DV/Del PSQ which can be answered very simply (cf. first comment on question) but, alas, has an accepted answer far more complicated than need be.

@XanderHenderson It wasn't just about getting the offensive post deleted quicker (which I assumed would happen sooner or later). Mainly I thought that if the post got quietly deleted by the community then the user itself would get away with the offensive act and then repeat the trolling again. I figured if I flag it for what it is then moderators could take action not only against the question but also against the "asker". (By the way, it was posted on what's called "420 day". Doubt that's incidental.)

That user does have a long track of participation in SE, even if not in MSE, so their post seems weird. Maybe they had one puff too many on "420 day"..

@Snaw Remember that moderators are supposed to be "exception handlers". A new user who consistently trolls will rapidly find themselves banned from posting (via automatic systems). A long time user who posts a bit of stupid trash will have that trash deleted, and little else. A longtime user who decides to post a lot of trash will soon find themselves unable to participate (again, automatically).

And, again, the references, while immature, did not (in my opinion) rise to the level of abusive or offensive. Anyone who gets the references will be (hopefully) mature enough to downvote and move on, while anyone who does not get the references... won't get the references.

Again, I don't think that there was an "exception" which needed "handling' in this case.

Standard flags and user actions should have been sufficient.

@XanderHenderson Thanks for the information. While I'd still believe some sort of suspension or warning could prevent a borderline offensive trolling act from turning into something more serious next time, I do get your point about the situation being handled automatically and that moderators should be the "exception handlers". I guess it's also a sort of a visceral response on my part, expecting those who meant harm to be castigated.

A multiple duplicate (currently on the HNQ): math.stackexchange.com/q/4432299/42969

I suggest to close this question math.stackexchange.com/q/4430772/42969 about the zeros of the Riemann zeta function. Even after several edits and various requests for clarification, it still makes no sense to me.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Blacklisted username (90): Solve the equation for M‭ by Michele Gadd‭ on math.SE

CD

D

C

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Blacklisted username, blacklisted user (161): Solutions to a generalized Diophantine equation‭ by Michele Gadd‭ on math.SE

CD

C

D

CD

I got a couple suspicious downvotes today at 12:08Z and @MartinR got 1 at the same time (all within 1 minute) so they are almost surely retaliation for mod actions initiated here. If anyone else got one around the same then we should consider reporting this to the SE team to nip this problem in the bud.

@BillDubuque I had noticed that as well, but there is probably not sufficient proof of targeted voting. (I try not to care about unexplained downvotes, but I don't always manage to :)

DA, DB, DC, DD, DE, DF

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Shortened url in answer (58): Lottery numbers and chaos/quantum theory‭ by Almir‭ on math.SE

Likely they are related to posts we interacted on above.

@XanderHenderson I'm confused about an edit I suggested here math.stackexchange.com/questions/3303713/… , I included the tag examples-counterexamples but it was rejected.

Do you have an idea of why was that?

@V.R.M. math.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/1780514

"This edit introduces tags that do not help to define the topic of the question. Tags should help to describe what the question is about, not just what it contains."

now that the bounty is over, please close

@XanderHenderson hmm but then this "To be used for questions whose central topic is a request for examples where a mathematical property holds, or counterexamples where it does not hold. This tag should be used in conjunction with another tag to clearly specify the subject." ? from the tag [examples-counterexamples] description

@V.R.M. I had nothing to do with the rejection of your edit. I don't know what insight you want from me.

That being said, I don't see any indication that the user is looking for examples or counterexamples; the asker seems to be looking for a proof or disproof, which could be a counter example, but needn't be.

@XanderHenderson Indeed, you're right. Thanks.