Vote to close with "Off topic" because "This question belongs in another site on the StackExchange network", namely math.stackexchange.com. I think questions of this kind would be great there.

I think the downvotes in both cases are ridiculous. My advice: Think of them as noise, and pay no mind.

" If you really feel you must name-call, do it on meta " What? No, absolutely not! Neither here, nor there. If one is not to act professionally, better not to participate at all.

That would be nice. There is no way that I'm aware of. I usually just open new tabs every time I click on something.

I like this wording. But do not lose 3). My current rule of thumb is that even if I don't like a question personally, I will try to keep it open or vote to reopen (even if originally I voted to close) if good answers appear or are hinted at. It ends up being rewarding, so why not?

OK, that clarifies the meaning, thanks. I like this suggestion, as I said (and again, maybe having 3 be the key point would even strengthen it).

I think this is quite close to what would be desirable. I would suggest having 3 as the main point, really (don't you think?), and explaining somewhat what you mean in 1 by "some of the community".

"A question need not be good for all the community it is enough that it is good to some of the community." I am a bit confused now, Gil. Is there ever a case where a question can be justifiably closed, in your opinion? (Note I am not arguing for or against your suggestion, I genuinely do not understand how to interpret your first point.)

(I would have guessed not, but there you go. Anyway, perhaps the link I mentioned may be useful to some users to help them see in practice how the suggestion could be implemented.)

One possible solution to the unbounded length is to do as here: Once the fate of a question is clear, moderators clear up comments (maybe replicating them on tea), and the answer is recycled. It is a tad more to do for moderators, but maybe not, as they would not have to deal with so many arguments on main.

Congratulations, Mariano and Todd!

@BenedictEastaugh Nice to hear. Hope you enjoy it!

No, thank you. I made some edits to your draft.

Ah, great! I did not see them mentioning this in the paper, that would have been nice. Thank you!

Yes, this came up before. In spite of the similarity of names, these are different things. Do not merge. (And yes, probably the "inner models" tag is not used as it should.) Go ahead with the tag wiki, though. Thanks. I never got around to writing one. I can help edit it after, if needed.

This is nice, but I am not sure how it qualifies: Brandt posted the question, so he was already thinking about it, and then Brandt and his collaborators solved it (perhaps because no other answer was suggested here).