5:17 AM
@Fundamental I think that sounds like a good idea; if it's too noisy we may want to shut it off, but that is yet to be determined. (I'm pretty sure we don't want this room to become primarily the output of a robot, but I doubt that will happen.)

@Fundamental I suppose that if, for any reason, someone doesn't want to see the output from the bot, they can put it among ignored users. (Just as any regular user.) That does not eliminate the posts from transcript, but at least from the room.

^ right. I've watched the Smoke Detector at work in the Meta.SE chatrooms it frequents, and it seems that Math.SE posts are reported only rarely.

Since there exists easy way to "opt-out", if you think that the bot might bring something useful, I'd say go for it.

Agreed.
I'm expecting the bot to take issue with about 5-10 posts per day--now we get to see how accurate (or inaccurate) I am. :)

3 hours later…
8:55 AM
In this meta post the OP was wondering about deleted question: Determine if $\frac{k-1}{k}+\frac{1}{k(k+1)}=\frac{k}{k+1}$ holds. I've made some edits to the post. If anybody thinks that the question would be worth keeping after the improvement, you know what to do.
I did not vote. I did it mostly tried to do this as a sign of good will, since the user who made the post on meta probably encountered this for the first time and this might show him that improving the question is also a possibility.

12 hours later…
9:17 PM
@MartinSleziak FWIW, I think this is bad practice. You should not be impersonating the OP. If you want it reopened, convince people under your own title, e.g. in a comment.

9:36 PM
@Lord_Farin I disagree up to a point. That is, when I improve poor questions, I try not to put words in the OP's mouth (i.e. I don't say "I see that ___"), but I do think that adding detail/context to the question and not the comments is the appropriate course of action (i.e. saying "One can see that ___").
This improves the question, but does not impersonate the OP.
A great example from elsewhere on the network is this question, where the edit/answer combo were praised in the Winterbash wrap-up post:
> A great example of how this works is this answer, which was submitted while the question was at -7. After the answer (and a strategic edit to the question), the question got 10 straight upvotes to bring the score to +3 at the time of writing.
My tolerance for drastic edits also depends on the age of the post: if the OP asked the question just 5 minutes ago, then it's probably best to work with the OP in the comments to draw out more context. But, if the OP was a one-time visitor from over a year ago, I'd feel freer with my editing. (Of course, I realize that neither of those scenarios directly applies to the current situation, but speaking as a general rule...)

@anorton I see your point, and I think that we're on quite a similar line. However, it has to be kept in mind that the reason (at least, my primary reason) for asking for context is to help OP better.
Of course, the case of context is a bit different from the bona fide improvement in the post that you linked to.

9:55 PM
@Lord_Farin In practice, the OP usually does not need to be helped better because they already have several answers by the time the question is put on hold. Such is the situation with the question edited by Martin.

@Fundamental Being helped $\ne$ Have answers.

Another aspect: an edit such as Martin's is a hands-on demonstration: "this is how you ask a question on Math.SE". If we want people to ask better question... someone has to teach them how to ask questions.

@Fundamental In that case, I would consider a comment indicating this purpose as mandatory.

All edits serve the purpose of being a hands-on demo for the OP. Intentionally or not.

@Lord_Farin Such a comment is a good idea for (at least) two reasons: 1) it clearly tells the OP "watch me, so later you may do as I do," and 2) it lets future readers understand that not all the effort in the question was from the OP.

10:04 PM
@anorton Exactly.

10:17 PM
[ SmokeDetector ] All-caps title: PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC by Marcel on math.stackexchange.com

It worked! Thanks again, @Undo.
@anorton Of course, one can't comment on deleted posts, and Martin edited when it was deleted.

11:10 PM
@Fundamental True, but I support the idea of such comments for non-deleted posts.

11:50 PM
@anorton duplicate, I'm out of close votes.

@Fundamental Done.
(err, I should say "I just voted," not "done," since it's still open.)

@Fundamental Closed now