@XanderHenderson hehehe one is to be expected to show up, and the other, Jack: he can't help himself from answering PSQ's much more than Dr.

So... how did this get any upvotes at all?

It looks like straight up trolling to me...

@XanderHenderson >:-[ Time to go bye-bye for that question.

PSQ: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2605289/…. Note the user. Everyone of their questions that I've encountered thus far is a PSQ/no effort/ nada.... yet seems to manage to get upvotes. See Carrick

A few days ago I posted about what appeared to be the entirely irrational closing of a question. People in this forum told me I was abusive because I suggested that it was irrational. Since that time I got an emailed apology from one of the close voters saying that if he or she voted to close that question then it was a mistake. It seems of interest to note that this close voter could not remember participating.

The review queue is plainly designed in a way that encourages inattentiveness. Only deliberately making oneself dull-witted could make its use tolerable. That is why I am less than fully surprised that a participant couldn't even remember participating.

My best guess is that the above messages by @MichaelHardy specifically refer to his previous messages here and to the question Variance of a sum of correlated random variables. The final line of the work is right but it does not make sense to me (revisions/timeline).

Although probably he is mainly interested in making a general point rather than discussing this specific instance.

@MichaelHardy I cannot speak of others but for me a close vote review quite often take several minutes. (Very often I edit the question if I see some immediate improvements which are needed, I try to search for duplicates, look at comments whether the OP has given some additional information, etc.)

Probably there are some users who are not very careful when doing reviews, but thinking that this is case for majority of reviews would probably be rather bold generalization.

@amWhy Open for deletion?

@XanderHenderson I believe it's a genuine illustration of the failure of mathematics education. You won't believe how many students just randomly write junk in the hope of getting partial credit.

@XanderHenderson According to their other posts, they may be terrible at algebra. But idk...

@amWhy @Did @ZacharySelk: Open for deletion.

@user21820 =/

@SimplyBeautifulArt Even if you don't believe me, witness the telltale signs in one of the answers in your linked thread:

> Well what you have done is wrong but sometimes it may seem right and can get you good grades. If you are right then the things below are also right.

Why would he say that unless there is some truth in this stupid reality?

:l

I would downvote that answer for that first line, but would upvote it for the last line, so no vote from me...

lol

@amWhy @user21820, @Did, @ZacharySelk One more delete vote needed.

$$ \frac{64}{16} = \frac{\not{6}4}{1\kern-4pt\not{6}} = \frac{4}{1} = 4, $$ no?

That's what this is, more or less

@XanderHenderson That's definitely right. Same way with 95/19. You just cancel the 9's and you get 5, pretty sure that's how math works.

Yay math!

@user21820, @Did, @ZacharySelk, @SimplyBeautifulArt, @XanderHenderson, @DavidReed PSQ and "please show some images!"

@MartinSleziak : Do you see any way to view the closing of that particular question as anything other than completely irrational?

@MichaelHardy I don't understand this question at all.

Could you at least specify what you mean by "that particular question"? Do you mean: Variance of a sum of correlated random variables. The final line of the work is right but it does not make sense to me?

Similarly as there can be questions with missing context, the same is true about chat messages.

@MichaelHardy I don't know what question you are asking about, but the simple fact that someone disagrees with you needn't imply that they are irrational, or that they are behaving in an irrational manner. Personally, I would appreciate it if you could make an attempt to moderate your tone and cease casting aspersions.

I mean, do as you like, but flies, honey, vinegar, and all that...

@MartinSleziak : That is the one.

@XanderHenderson : I never thought someone disagreeing with me means they are irrational.

@MichaelHardy Ok, it's great that we at least clarified which question you meant. It would be really helpful if you started to use reply function in chat - so that it is at least clear to which message you are replying. (Notice the small arrow on the left from this message - which indicates what I am replying to.)

If you do not mind, I will leave the assessment of this particular closure to users who are more familiar with this topic (and, ideally, also to users who interacted with that specific question.)

Let me just say that I appreciate the effort you put into improving the question. Hardly anybody could object to closing the question in its original form.

Whelp, that right there is at least one "rational" reason for a downvote: it hadn't been edited yet.

