only 20 seconds on the edit review to see the sequence of events. I'm not terribly fond of being in the position where I need to inform mods of the days' happenings, because if I assume they are already, they get all pissy on me. I am not here to stroke the egos of moderators.

@Xander If you want to continue bashing me, take it somewhere else.

I acknowledge, right here was not the right place to address you, @Xander. But you have refused to acknowledge me in your room, in the math mods office, in the Cafe. So you left me no choice but to address you here, where you reverted an edit, but failed to clean up the mess that edit caused. If I could trust you'd respond to me elsewhere, I would have. It is you that has forced my hand to speak where you act.

@amWhy The problem is not that you addressed me here. The problem is that you threatened to vandalize the site if I did not acquiesce to your demands. Rather focusing on the post in question, you decided to attack me, you questioned my good faith, accused another user of engaging in antics, and somehow made this entire conversation about how the moderators are oppressing you.

Had you stopped right here, I could have come back into this room and felt comfortable acting. But you made it personal, and put me in a position where I cannot act without giving the appearance of either playing favorites or giving into incivil demands.

Like I said, I pinged the rest of the moderation team, but I cannot act on this particular question.

@XanderHenderson Thanks for the update. You are not in a position to advise me. I appreciate your update; I understand all was not clear, etc. But please stop trying to prove to users I'm the bad guy. You've been pretty hostile to me as well. Oh and by the way, "being a moderator" does not exempt one from the code of conduct. Still you continue with claiming innocence, and the big bad wolf amWhy. And you refused to honor my request that if you felt the need to continue spewing at me, to do it

elsewhere, and hilariously, you were the one who told me I was to blame for calling you out. Hah. I'm done until you can respect my requests, as I try to respect yours. I have been your biggest fan, and still am, yet I'm sick of being a convenient target.

"yet I'm sick of being a convenient target." Me too.

@rschwieb This was deleted by the author.

@XanderHenderson Right of course, that sounds right... but does it remove it from the review queue after some number of keep-closeds appear?

@rschwieb Yes, but I don't recall the number.

I think it takes three leave closed votes?

Let me investigate.

@XanderHenderson Then we need each of us to cease and desist. Please stop ignoring me? That would be a good start. It's is amazing to me, though, you completely forget my primary support for you. If you cannot tolerate feedback, then let me know. I've tried to limit it to your room, but you refuse to respond to me there.

@XanderHenderson It could be... but then some sort of edge case would have happened with that one with 3 keep-closed vs 2 reopen +however many reopens we can't see

@rschwieb Three votes to "Leave Closed" should bump it out of the queue:

I am looking for something more authoritative.

@rschwieb In any event, every reopen vote cast in the queue is a reopen vote for the question. The post might also get reopen votes from other places.

Five reopen votes are sufficient to reopen a question, whether or not a post got 3 "leave closed" votes in the queue.

@rschwieb I can't find a more authoritative answer, but it appears that three "Leave Closed" votes are sufficient to remove a question from the queue.

@XanderHenderson Informative... thanks for the investigation

@XanderHenderson First, that was not my attention, and I acknowledge it was not wise for me to have done. I should have said, "if everyone sees they can take a risk to embellish posts to get a post thought the reopen queue, and suffer only a role back *after they accomplished what they wanted" it would open the door to ongoing abuse. But you are right, I framed it poorly, more meaning "what if I...." I apologize for that. I think the "if everyone could get away with such behavior, we'll see it

pretty often...", so yes, I accept responsibility for making a poor choice in framing that response.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Linked punctuation in body (25): Function Mapping Editing Software by Keegan Paice on math.SE