In contrast to my lack of commenting here, I am still pingable, I hope. (Posting this, just to make sure).

Regarding this question:

I'm having trouble understanding what the actual question is. Am I being dense, or is it unclear?

@XanderHenderson: I can see multiple questions (at least 5) being put there. So "it needs focus". The math of the post goes over top of my head. I think this is better suited for MO. I would however prefer to wait for feedback from number theory gold badgers.

@user21820: regarding this question I would like to conclude that this is no longer a battle as I thought earlie, but rather a game being played using the features given by mathse. I hope there will come a point in future when the game becomes boring enough to discourage any further moves.

I also find it a bit surprising that posting about this in two others rooms (gentle and math mod office) practically froze the activity there. Maybe it's just a coincidence and the rooms will resume their activity soon.

@ParamanandSingh Frankly, it's because people do not sufficiently care about lying. As has been mentioned many times, it is far better to post a new good question of their own if they think some content is worth keeping, but the PSQ protectors always refuse to do so, instead insisting on protecting PSQs.

Note also that these same PSQ protectors upvote each other's answers every time. If they truly do not care about the rep (as they claim), then they should be posting CW answers. They don't.

@user21820 I think that would be misuse of CW. Community wiki was never intended as a mechanism to avoid getting reputation. (Although I am guilty of doing that myself in some cases.) The intention of CW is to created posts which are edited collaboratively by the community.

Although I suppose I am just saying things you're aware of, since you're rather active on meta.

Repfarmers at work to reopen a duplicate.

@user21820 "Creating a post of their own" only preserves the question, and not any answers.

@JyrkiLahtonen Should the duplicate be closed too? It is also a PSQ. Also, do you have any thoughts on this comment? Am I missing something?!

@user1729: there is an option of merging the old question with new. But frankly that particular question has carried the debate to a rather extreme end.

@user1729: I had seen the deleted comment you mention. This is what is typically called "putting words into someone else's mouth" and should be avoided.

Also I have seen that in such PSQ situation the asker is often a disinterested party and is mostly happy to get the answer (say for homework or assignment etc) and it is the answerers who take it forward.

@JyrkiLahtonen duplicates This question seems to be about the same problem: Proving $\frac{x}{y} +\frac{y}{z} + \frac{z}{x} \ge 3$ for positive $x,y,z$.

Which of the linked questions would be best as the duplicate target?

duplicates 381673: Proving $\frac{x}{y} +\frac{y}{z} + \frac{z}{x} \ge 3$ for positive $x,y,z$, 770341: Show $\frac{b}{c} + \frac{c}{a} + \frac{a}{b} \ge 3$ for $a,b,c > 0$., 1269415: Statement $\frac ab+\frac bc+\frac ca \ge 3$ is true for any positive $a$, $b$, $c$?

381673 definitely shows some effort from the OP.

@MartinSleziak: 381673 definitely looks better than others.

@user1729 You can read what I wrote in detail about this in the election chat-room. In particular, if a PSQ has only one answer, the answerer can post a new good Q&A pair instead. But ultimately the point is that they would rather continue answering bad questions and fighting to protect them.

770341 seems quite good too, as far as OP's effort goes.

@MartinSleziak: 770341 says that am-gm is a line of attack but does not use it properly.

@user21820 Being rather cynical: It takes a lot less time to dash off an answer than it does to write a new question and then post your answer.

@XanderHenderson Being as cynical: It's what you get when you want to be "killing it" on Math SE!

@ParamanandSingh Indeed. That is why I left this comment:

And then they edited in a "one sentence summary", which fails to make things much clearer or narrower.

@user21820 Dang, sir and/or ma'am! That is cynical!

Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on what you're concerned about at the moment, I'm more cynical about various countries' actions regarding the coronavirus... People used to call me cynical or idealistic. I wonder whether most science-lovers are as cynical right now as I was back then. =P

If only we could close and delete fake news!!

@user21820 Yes, but that is irrelevant to the post which Paramanand had just linked too. Batominovski was not the answerer there (nor in most of the questions I have seen them edit!).

@user1729 I was not talking about Batominovski in particular, but about the general phenomenon of undeletion by a very small group of PSQ protectors. But I also recall seeing Batominovski editing almost every PSQ that he/she answered, so it's not really irrelevant. The point is just that these people in general do not see an issue with fake attempts. They even admit that they are just doing that to protect the PSQs.

It's really quite unfathomable; I thought the field of mathematics had a higher standard of integrity.

@JyrkiLahtonen It seems that Michael Rozenberg is for closing as a duplicate: " I think we need to open this topic and maybe to close it as duplicate."

@user21820: I still think that integrity is rather important in the field of mathematics! The situation may not be perfect, but still better than other fields. So we can't lose hope yet

@XanderHenderson: you were more attentive and found 9 question marks. It appears I lost interest after 5

C

Adding to the discussion above, and reading user's comment on the question under discussion, it seems to me that many users of the site are not familiar with approach0.xyz's ability to search for duplicate questions. I use it quite often to search for duplicates.

@an4s: well I did not use approach0 in past, but I am trying to use it more and more. I use it on mobile so that it takes a bit more effort, but it seems it is worth that.

DA, DB, DC, DD, DE, DF, DG, DH

DI, DJ, DK, DL

@MartinSleziak That would be ok, I think.

This PSQ from 2014 could be deleted. It was closed at the time.

This is a PSQ. (Also, the current answer is more of a comment than an answer.)

Close please.

→ 1 message moved to ­Trash

^^^ @user21820

D1, D2, D3.

D4, D5, D6.

D7, D8, D9.

D10, D11, D12.

Useless 'answer'.

PSQ

@amWhy The SE bug prevents me from voting to close.

@user21820 I understand. No problem.

I had answered a question that got closed for lack of detail/clarity, and now have edited it, hopefully making the desired improvements. It remains closed, but has 4 re-open votes. Is there anything more I can/should do to get it re-opened?

If you had asked the question you edited, I'd be onboard, @r.e.s. But not when you edit a question to ask a question that was not asked, so your answer can stand.

close

It seems to me that what matters now is whether the question has been satisfactorily improved, not "who improved it". (Also, note that the asker has explicitly stated his approval of my edit.)

@r.e.s. That's your perspective, not mine.

Do you mind explaining why my answering the question should disqualify me from improving the question (with asker's approval)?

It's easy enough to edit a question to match the question one answered, or to ask a question you wish had been asked. It's not necessarily scrupulous to do so.

How does that take into account the asker's approval?

(Above, you referred to "edit a question to ask a question that was not asked", but this edit does ask the one intended.)

I don't see that the asker replied to your valid question if the question was homework, but you answered it anyway, then improved the question in hopes of your answer surviving.

@r.e.s. Sorry you answered a poor question. Think twice next time.

I suppose you are the one who just now downvoted both the question and my answer?

(I strongly disagree that the question as it now stands is a poor one. And hopefully my answer is not too poor either.)

Close pls

Why did you roll back the edit that improved the question and was approved by the asker? Also, did you vote to delete my answer? If so, why?

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in answer, bad keyword with email in answer, pattern-matching email in answer, potentially bad keyword in answer (271): How to recover $k$ lost items in binary data $x_1,x_2,x_3 \dots,x_n$? by Amalia Eva on math.SE