@amWhy Indeed I have come across this user. If I recall correctly, it's another of those who have no qualms posting about things they don't fully understand.
There are too many cranks to keep track of them all. I always wish to set up a chat-room to keep a record of cranks but that would be quite unacceptable according to site policies (be nice).
So I instead deal with crank posts when I see them.
@user21820 @amWhy I flagged some of his answers, questions and comments because they were terribly low quality and I couldn't understand what he is saying.
@Mathmore There is auto-deletion of old questions with negative score and no positive-score answer. Such deleted posts are labelled as "deleted by Community♦" as if Community is a user with mod status. According to my (possible inaccurate) memory, last time that was it. Now they are labelled with "(RemoveDeadQuestions)" as well, so people who can see it (including the author) can see the reason for the auto-deletion.
@user21820 Yes. Many of these posts are excruciatingly long, despite having nearly zero mathematical content. Somewhile ago, WB seemed to agree in a comment responding to me, that their posts had no place on mse and would be better suited to a personal blog. Apparently, they changed their mind since...
@Did Actually such posts are strange because it's not like they can successfully sway anyone to their viewpoint. What on earth is their viewpoint anyway?
And note his profile says "I am a formal philosophy,PHD student at the University of Queensland, Australia.". I truly wonder how to estimate the likelihood that it is true.
@amWhy @Did: Anyway I only voted to delete the posts that I could tell were junk quickly without having to read through them. I'd rather spend my time playing nice games/puzzles like this than reading what is sure to be junk!
@user21820 archive-hapi.uq.edu.au/william-balthes This might be from a while ago since the alleged advisor moved since. Wild guess: PhD never completed, need for an ear.
@Did Lol. I can't even find a single research paper that has both claimed supervisor and claimed PhD student as co-authors.
Anyway, whatever the case, I'll just vote according to the content. There was one post that actually had the correct underlying idea but was just a waste of space and time.
@user21820 Agree. Wild speculations may be amusing, for a while, but at the end we simply and only need to read the "answers" to know how to vote. And in the present case, the "answers" are... well, not suited to the site, shall we say.
@user21820 Probably some kind of delusion at work here. Need the feeling that they are a part of the club and get as close as they can to this feeling by posting these... things.
@A---B Only mods can tel about flags for sure. But in general if a flag pushes a question into reopen review queue, the flag is declined if the users reviewing it disagree. In this case the result of the review was to leave open. (You can find the reviews from the timeline of the post.)
The above was just to clarify that "close" flags are usually handled by reviews not by moderators. (So it was meant as a general comment not about this specific case.) I also see that you have edited the title - thanks for that, improving titles is certainly good thing to do. The question has many views - I wonder whether it has been in the HNQ.
@user21820 Rather bizarre accumulation of upvotes on the answers to this other question with no context by the same character: math.stackexchange.com/q/2489658
@Did shakes head and adds downvote and close vote.
@user21820 Downvoted and voted to close. When such poor questions, as @Did says, nothing but a straight PSQ, I am usually more frustrated with the upvoters than I am with the asker.... not to mention my frustration with the answerers, some of whom get far too many upvotes for answering.
@user21820, @SimplyBeautifulArt, @Did One more downvote here to open for deletion.
$\uparrow$ While your at it, while deleting the question would take care of the answer as well, this answer is half-baked, was wrong, and even after editing, is wrong, and is now up for deletion.
@Mathmore Thanks! I saw a bunch of his posts in the review queue (indeed, maybe because of your good flags), and voted to delete everyone I saw, plus I couple I found, given how poor so many of his answers were.
Another poor PSQ + gibberish from dimwitt04. I'm seriously thinking this "new user" (4days on site) may be a sock puppet. I'll look more closely at the answerers to each of the three questions. Anyway, our friend MR as work again. In any case, the question needs to be closed.