@XanderHenderson To be honest I am not sure about that. The question definitely entered review queue before the first Michael Hardy's edit. If the timestamps in the review are correct, most of the votes came after this edit (both close and leave open).

Anyway, it seems that the discussion has moved into the comments under the question. Personally, I probably do not have much to add to what I wrote above. I am pretty sure there are people better qualified to judge this case, I tend to participate in closures only in areas I am sufficiently familiar with.

Well, @MartinSleziak I initiated the close voting, and it was only after my vote to close, that MH saw fit to edit the post, and alter the question to fit the question he wanted to answer.

Needs one more delete vote, @Did, @user21820, @ZacharySelk, @SimplyBeautifulArt: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2582469/…

@MartinSleziak Possibly---I have trouble parsing all of the timestamps. At any rate, I don't see the necessity in declaring that every downvote or vtc is "irrational"

it is inflammatory language when a simple "Hey, I don't think that this question should have been closed" or even "How the heck did this get downvoted?" would have been just as good, without casting aspersions.

This should probably be put on hold until the OP provides some details.

@MartinSleziak Upon @MichaelHardy's prompting, valid points made in response to Michael's "Why the downvotes"? were deleted. MH likes to play games, act like a drama queen, edit and protest for the sake of the outchomes on the answers he provides to questionable questions.

@MichaelHardy This may account for one user who voted to close. I voted to close based on an unclear and off-topic question as presented from the OP, ***prior to any edit you made to the question, to mold it to conform to your understanding of the question, upon which you had already answered. And then there were three other users, in addition to me, who haven't made a "mistake". Because one user out of five doesn't focus or attend to the review of the question, ...

@MichaelHardy ... doesn't mean the four other reviewers who voted to close were also inattentive. And, note, that there was likely just as much blind, inattentive, amnesiac and/or biased voting behavior from those voting to reopen.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Mostly non-Latin title: $R_{35}(1761^{4784})$ by Waterhouse on math.SE

@amWhy I am not sure that rollback was a reasonable way to go. Since the OP accepted answer, it's quite reasonable to assume that they were satisfied with the new version of the question, too. Moreover, they did not edit the new version of the question.

However, since this escalated to flagging and edit/rollback war, probably it's up to the moderators to deal with the situation. (Since you have mentioned flagged comments, they are most likely aware of this question.)

I made one reasonable roll-back. And a few comments, two of which were deleted, in response to Michael's comment asking about why the question received downvotes. He claims no one have offered such reasoning, when the fact of the matter, Michael has acted (via flagging) to shut down or delete those attempting to answer his questions. Then he turns around and rants about "no one offering any sound argument supporting close votes."

@MartinSleziak I am not trying to argue with anything you've said here. If the mods choose to enable behavior we've seen similarly in MR and Jack ("edit, even if what is edited ends up not what the asker wrote or asked, after all, most likely the asker l won't know the difference anyway." "And importantly, frame the questions so that my current answer answers the newly framed question."), that simply reveals the mods are likely too naive about such matters.

@MichaelHardy Hey Michael! Please try to remember that the notion of a "good" or "bad" question is inherently subjective and that people will not always agree. I frequently will upvote questions that are flagged as bad in here. I generally will just point out why I have done so and leave it to others to determine whether my reason is grounds for them changing their opinion.

@MartinSleziak There was no "edit or rollback war". I made what I consider to be a reasonable roll-back. No edits, (though another user formatted the askers question in mathjax.) So, I have not persistently rolled back anything; if there's to be an edit/rollback war, it will be from Jack or Michael Hardy. Please choose your words more carefully. One rollback, does not an edit/rollback war escalate. And I cast NO FLAGS. So take your advice to the ones who have escalated.

@MartinSleziak How do you use the reply function? I was not aware of this.

Please advise, @MartinSleziak How is making one rollback to the question Michael was having a fit about,with respect to its closure, to help reveal what I voted on, escalating any kind of "edit war"? Nor did I cast any flags, so please tell me who is engaging in the "flagging war". All I know is that Michael did not rewrite the question until after my close vote, and if he wants to understand why I cast a reasonable close vote, then we need to discuss the original question.

