After some internal discussion, the moderators have agreed to post the following text.
There are calls from the community to enunciate a firm and consistent policy for what questions are permissible or not regarding Atiyah's attempted proof of RH.
If for a moment we blind ourselves to the name on the paper, the natural and appropriate reaction would be to dismiss it out of hand, without fuss and without worry that we were missing out on anything. In the name of consistency, I think that would be the right reaction here as well, and that should really be the policy. So any question that asks for responses on whether this is right or wrong, or if there is something there, should be treated in the way it's always been treated: we at MO do not vet papers that purport to solve famous open problems. And in the case of 5-page articles that announce a solution of RH: we don't discuss them at all. The question will be closed.
My personal opinion is that the situation and the appropriate reaction is made only slightly more complicated by knowing it was Atiyah. There are indeed allusions to sophisticated concepts such as the Todd genus (there is a "Todd function" which is somehow related to the Todd genus). Careful and precise questions about such concepts, at a professional level, are always in principle allowable, and they may mention that some such concept was spotted in Atiyah's article, but these should not turn into cover for discussing the current topic.
We don't think it's possible to spell out policy in advance that will cover every such circumstance; some matters have to be treated on a case-by-case basis, with input from the community. (What's the expression? "Hard cases make bad law"?) Please: just be prudent, and avoid drama.
We have no doubt there will be those who cry "censorship!", "suppression of free thought!", etc. Or, less dramatically: how do you know there's nothing there? Well, none of us know for a fact, and obviously Atiyah's track record from when he was in his prime will give some people pause: for many years he has led mathematicians across difficult country. There may well be a tragic aspect to what is unfolding before us. Let's please preserve some dignity for the man.
Don't worry: if there is truly mathematical takeaway, it will be picked up by the experts. RH will never be solved in a day: any serious solution will take months or years to be pored over and analysed by thousands at home, in offices, in seminar rooms around the world. MathOverflow, especially where it is vulnerable to regrettable social media contaminants, can not play all the necessary roles here. We do not have to be the public bulwark against the conspiracy theorists. Let's keep doing what we do best: provide a clearinghouse to deal with well-circumscribed, sober mathematical questions that can be authoritatively addressed in less than three pages.
Any general public statements we want to make for now can go on this Meta page. If the mathematics begins to look serious, then well-delineated parts can be discussed at Main.