For people who are either unfamiliar with US history (either due to growing up in other countries or who had White Supremacist textbooks in school), here are the first two paragraphs of the state of Mississippi's explanation of why they seceded and joined the country which flew this flag: In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its ...


The user formerly known as quid asked for his account to be deleted from MathOverflow. That was quid's own decision.


With regard to Gerhard's response -- which I agree with -- I see a number of things problematic in some of the behavior taking place in the present circumstances. I have no doubt that behind these numerous accounts is only a very small group of humans, and there's a very good chance it's just one. In other words, I am finding very clear evidence, using the ...


quid has outlined his reasons for leaving in this answer (See Footnote 1), in relation to his nomination for a mod position on math.SE.


Taking Asaf's post as truth that the user requested deletion of their own account (and having no information to the contrary), I encourage people in this community to at best send their well-wishes and then drop the matter. I left math.stackexchange.com over 5 years ago for reasons that were important to me then. Time will tell whether that was a good or ...


A recent discussion in comments under Alon Amit's answer prompts me to offer some reflections on quid's publicly stated feelings and judgments about MO and the differences between MO and Math.SE. I think some of this is also reflected in an interesting discussion I recently had in the MathOverflow chat room with Martin Sleziak. For me, some of quid's ...


Naturally, we do not discuss details of individual users. This is indeed an unusual suspension. Also note that this is a network-wide suspension, so this is not necessarily related to this user's behavior on MathOverflow.


Answering this for closure: By the comment of Stanley Yao Xiao, the OP in question had a confederate flag as their avatar. A moderator (presumably) changed it, with the understanding that a ban would be too strong a response. By the comment of Todd Trimble, it is clear there is a precedent for dealing with trollish and politicized behavior on MO. See the ...


What they're doing here on MathOverflow is relatively harmless. They're also active on other sites in the Stack Exchange network, where they are posting downright abusive stuff; here are some examples. That doesn't mean they're forbidden to participate here, but it speaks volumes. Do note that sometimes users don't register themselves (because they don't ...


The user has changed to another username Math is like Friday. (Just answering to make the possibility of considering the issue as solved.)


Please see this discussion, from the old forum 'tea' before it was superceded by MO meta: http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1429/loss-of-a-member/ The discussion indicates that it was Anton Geraschenko who added the text. Related MO post: Wikipedia story about Bill Thurston's death.


I believe that I can give a partial answer to your question. Looking at some of the profiles that you have listed, they seem to be all unregistered users. I used to do something similar (but with only 4-5 names) in 2012, at my beginnings on MO: not in bad faith, but because I was viewing my asking questions on MO as only a temporary thing. Plus, I was ...


Do(es)n’t said user(s) simply exploit the loophole once detected by @MattF. (newly created accounts can spend the association bonus on bounties), and wouldn’t that part be solved by following his then-suggestion (make the “set bounties” privilege higher than 101)?


Here again is the relevant meta SE question on appealing suspensions. Here is some general advice for users who have been suspended. It's natural, when being disciplined, to feel defensive, or to feel wronged. But remember that one purpose of the suspension is to give you time to reflect on your behavior, and to try to understand how you can change your ...


I think it is reasonable to be concerned, if only for the fact that we do not know what the ramifications of this behaviour are. However, I think it is better to describe the behaviour and call out what might be problematic about the behaviour. Right now, it seems we are getting OK to good quality material for the forum, and we have the ability to improve ...


The user has been contacted by a moderator. Please advise if the behavior persists.


There is some concern that quid's contributions have disappeared. I can verify that they are still here. For example, this question was answered by quid, and the comments are still preserved. It just shows the user as "user9072".


When looking at users tab you can choose what to display - reputation, editors, voters, new users, moderators. And you can also use period on which you want to concentrate. (I am not really sure which period is chosen by default if you do not change anything.) If you display reputation for week, month, etc., it is displayed as negative if the reputation ...


I just don't understand why the moderators would remove the avatar but leave a trail of comments around that allows others to infer what happened, or worse. I think the omission ultimately caused sensible MO members to get irritated (at the very least) with each other, mistakenly so.


Maybe it could be useful to spell out explicitly why the edits in question were problematic. (Both for the benefit of the user referenced in the question and also for other users who want to help editing.) I do not claim that this represents the majority opinion - after all the opinions on this vary and it's probably impossible to write down something with ...


As far as I understand, there is no rule against opening a meta post to discuss your own ban and defending yourself; especially if you wish to draw the attention of the community to a ban that you find unjust.

Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible