I share @amWhy's strong concern about this situation - which is quite rare. Generally, I think the folks in CRUDE have gone quite too far in their quality control mission and I can understand why Michael and others find that frustrating.

Michael's actions, as I understand them though, should be strongly sanctioned. I'm shocked that such petty differences over appropriate behavior here on StackExchange would lead to intimidating behavior off the site.

The fact that this action was taken against a graduate student by someone 20 years past their Ph.D. is an additional concern.

@quid states that the actions are difficult to sanction because they did not occur on this site. It seems to me that this is all the more reason to sanction.

I certainly hope that, StackExchange doesn't want disagreements on their site to spill over into people's lives away from the site. Seems potentially dangerous to me.

Somehow my chat account is still active. This kind of thing is why I left the site, and why I am glad I left the site. I honestly did, and still do, deeply care about the site and it is painful to talk about it. I don't really have much more to say. I am just sad that something that I once thought of highly is now a source of pain. I wish everyone the best. With much love, Zack.

@MarkMcClure if you visit a bar and get into an argument with someone there and this someone then complains to your boss that you are a bad person, do you expect the bar to be the one that sorts this out for you? Especially, do you expect the bouncer of the bar to take proactive action against this someone because they overheard a conversation where that someone said they talk to your boss about you. Maybe if you tell the bar about this they might do something, but even this is not a given.

I understand the analogy is not very exact, still I think there is some merit into pondering that scenario to see similarities and differences.

@MarkMcClure certainly. But do you believe that the best way to control against off-site emails is to shut down the possibility to communicate on-site?

I agree that the situation is highly problematic (and there was some activity related to this long before y'all here knew about it). But the simplistic solutions some here seem to envision might not be all that great.

@quid One also hopes that ZS's home institution gives MH's comments exactly the time and attention they merit (which is to say, none at all). It is, however, profoundly disturbing to see someone in a well-established career who is so thin-skinned that they seek to sabotage someone who is just starting out simply because they don't like their attitude on a website.

I understand that MSE (and SE more generally) can't really do much about it, and I don't really think that the website should put themselves in the position of policing off-site behaviour. On the other hand, the power imbalance here is pretty severe, and one hopes that ZS's home institution hears a contrary point of view.

@XanderHenderson yes, I'd hope so.

@XanderHenderson You seem to have missed the fact MH never mentioned ZS by name, but only made a general policy inquiry to the math department - which is clear from a careful reading of his initial post (vs. the exaggerations thereof by his political opponents).

I agree with @BillDubuque that this does play a role. I still think it is quite problematic to do this, but it is not exactly the same thing. This is part of what makes this complicated.

All that said, as a rule, I'd strongly recommend to keep site related matters on site. Especially if there is a conflict.

@quid When I was a mod the SE rules were that mod actions were restricted to onsite behavior. Unless that has changed (unlikely) then it is not even clear why it is being discussed here, i.e. it is off topic.

@BillDubuque it is Michael Hardy that brings up his emails here. One could see the act of bringing them up as an issue that is now discussed.

@quid Further, iirc discussion of offsite behavior of users is highly discouraged. Allowing such opens Pandora's box and sets a bad precendent.

@BillDubuque yes, but again it is MH that brings up his email.

@quid And it is mods that are supposed to smother those sparks before they become flames.

@BillDubuque well, I kinda try to do that.

I'll be back soon.

@quid First, I acknowledge that this must be a very challenging situation for you to moderate and I appreciate your efforts to do so. My understanding is that this chatroom is a place for users to share opinions with moderators so that's what I'm trying to do. I understand that you might have more information or other considerations to balance. I hope you generally take into account things you hear here, which is why I'm sharing.

Continuing in that vein, I don't think you need to go off site to take action here; I think that plenty has happened on this site alone to warrant action. MH posted for all to see that they had contacted the supervisor of a community member to consider taking action against them at their place of employment. I find that threatening. As someone with an open and public profile, I shudder to think what folks could do if they don't like my actions here.

