9
$\begingroup$

$1/k=\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n^k$ for all k

This is a question that I found in the delete queue. I noticed that it had votes to re-open on it, and I was able to cast a reopen vote myself. This seems unusual to me, as my normal reopen queue is empty and I don't believe I have ever expressed an opinion on this post. (Since I was able to vote on it, I suppose the system would agree with me.)

Going through the delete list, this seems to be a regular thing, so there is nothing remarkable about this specific post. So my question is: is there some bug that keeps some reopen votes from making it to the reopen queue or is there some set of circumstances where a reopen vote would not be distributed through the queue?

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Timeline of the question. It was pushed into the reopen queue by the first vote, the review was finished. It then takes some time (I don't remember how much) until a new reopen vote can push it into the queue again. (Incidentally, you voted to leave closed in that review ;) Since a "leave closed" decision in the review is not a close/reopen vote, you were able to cast a reopen vote on the question page. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Dec 13 '19 at 19:51
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielFischer It seems that it is about 15 minutes or a bit longer: How long does it take for a question to appear in the reopen queue? $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Dec 14 '19 at 6:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DanielFischer lol, I did notice that I voted to leave it closed the first time through. My principle is that questions with three upvotes have demonstrated enough community support to be open even if the poster hasn't shown evidence of work. In this case, I imagine that when I came across that question in the review queue that it was opened to the revision tab and I didn't take the time to go back to the original tab to see the upvotes. So my vote to remain closed was because the revisions did not provide context. If I had taken the time to switch tabs, I would have voted to reopen. $\endgroup$ – Matthew Daly Dec 14 '19 at 12:56
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ So if four cheaters post homework questions and upvote one another, then it should remain open? Really? And what about rep-farmers who facilitate such cheating attempts? And why do you keep answering and undeleting extremely poor questions? The whole point of hiding the score is precisely to encourage unbiased voting based on question quality, so you are actually admitting that you don't want to review based on site guidelines. $\endgroup$ – user21820 Dec 17 '19 at 9:23
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @user21820 That escalated quickly. Tell you what. Flag my previous comment and ask a moderator to revoke my reviewing privileges based on what I wrote. If you succeed, I will cheerfully give it up. I spend more time on MSE reviewing than I do helping people to understand math and I'm not sure those are healthy priorities. $\endgroup$ – Matthew Daly Dec 17 '19 at 10:27
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @MatthewDaly: I was responding to your illogical claim that "questions with three upvotes have demonstrated enough community support", which is just false when there is a ring of cheaters upvoting one another. And nobody said you need to do any reviewing. But you shouldn't be answering and undeleting extremely poor questions, especially since a large fraction of them are cheating attempts. Why do you evade my questions? $\endgroup$ – user21820 Dec 17 '19 at 11:55
  • $\begingroup$ @user21820 In my view, what constitutes a demonstration of sufficient community support is a value judgement en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_judgment . Therefore it is your claim that Matthew Daly's claim is illogical, which is illogical. People also take differing views of when getting help on homework constitutes cheating. I don't think it is wise to jump straight in with pejorative terms like illogical, cheaters and re-farmers when people have a different view to yours of what constitutes an appropriate use of the site. $\endgroup$ – samerivertwice Dec 24 '19 at 10:07
  • $\begingroup$ I don't care what people who do not understand simple conditional statements of the form "if X then Y" or "X when Y" think. $\endgroup$ – user21820 Dec 24 '19 at 15:05

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .