[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Link at beginning of answer (38): How can the union of sets be seen to be an example of a pushout?‭ by keith krugerud‭ on math.SE

Reopen

Motivation, relevant definitions - its all there

What baffles me though is someone downvoted my hard work just because they felt like the question needed to be closed. Well thought behavior it is not

@Jakobian You posted your own proof to the question. Is this allowed?

@ТymaGaidash I don't know what you mean by "allowed", but the culture of this room does ask that people disclose their own affiliation with posts on which they request action. Thus it is considered appropriate to say "I answered this question," as part of a request. @Jakobian

I answered this question

Thank you for helping me reopen it

@ТymaGaidash I don't see a problem with it. Its a contribution to the community at large. If the OP disagrees with it, they can roll it back

@Jakobian It can be perceived as a conflict of interest. If you answered a question, and you want that question reopened, you should note, in your request for reopening, that you answered the question. That's all.

@XanderHenderson noted for the future. I wasn't aware of this rule, or, CURED culture so to speak

@XanderHenderson Here is a small clarification. The question itself was edited so as to include a proof not from the OP. The link in the original comment was to the revision.

@ТymaGaidash Oh, that is a problem.

@XanderHenderson I don't see how this violates any of the points here

> Do not add an attempt. Adding an attempt modifies the author's intent by adding presumed information about their background, prior knowledge, mistakes or lack thereof in earlier parts of the question, and their understanding of mathematics in general.

Note the reasons for not adding attempts.

You add presumptions about the asker's knowledge, which may not be correct.

It is not an attempt, but added motivation

@Jakobian I just addressed that.

The author stated the theorem, I only added the proof

@Jakobian But the author did not include a proof.

It was not part of the original authorial intent.

The theorem is not directly related to the question but it only motivates it

> However, we don't want to get into a ship of Theseus situation here. With few exceptions, a question should primarily remain the product of its author, while being helped and improved by editors, not commandeered by editors.

The question was only improved on

It doesn't change anything other than the quality of it. It doesn't count as an attempt

You are missing the point. It is not about whether or not the question was improved. It is about preserving the original authorial intent.

And how was it changed

You can use the comments to suggest that the asker should include a proof, but you don't get to just declare that a proof should have been included and add it yourself.

It didn't have to be included. The question was good on its own

@Jakobian You keep moving the goalposts. You believe that the question was good as is. Five other members of the community disagree. And it very much looks, to an outsider, like you usurped the original author's post by adding inorganic "context", in a way which misled open voters.

Those five other members were wrong

This kind of bothers me, as it has created a situation in which the original asker's work has not been judged on it's own merits, putting them in a kind of awkward spot. The edit you made is something which should have been suggested in a comment.

@Jakobian You are free to believe that.

But I don't think that is a helpful or productive way to look at interactions with other users. You disagree with them. That doesn't make them wrong. It doesn't make you wrong, either. It is possible for people of good intention and will to simply disagree.

But your actions have very much muddied the waters.

It is very possible that the question would have been reopened without your edits---but we don't know, because you didn't give the community a chance to do it's thing, and review the version of the question which was asked by the original author.

In any event, I have other things I need to do this morning, and must attend to those, now.

How is my action different than adding a relevant definition or theorem

> You can add in relevant definitions, theorems, or simple background and motivation.

Attempt at the question was untouched

You are acting like expanding on what motivates the question counts as an attempt on the question - which it doesn't

It was stated that exhaustion by compact sets + Hausdorff implies existence of exhaustion-function, without proof. But the question isn't to prove this

It it if the same theorem holds if the space is only assumed to be exhaustible by open sets and not necessarily Hausdorff

But if you disagree with me, lets ask @AlexanderGruber to expand on what they meant by above quote and how it relates to my action

I find my action both appropriate and ethical

> Do not expand the question with so much context that it changes fundamentally. Doing so modifies the author's intent by presuming the author's level of sophistication and mathematical maturity.

The original question was 158 words (822 characters). The version you posted was 339 words (1781 characters). You more than doubled the length of the question. The version you posted contained more text written by you than by the original author. This is not appropriate.

As to ethics, I don't understand the relevance. No one suggested that the edits were unethical---only that they went beyond the site guidelines on editing other people's work.

In any event, I have explained the actions I took and cited the policy which I believe justifies those actions. I have done this in my capacity as a moderator. This is no longer an appropriate venue to debate the policy. You can either accept what I have said, or you can take it up on Meta.

@XanderHenderson most of this is because of LaTeX. So its ingenuine comparison on your part

@XanderHenderson no such thing occured

@XanderHenderson I already did.

I won't accept what you said, I still disagree with you on multiple points. None of the things you tried to apply actually applies to this case

@Jakobian Disclosing "affiliation" is not a "rule" but only a recommendation that some users attempt to force on others. Not to mention that it is a waste of time stating what is completely obvious to anyone who spends the proper time evaluating such requests. Gamification is the root of all evil on this platform. We should strive to ignore it - not over-emphasize it.

@BillDubuque I'm not sure what "gamification" has to do with this. There is a general consensus that one should disclose affiliations one has with a post (see, for example, math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/34447, where the post simply asks that people explain if they have affiliations with the question).

And no, it is not always obvious that someone asking for action is involved in that action, e.g. the very question which was discussed a couple of hours ago, where it was not immediately obvious that the person requesting action had rewritten the question.

So, while you are correct that it is not a "rule", I think that your assertion that this recommendation is something "that some users attempt to force on others" goes too far.

It is a request: If you are involved in a closing or deleting or reopening or whatever, and you have significantly interacted with the post which you want closed or deleted or reopened or whatever, please let us know.