To push your barroom argument analogy a little further, imagine that you and I were in an argument in a bar and I threatened to come to your place of employment to tell people what a jerk you are on Friday nights. If I did this in the open for loads of other folks to witness, then I'm certain the bar would be well within its right to toss me.

We live now in a world where confrontation turns to violence too easily so threats of action that might take place outside of StackExchange should be nipped in the bud ASAP. Again, that's my opinion and thanks for considering it.

@MarkMcClure yes, I agree with that. That's why I think the act of bringing up the email is an issue in itself. As it could be seen as an [implicit] threat. (One does not have to see it that way but it is plausible interpretation.)

@quid Thanks. Again, I'm sure you've got other considerations as well. Good luck in dealing with this challenging situation!

@MarkMcClure It is quite naive to think that actions in virtual worlds have no consequences in the real world. Nowadays many employers use companies that do background checks employing extensive web searches. If you behave "bad" in virtual worlds it will catch up with you in the real world.

@BillDubuque the issue though still is that apparently the issue that was described as "dishonesty in professional matters" IIRC the formulation is "saying that it already had an answer, when it was absurd to think that, and using that as a pretext when the real reason for closing the question was something else" mostly about a post on meta it seems. The problem there is that the paraphrase is way overblown and misleading.

Even assuming this for the sake of argument true, an email that described the facts is just laughable in my opinion;

"Dear Prof. Someone, I wanted to let you know that one of your graduate students knowingly incorrectly closed a discussion I opened on the site for policy discussions of a volunteer Q&A site for math questions. I rest in the hope that you will consider appropriate actions, sincerely yours, a concerned colleague."

I mean it's a hard to take this seriously. If it was I don't know about plagiarizing content or other forms of cheating, maybe, someone could care. But this.

@quid I wouldn't be surprised if there is more to it than MH made public. This brings back memories of when Archie Pu complained to MIT about me, and to Princeton about John Conway because we (politely) explained the errors in his "proof" of the Twin Prime Conjecture on sci.math. Of course we never lost any sleep over that!

@BillDubuque well, I don't see why he would withhold it.

Anyway if he does not provide the relevant information that there supposedly is, to the relevant individuals, he is liable to suffer the consequences.

@quid I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. But it would be a huge abuse of moderator privileges to punish a user for offsite behavior. I don't think SE would support that.

@BillDubuque I completely agree with you. I agree with you on lots of things. I definitely agree with your recent comment on CRUDE that there is no widespread agreement on question quality. That immediately suggests that ZS was not being "bad" but simply has a different opinion on policy than you or I do.

I think that it is not OK for a mid-career mathematician to threaten a graduate student with professional consequences because of a difference of opinion on StackExchange.

@BillDubuque it is supposed to mean that when I ask a user specifically about their motivation for something then absent strong reasons to the contrary I take their answer as fact and will typically not invent explanations that make the situation more favorable to them.

@quid It is neither your prerogative (nor duty) to inquire about the offsite actions of some user. Please don't open Pandors's box by setting precedents for such.

@BillDubuque One of the reasons for why the situation is so delicate is that "punish[ing] a user for offsite behavior" is an oversimplification.

This is definitely not a situation where, for example, an user here has a website where they post frequent, let's say, homophobic or racist etc content.

This is a situation where offsite behaviour was intrinsically linked to on-site behaviour and which has direct consequences for the well-being and welfare of those users in the site itself.

@BillDubuque I discuss something with MH that MH brought to this site. And it is not the first time, by the way. I do think that when a user repeatedly mentions on the site that they did write emails to an other user's superior then this can be understood as attempts at intimidation.

Again one does not have to understand it that way, but it is still an issue.

It is an issue on this site, that it is mentioned on this site.

Or, at least the reason why it is discussed now is that he brought it up (again).

