Timeline for close/reopen wars on Mathoverflow
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
50 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 29, 2018 at 12:26 | vote | accept | Dima Pasechnik | ||
| Jun 29, 2018 at 10:27 | answer | added | S. CarnahanMod | timeline score: 10 | |
| Jun 28, 2018 at 6:34 | history | edited | Dima Pasechnik | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited tags
|
| Jun 27, 2018 at 23:00 | answer | added | Andy Putman | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jun 27, 2018 at 13:54 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | It is a bit unclear whether this is supposed to be about this specific question or about close/reopen wars in general. (I am not sure whether that matters that much - since by now answers to both have been posted. But probably it's not good to mix two separate topic.) I will just remind that you can use the (specific-question) tag if you want to signal that you mainly ask about this particular question (rather than about a general issue) - see also the tag-info. | |
| Jun 27, 2018 at 13:46 | answer | added | Dima Pasechnik | timeline score: -6 | |
| Jun 27, 2018 at 9:32 | comment | added | Michael Greinecker | @GilKalai On some level I agree with you, who posted the question should not matter here. I would have voted to close if someone else has made it. But there is a general standard on MO, which I like, that people can sometimes post things that are slightly outside the rules when the contribution is useful and made in good faith. Since the question is not closed, I gave evidence why I don't think it was made in good faith. I think I did that in an appropriate manner; it's not like I called someone a hooligan. | |
| Jun 27, 2018 at 8:29 | comment | added | Gil Kalai | Dear Asaf, maybe we can agree about trying not to attack individuals and especially avoiding such attacks when they have small relevance to the discussed issue. | |
| Jun 27, 2018 at 8:21 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | @Gil: I never brought up the Cauchy question. So I don't know what to tell you. I only brought up the fact that context derived from the author is relevant to the validity of a question. This is a site for mathematicians who honestly seek the help and companion of others. It is not a site for people who try and make their research look important. And that's all I have to say about that. | |
| Jun 27, 2018 at 8:17 | comment | added | Gil Kalai | @Asaf, there is nor reason or justification to attack anybody in this discussion. (I did not remark on the issue of judging a question by its author, that like the issues of "judging a question by its upvotes," or "judging a question by the quality of answers", we often discussed on Meta.) I also do not see how bringing the Cauchy question helps here. For example, I voted to open the Cauchy question (The question remained open, had positive net upvotes, and led to a couple of good answers). Here, in view of Niel's answer, I am leaning in the opposite direction. | |
| Jun 27, 2018 at 7:17 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | @Gil: I think that I have my fair share of experience with people that when you isolate just one thing they do, it seems fine, but in the overall picture you see the emergent properties of "totally not fine". So I refuse not to judge a question by its author. As I pointed out before, we all do that, but we mostly do it in the sense of giving more leeway to established users, even you get that preferential treatment often, and I suspect many of your open and big lists would be closed, coming form an unregistered account. And it's fine, you've earned that. But for me? Katz earned that. | |
| Jun 27, 2018 at 7:13 | comment | added | Gil Kalai | @Asaf there is no justification and no need for attacking the author (especially not by officers of these sites), and bringing up another question that we amply discussed is not useful. | |
| Jun 27, 2018 at 7:03 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | @Gil: I can certainly see why you'd say that. But I can also certainly see why Michael, as a moderator on MSE, or why I, would claim that the author of that question is not using these platforms under what I'd say is "fair use". I agree that we need to be pluralistic, and accept more than we reject. But when people abuse the system, they also need to be held for a higher standard. I don't know about this question in play. I agree with Neil, which is why (in conjunction of the above) I had cast my vote to close. It is easy to see just one side, when you hear it in person from that side. | |
| Jun 27, 2018 at 6:32 | comment | added | Gil Kalai | @MichaelGreinecker, Bringing up the Cauchy question seem to me a bad idea, and I see no justification for attacking the author of the question. ( Asaf ) | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 16:03 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod |
@Dima: I am saying that after a person exhibits a certain type of behavior, his future actions are usually called into action (e.g. consistently put a bounty to prevent closure? All future bounties will be seen in that light). If a user shows a pattern of soapboxing, it is impossible to separate their questions from past actions. Yes, that is unfortunate, but this is reality. It works in the other direction, and we give more leeway to established users when it comes to borderline questions. Also, unlike you, I don't get notified of any comment here. So using @Asaf is necessary.
|
|
| Jun 26, 2018 at 15:19 | comment | added | Dima Pasechnik | Asaf, are you talking about the question we discussing, or about general character traits of its poster? I don't like how this thread has deteriorated into concluding that as MK has posted it, it must be such and such thing, and as someone is in general annoyed with MK, he'll vote to close this question too, without reading, simply by association. | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 15:05 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | Dima, there is a difference between talking about your work, and asking elaborate questions mainly for the sake of making your work visible. | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 13:30 | answer | added | Neil Strickland | timeline score: 26 | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 13:11 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @MichaelGreinecker, in case I haven't been clear enough: there is no merit to this verbiage concerning Cauchy. I raised a broad issue of Cauchy interpretation at MO. Whether or not I posted a reprint on the subject is immaterial since the issue is relevant whether or not I did. Try to consider the possibility that folks are opposed to my Cauchy and other posts because it touches their belief systems on this topic and others. | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 13:08 | comment | added | Michael Greinecker | @MikhailKatz In case I haven't been clear enough: You asked about a question you have answered a few days before in a preprint without mentioning the latter fact in your post until prompted to do so. And there is a difference between mentioning ones work and using a question (!) to advertise one's own work. | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 12:58 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @MichaelGreinecker, it would be helpful if you could make up your mind whether the issue was (1) advertising one's own work, or (2) not mentioning one's own work. Otherwise enjoy eating your cake and having it, too. | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 12:37 | comment | added | Michael Greinecker | @DimaPasechnik 1. The desirability of a discussion of a topic does not imply the desirability of discussing the topic on MO, which is not made for discussions and IMHO benefits from the narrower focus as a Q & A. 2. Nobody discouraged talking about one's own work. Not mentioning one's own work was the issue mentioned. | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 11:31 | comment | added | Dima Pasechnik | Mathematicians (apart from complete nerds and/or loners) like to talk about questions related to their own work, online or otherwise. This might be different from your own experience, e.g. people who mathematically grew up in big friendly departments with lively common rooms won't quite get this point. I don't see why talking about one's own work ought to be discouraged. | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 11:22 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak |
edited tags
|
|
| Jun 26, 2018 at 11:19 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | P.S. A related thought: the amount of flak Laugwitz got from received historians for his take on Cauchy is simply unbelievable. I saw things more strident than accusations of soapboxing. The general tenor is: "how can you stick to your position on Cauchy when we are all against it?" (and presumably would have downvoted it if given a chance :-) @MichaelGreinecker | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 10:12 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | ... other points of view, unlike some individuals (I am not referring to you) participating in this particular discussion. @MichaelGreinecker | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 10:11 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @MichaelGreinecker, perhaps this space is not the ideal location for such a discussion but since you have brought up the issue I would like to point out that in historical scholarship you don't prove theorems (or find mistakes in theorems). Since history is not based on a system of axioms, the best one can do is present one's arguments as convincingly as possible and point out hidden flaws in approaches one disagrees with. I personally find Detlef Laugwitz's approach to Cauchy the most convincing, but I don't presume to have the exclusive prerogative on the truth, and am always receptive to | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 10:07 | comment | added | Michael Greinecker | @MikhailKatz I have no principled objections, but you should have made clear in your post from the beginning that you have actually answered the question already and are just looking for further material. And 31 edits are a bit much... | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 9:45 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @MichaelGreinecker, frankly I don't really understand your objection to my Cauchy post, either. This is obviously an active area of historical research, with publications in respected journals on both sides of the issue. There is similarly disagreement about this among mathematicians. I believe the discussion at that question was similarly fruitful and meaningful. Just because I happened to have published in the area doesn't seem sufficient reason to create a veto on MO posts :-) | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 9:45 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @MichaelGreinecker, with all due respect to an MSE moderator, your comparison does not have any merit. Notice that the question on Sergeyev that you linked was never closed and reopened, and led to a thoughtful discussion. My purpose there was to bring the Sergeyev phenomenon to the attention of the mathematical public and elicit evaluations, which were indeed provided (some of them quite popular). | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 9:34 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | "the post on Sergeyev that you linked has a reputation score of 40 and is thus one of the post popular ones on the site.", assuming the first "post" is a typo for "most", that is a highly subjective claim. The top 150 questions all have score >90 (and nearly all have at least 100). And if you want to argue that your questions received a lot of votes, let's also talk about the incredible number of downvotes they have procured over time. | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 9:11 | comment | added | Michael Greinecker | @MikhailKatz Everyone can follow the links I gave and decide for themselves what to make of it. If you find something I said "odious", you can of course flag it. But popularity is certainly not a reason not to close a post. There are several closed questions with a score of more than 200. | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 9:01 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @MichaelGreinecker, the post on Sergeyev that you linked has a reputation score of 40 and is thus one of the post popular ones on the site. The post on Cauchy that you linked has a positive reputation of 5 and has led to a lively discussion. Your allegations are odious and quarrelsome, as are some of the others appearing in this space. The comments containing such accusations should be deleted. | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 0:00 | answer | added | Gerry Myerson | timeline score: 8 | |
| Jun 25, 2018 at 20:55 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | I agree with @Michael. My feeling is that at this point the author of that question is mostly using MO and MSE as platform to promote their own papers. Even with the crankiest soapboxing cranks (e.g. WM) it is easy to mistake an isolated question as a reasonable question. But when a user exhibits a pattern, these questions needs to be seem in a broader context. And for this author, this does not look good. | |
| Jun 25, 2018 at 20:05 | comment | added | Michael Greinecker | I voted to close, but certainly not at random. Speaking of not so random behavior, the author of that question has a long history of using MO for soapboxing and advertising. Here you have an example in which he asked a question he has answered himself in a paper. That post was pushed to the front page by 31 (sic!) edits. Here he ridicules Sergeyev, which is a significant part of the current post. At some point, I give up on the presumption of good faith. | |
| Jun 25, 2018 at 19:47 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | After eight years on this forum, this is perhaps my second vote cast to close. I don't do these things lightly, nor without consideration. Gerhard "Not Quite Hooligan Style, Either" Paseman, 2018.06.25. | |
| Jun 25, 2018 at 19:45 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | Way two. Encouraged by this question, other questions appear, talking about whether this or that publication is " really about mathematics ", and leads to statements which are more political than mathematical in nature, divisive, and thus a new atmosphere which permeates the forum. Those who strive to repel this atmosphere give up, and leave the forum to go the way of sci.math. Undead forum perhaps, but no longer living. Gerhard "Perhaps Run By Some Zombies?" Paseman, 2018.06.25. | |
| Jun 25, 2018 at 19:41 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | Way one. One of the people named on the thread enlists assistance in getting the post removed. Another enlists more assistance to get the forum shut down. MathOverflow LLC is unable to raise the funds to counter this assistance. Dead forum. Gerhard "Imagine The Kind Of Assistance" Paseman, 2018.06.25. | |
| Jun 25, 2018 at 19:24 | comment | added | Andy Putman | Another comment: it's up to 11 edits. That's absurd. | |
| Jun 25, 2018 at 19:22 | comment | added | Andy Putman | It's not lost. You just have to look at the edit history. | |
| Jun 25, 2018 at 19:04 | comment | added | Dima Pasechnik | I agree with this, I just think that the situation is far from ideal. E.g. the history of who voted for closing and who voted for re-opening is getting lost, instead of kept publuc. | |
| Jun 25, 2018 at 19:00 | comment | added | Andy Putman | This question was hardly closed randomly, and the closers are not hooligans. | |
| Jun 25, 2018 at 18:52 | comment | added | Dima Pasechnik | Why would a forum die? A forum would die (or at least suffer, under the current rules) if it had a sufficiently big group of hooligans who go and close questions at random... | |
| Jun 25, 2018 at 18:44 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | The question should live, and the forum should die? Gerhard "That Is A Concern Here" Paseman, 2018.06.25. | |
| Jun 25, 2018 at 18:10 | comment | added | Dima Pasechnik | I am against a dictatorship of the majority, or, if you like, first past the pole system. I think if there is enough interest in the question from sufficiently qualified group of users, the question should live. | |
| Jun 25, 2018 at 18:04 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | Do I understand that you are advocating that a minority should implement as they please on this forum? If not, please clarify. While I don't enjoy the current system, I don't have a better suggestion. It seems the forum community is divided on the matter of propriety of the question. Gerhard "Perhaps Have A MathAlternate Forum?" Paseman, 2018.06.25. | |
| Jun 25, 2018 at 18:02 | comment | added | Dima Pasechnik | one can only vote to reopen the question once. It would be good to know, just in case, whether votes to close can also be cast only once. | |
| Jun 25, 2018 at 17:59 | comment | added | Lucia | I agree, and made some suggestions for changes. (See meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2806/… .) But there didn't seem to be any consensus on this. For my part, I don't vote to close anything that has been closed once and reopened. | |
| Jun 25, 2018 at 17:36 | history | asked | Dima Pasechnik | CC BY-SA 4.0 |