@XanderHenderson Afaik your claim that "there is a consensus" is quite unjustified. Even the SE system does not attach such scarlet letters to administrative actions such as flagging, voting, etc, e.g. there are no notices in the review queues highlighting actions by users who are "affiliated" with the post (whatever that may mean).

@XanderHenderson fyi, for the record, that remark in the meta Reopen request thread about "disclosing involvement" was not there when I originally created the Reopen request page in 2012. It was added by quid 8 years later in 2020. It worked fine without if for 8 years.

@BillDubuque Whether or not it worked fine before, the change occurred, reflecting the evolving culture of the site. Math SE is not the same place it wasa decade ago.

@XanderHenderson Do you seriously think that one users remark "reflects the evolving culture of the site"? If you can justify your claim with data then please do so. Otherwise it is merely your personal opinion.

I'm also not sure that I understand what you find so onerous about the request that people take three words to say "I answered this" or "I edited this." It gives decision makers some up-front context.

@BillDubuque yes.

And I really didn't appreciate the implication that I might not "seriously believe" what I am saying, and am therefore commenting on bad faith.

@XanderHenderson There is no need to say "I answered this". That should play no role whatsoever in the evaluation of whether the question should be closed, reopened, deleted etc. We are here to disseminate mathematical knowledge, not to win gaming points, badges etc.

So, as a moderator, I will continue to politely request that people disclose their affiliations when they request that others take action---I don't understand what your objection to this level of transparency is, and I don't believe that you are correct in asserting that there is no consensus about this.

If you would like to find the data to contradict me, I would invite you to do so.

@XanderHenderson There are no such "rules" here nor there. I could remove quid's remark just as easily as he added. It is extremely sad that the gamification has hooked so many users that they cannot even trust that their peers act in good faith.

You are the one who keeps bringing up gamification, and how evil it is. Personally, I think that being clear about one's own motivation is good.

But as long as gamification is part of the conversation, this entire site is built on gamification. How many posts on meta are complaints from users about how the gamified elements of the site have hurt them? How many flags do moderators handle complaining about a downvote her or there (hint: quite a few)? While you might be above it all with respect to gamification, it is clear that many other users are not.

A simple "Hey, heads up, I answered this question. I think it is a good question and should be reopened" immediately dispels a lot questions about someone's motivations. In the end, I think that this is more likely to lead to happy outcomes for everyone.

@XanderHenderson Again, even the SE system does not attach such scarlet letters to adminstrative actions. Try to have some faith in your peers - most of us act in good faith.

You are being dramatic. What "scarlet letters" are you talking about?

And, thus far, the only person accusing anyone else of bad faith is you, accusing me of bad faith.

Someone can be acting in good faith, and still give the impression of acting in bad faith. A simple "hey, I answered this" makes it a lot easier for other people to assume good faith---it makes it clear, up front, that the person has nothing to hide.

Not, also, that I have never said that disclosure is a hard-and-fast rule (either here or in the meta thread). It is a request. No one is forced to do anything. But it is not unreasonable for someone to ask that folk disclose when they have a vested interest in the fate of a question.

I said nothing about you acting in bad faith - please read more carefully. Scarlet letter refers to the annotations you insist on, viz. "I answered this" (so maybe I am gaming the system etc). There is no need for such remarks.

@BillDubuque If you don't want to leave such remarks, don't.

But it is not unreasonable for other people in this room to politely ask that others do.

@XanderHenderson Do you think one should also preface their answers with "I am answering this because I wish to share these beautiful ideas of Gauss, not because it is on the Hot Network List so I will gain a huge amount of rep"?

@BillDubuque That is a totally different situation.

When you ask other people to take action, and you stand to benefit from them taking that action (even if it is just imaginary internet points, which people here often take way too seriously), it is fair for others to ask that you disclose this, first.

Nowhere has anyone stated that this is a hard and fast rule, but it is something with helps to lubricate interaction here, as it preempts accusations of acting in bad faith.

I get that you like to stand on principles, but I am speaking more out of social pragmatics.

@XanderHenderson Ok, finally something we can agree on - "it is not a hard and fast rule". Let's leave it at that.

@BillDubuque When, at any point, have I ever claimed otherwise? I have tried to be very careful to avoid any language about it being a rule. I have said, repeatedly, that it is a "polite request".

Perhaps using the word "opinion"?

May I suggest :-)

@XanderHenderson Jakobian interpret your opinion as a rule. That's what sparked my original reply.

@BillDubuque If all you had written was "Disclosing 'affiliation' is not a "rule" but only a recommendation," I would have had no quarrel with you. The addition of "...that some users attempt to force on others," crossed a line. I don't think that is a fair characterization of any of the interactions I have seen in this room (or in the meta thread), and it unfairly castigates other people.

Which is exactly what I said in the first place:

@XanderHenderson I have seen a couple users try to force that rule on others. And at least one user will downvote your posts if you don't follow that rule (which I will not).

💪

@BillDubuque If you see it, please ping me. I don't think that it should be forced on people, but I also don't think that the request for disclosure is unreasonable.

Herd mentality is everywhere.

🐂🐂🐂

It's apart of "social pragmatics."

@XanderHenderson It's part of a much larger problem - that many of those who are caught up in the rep game can't believe that there are others who couldn't care less about it. They view every action through gamified glasses. Please let us teach mathematics unecumbered by such puerile matters.

cv-pls commutative-algebra This question seems to have been abandoned (though it otherwise seems fine). Anyone feel like answering it? Or closing it? Do $I$-torsion and $I$-torsion-free modules form a torsion pair‭ - Alex‭ 2023-12-22 06:47:56Z

D answerer misread question so their answer does not apply (and - to boot- the misread version is a dupe of a FAQ).