@quid I think you are only encouraging this behavior by engaging in such off-topic discussion. Were I still a mod I would have immediately deleted the remark and told MH to refrain from discussion of (contentious) offsite activities.

@BillDubuque as I said it is not the first time it came up.

I'd think you'd have a hard time to come up with a trace of the first time.

@BillDubuque The fact is, you are not still a mod, and haven't been one for over six years. And you were one for only a few months. So please stop prefacing your comments with such old, off-topic and empty claims, please.

@quid If such remarks were quickly squelched the first time, there might have not been a second time.

@amWhy Please try to be constructive

@BillDubuque Sure. And I'm asking you do be constructive.

@BillDubuque As a matter of fact I'd think they were, which is why you'd have a hard time to find any trace.

@quid Good! So why is the latest remark still standing?

"Stupidity is doing the same thing, over and over again expecting different results."

@quid Do you think that the SE team would disagree that such a comment should have been immediately deleted? I can ask them for you if you like. I can't believe it's still there.

@BillDubuque which comment?

@quid The comment by MH about his policy inquiry to ZS's math dep't

I think the comment merits action, and if action is taken, and folks want to know why, they can see for themselves, as I see it. To sweep the comment under the rug makes it look like the mods are aiding a user to hide evidence against them.

If action is taken, by all means, the comment can go; else it should stand so the community can decide for itself the appropriateness of such retaliatory actions against a user to punish or sabotage a another user who disagrees with them about policies on this site.

@amWhy Agreed - the comment merits action, namely deletion. Anything more is far beyond the cope of SE moderation.

@BillDubuque When a user acts to sabotage, in effect, a moderator election, through intimidation of any kind, more action than the deletion of evidence is required. Please don't encourage the protection of users who have been hostile, both on and off site, to users who they are angry with for reasons limited to this site. It is not the mods' duty to help cover up evidence.

@amWhy It's a question of judgement of intent. If a user thinks some actions are severe enough (e.g. plagiarism) then they have a right to report them as they see fit. Maybe they have no intent of ever doing so, but they hope it will enlighten the user to the perceived severity of their offenses.

yawn

@BillDubuque Your example is fabrication; MH uses excessive exaggeration, much like you do, about perceived slights on this site. If MH thought there was a matter of dishonesty on this site to be handled with respect to the user they violated, his appropriate course of action would have been to flag a moderator/s, and not appointing themself as an unearned and dishonest role of playing an "honesty police" to intervene in the life of another MSE user, with whom they disagree only on MSE.

This has all been communicated to you, or prior to your know-it-all "counsel". I'll repeat it no more, and unless you have something unrehearsed to say, consider me here, yawning, and paying no more attention to your highly uninformed opinions.

@BillDubuque thanks for the clarification. I assume you flagged it a long time ago already.

@quid I only recently learned of it. It is now flagged.

@amWhy It's not a fabrication since major problems with plagiarism have occurred here as well as on other SE sites. But I chose that example not for that reason but rather because it is a good example of behavior here that clearly has offsite ramifications. Apologies if I inadvertently hit a nerve.

@BillDubuque hit a nerve? Why, not at all. My apologies to you, as well, if I hit a nerve when referring to your mispresentation of your status "when I was a mod" without mentioning that was more than six years ago, and without mentioning you did not retire as a mod, but mere months after election, you were, shall we say, shown the door. Don't play games with me. You're not terribly bright when you do.

@amWhy No apology needed. I am quite proud of my achievements as a moderator (and the speed at which they were achieved). But please try to stay on topic (and constructive).

@BillDubuque Please try to stay on topic, and constructively, too? Please don't preach about what you fail to do.

Let's all remember, including me, (and for some of us, please familiarize yourself with it): the current SE model, in particular, the Code of Conduct (CoC).

Oh, and I should also mention, in case any of us have forgotten, or someone hasn't figured it out yet, and yet has to study the CoC, the Code of Conduct applies across all of SE, on site, and in chat.