Sorry about that, @MartinSleziak ... sometimes I forget to, and it causes confusion. So perhaps I over did it. But I saw only three pings from me.

@amWhy What do you expect now from me. Am I allowed to have a different opinion that you have?

You say you consider this reasonable rollback. I don't. Let us simply end with that.

@MartinSleziak Sure you can. But it was inappropriate to call my single roll-back, no other edits, and no flagging, an escalation of the roll-back edit "war", and "flagging war". So I expect an apology for characterizing my single action as an escalation on two fronts, when I never participated in any flagging whatsoever on that question.

@DavidReed When you click on the arrow next to a message (to the left), you can choose permalink or reply.

@MartinSleziak Sure, you want to end there, so be it. I'm not going to force you to acknowledge at least one misstep you made by including me in any kind of flagging that happened. Because I cast none, nada, zilch, zero, nil such flags on the question or its answers..

I don't really understand the last message you posted.

I did not say that I am speaking about "single action by you".

I think exchange like this is rather contraproductive.

@MartinSleziak "...However, since this escalated to flagging and edit/rollback war, probably it's up to the moderators to deal with the situation. (Since you have mentioned flagged comments, they are most likely aware of this question.)" I participated in neither a flagging or edit war.

Yes. As I said I did not consider the rollback which you did a good thing to do. But you definitely have right to do this.

I described the situation of the question - just look how many editors are already there with rollbacks back and forth.

The only comment I addressed directly at you was that I do not think that the rollback to revision 1 was the way to go.

@amWhy If you think I somehow misrepresented your actions I do apologize. But I was not speaking specifically only about your actions in connection with this post.

Let's leave the things to moderators, maybe they are going to be more moderate than we are.

You insinuated (implied that "since this...[rollback]), I was the "cause" of what you call "escalated flagging and an edit/rollback war. On rollback does not an editwar make. No flagging does not an edit war make. Flagging preceded me.

@MartinSleziak Well, I sort of did feel that way. But I know you well enough, and tried not to take it personally. No worries. Besides, Jack has probably escalated matters even more, by rolling back my roll back, and likely adding more edits at the same time.

Would it be ok if I rephrase the message I posted in this way: However, since this escalated to flagging and edit/rollback war, However, there were several edits of the post in quick succession and amWhy even mentioned some flags, so probably it's up to the moderators to deal with the situation.

@MartinSleziak That's fine. I like that! Sorry if it felt to you like I over-reacted. I appreciate your level-headedness.

Re: @Jack Am I good or what? Big smile on my face: Indeed, Jack couldn't control is obsessive need to protect anything he's edited, through roll-backs, additional edits, etc. Now he's the one triggering a roll-back war. I just have to laugh :D, because I just now returned to the question after more than an hour, and sure enough, my prophecy that Jack wouldn't be able to resist his editing compulsion is proven!

Clearly, some mods have also made some clean-up of the comments - there is only one comment now and there used to be 5 or 6 I'd guess.

Of course I have no desire, nor need, to trigger Jacks obsessive/compulsive need to edit. I'm satisfied that I can predict pretty much everywhere, once Jack makes an edit, he guards it. I actually think Jack thinks that no one can present a question better than he can, and that no edit of his should ever be edited. Can't say if that's a delusional stance, But ...

So, I'm sorry if that I caused some turmoil here (if that is correct word to use).

@MartinSleziak No, I don't see it that way! Seriously...! I like "if" in this context.

@amWhy @Did @user21820 math.stackexchange.com/questions/503195/am-i-just-bad-at-math one more delete vote needed

@ZacharySelk On what question? =P

I don't know @ZacharySelk, are you just bad at math?

oh

it is gone now :(

@ZacharySelk seriously, it's gone/deleted :-)

Are questions put on hold automatically deleted after a certain window of time?

@DavidReed Under certain circumstances.

@DanielFischer That was quick!

Two minutes. I've seen people be much quicker.

@DanielFischer :p Take a compliment when you can get one, no?

Only when they're undeserved ;-)

@amWhy I do not like to play games. I dislike all the acrimony here.

I dislike all the acrimony here, too. Which, if I remember correctly, you introduced into this room?

I shall not engage at this point, @MichaelHardy. Maybe at another point, when I see you're willing to engage in conversation that doesn't out of hand reject views other than yours.

@MichaelHardy As mentioned Michael it is really all in the approach. I, myself, elect to tell people my reasons for keeping it open to try to change their mind instead of challenging them to defend their reasons for closing it. The latter method tends to put them on the defensive and make them dig their heels in. Sometimes also they will have a viewpoint that I have not thought of.

Bummer. I think my answer will probably be deleted then, although he changed both the name of the question and the question itself after the fact (making me look like a moron). Nonetheless is an important topic.

@DavidReed I have no clue what question you are even talking about.

@DavidReed what question?

@DavidReed In any case, I don't think it's the question Michael blew his cool over.

wow... that really did change the question

I'm tempted to roll back the edit...

Honestly in its current form it should probably be moved for a delete vote.

@DavidReed I think you're forgetting that you voted to reopen the question MH has ranted about. That's your choice, I have no issue with that, and you never tried to pummel me for suggesting is should have remained close. Disagreements happen; but note the difference: you did not verbally attack those who voted to close; MH did. Big difference.

@amWhy My 2nd comment was in reference to my earlier question about "on hold" questions. I don't believe I have upvoted any questions by Michael today. I am simply advising him of a better way to approach people

@DavidReed No, I didn't say that. But rather, the question MH fumed about being closed way up in this chat transcript, you had voted to reopen. And that's okay. I din't say anything about votes on MH's posts. And I get it now.

@amWhy So you agree that a rollback makes sense. ;) I've re-TeX-ified it.

@XanderHenderson Great! (Yes, rollback makes sense; the asker was trying to get two answers to two questions, in one question post!)

Ah yes ;) I followed my own advice there as well. I simply voiced I thought it should remain open because the asker already had the answer and was seeking to understand why it was the answer, as opposed to just wanting the answer outright; I didn't challenge anyone to defend why they voted the way it did. Often I won't even go that far and just vote the way I want to vote without bringing it up to others.

At any rate, even if the question were asked well, it is a duplicate

I am tempted to vote to reopen just so that it can be closed as a dupe

though it might be better to downvote and delete ;)

@XanderHenderson Ah good, really that answer should be found somewhere on the site. As long as it is, I am happy with either outcome.

Ack... I just noticed the tags on that question. :`(

The answer to the question I mean, not necessarily my answer ;)

@XanderHenderson I have switched my upvote to a downvote in support of that cause

Heh

Close worthy PSQ

The answer to that question is kind of out there, too.

Close worth PSQ 2

I mean, there is no reason to bring up computational complexity for a fairly simple problem like making 24 cents out of some number of coins...

or whatever

Close worthy PSQ 3

@XanderHenderson I agree.

@amWhy I did not knowingly introduce acrimony. I wrote of the complete irrationality of closing a certain question when that question was one about which I though nobody would disagree. I thought it was simply a thoughtless closing, used to illustrate that people are acting in haste before they realize what they're doing. That someone might disagree about that one after reading it had not occurred to me. And still doesn't.

@amWhy I am not yet aware that anyone has expressed disagreement with the proposition that that particular closing was both wrong and obviously so.

@DavidReed I didn't know I was asking people to defend reasons for closing a question; I thought I was just saying: Look, you closed this so hastily you didn't even realize what you were closing. Do you think I was wrong in thinking that, and that people actually had reasons in that particular case? That seems far-fetched.

Then you haven't been reading, listening, or willing to acknowledge that there are those that think your rants were wrong, that the closing was corrrect, and obviously correct.

@amWhy That cannot be taken seriously if no one states some reason for closing that question. You explicitly declined to do that.

@MichaelHardy Why don't you explain why, after answering or upvoting so hastily, a post, that you didn't even realize what you were upvoting, or reopening.

@amWhy : You say that without citing any particular post in which you think I did that. I cited a particular post.

@MichaelHardy I did so, very fully. I reserve the right to not again engage with a person who denies such reasons were given.

Good day, @MichaelHardy. As I said, when you're ready, and willing, and receptive, to engagement, to find areas that we may agree upon, and those that perhaps, not so much, and respect that just as you feel principled and maintain that posture, others (like me) are also principled, just as much you think you are, there can be no discussion. Period. Cheers!

@MichaelHardy What you don't seem to grok is that people are legitimately offended by your assumption that the only justification for a downvote or close vote is irrational. People of good will can disagree without name-calling.

@amWhy "I did so, very fully." Not so. You explicitly said you would not do so. I don't know yet of anyone claiming that anything in particular was a reason for that closing. I am aware that one of the close-voters later said there was none and it was a mistake.

....................................................................

Frankly, if you are still upset about the question about the variance of a sequence of correlated random variables, I am still tempted to downvote it; I don't think that it is a very good question, both because it is hard to read and because similar questions have been asked and answered multiple times on this site in the past

but, hey, maybe I'm just irrational...

@XanderHenderson I never thought the only reason for any close vote on any question anywhere is irrational. I thought only that that was obviously true of one particular question that I cited.

and that is the only question that is under discussion, so far as I can tell...

@XanderHenderson Down-voting a question for that reason would be dishonest.

and I just gave a reason why one might downvote or vtc

why?

I honestly believe that it isn't a very good question

I am not sure that it is bad enough that it should be taken off of this site, but I don't think it is all that great, either

but, again, disagreeing with you seemingly requires bad intent...

@MichaelHardy I spoke to you and explained my position long before your message about the same ole question appeared today, and long before I stated I will not engage any further with you on this matter. You blew it. I spoke, you didn't want to hear it, denied it, pretended, played the role of a drama queen. I'm done.

This room was placed in timeout for 6 minutes; Calm down, everyone

We're back! $\ddot \smile$.

@MichaelHardy @MichaelHardy I have left you a msg in the constructive feedback room

Big sigh...

He asked me a question, would be rude of me not to answer :(

@XanderHenderson I never thought that all who fail to see the merit of a question is irrational, but only that someone who thinks that particular question is off topic wasn't paying attention.

@MichaelHardy You said "Do you see any way to view the closing of that particular question as anything other than completely irrational?"

you immediately assumed that anyone who voted to close was behaving irrationally

your first move was to cast aspersions at those who disagreed with you

if you cannot see why people reacted poorly to this, may I suggest that stack exchange has a section on interpersonal skills?

Let's all let this go. Michael Hardy should be happy because the question he answered remains open. and his points/rep is safe. This site is about currently closed questions, or those at risk of closure, about questions to reopen?, about questions to undelete?, about questions/answers to "delete", about questions in need of editing. It is not mean to ingratiate a user who is still complaining about a closed question, when in fact, the question is open. Please. This matter is over here.

@amWhy Okay, I'm done. Sorry.

@amWhy ? I felt very much what I said to be "constructive feedback". I think perhaps you may have read my ping (sry about that, it was actually part of a "model" sentence for him to approach you with). If you read it carefully I think you will find it is not argumentative and was meant to be "constructive" in terms of helping him approach people better on the issue.

@XanderHenderson No worries, Xander. It was, after all, the fact that MH was the one to reopen the can of worms today about a question that is currently open, still upset because it had been closed.

@DavidReed There appears to me to be no way to post in that room. The "join" button doesn't work.

@DavidReed This was not directed at you, @David. It was a good suggestion you made. But Michael has heard so many similar encouragements, has been challenged for his histrionics, etc., that every attempt to talk to him will result in yet another comment from his exclaiming how unfair everything is, how irrational everyone is. etc. @Michael, it's temporary, but please heed the reason it was on a time-out.

@amWhy Ok, you pinged me so I interpreted it that way. Thank you for clarifying ;)

@DavidReed ;)

@MetaEd You around?

@DavidReed I did not deem your message as argumentative. I was simply trying to prevent an argument from happening. I'm sorry if you were under the impression that the time-out was because of your action/s. Not at all.

oops, we covered that ground already.

Hi everyone

@D.Hutchinson Hello!

Oops :0 sorry that I walked into this

:(

@amWhy are you a moderator of MSE?

math.SE has really declined

@D.Hutchinson No, just a plain ole' user!

ah, I see

@D.Hutchinson I agree.

yeah - it was beautiful back then ...