# About a specific user not writing properly (Part ll)

6 months ago, I did notice that a specific user was not having an appropriate behaviour with our community:

About an specific user not writing properly

Days ago I end up in his profile 'by casuality' and I found a lot of unfriendly/unkind/inappropriate/rude/etc. comments again!

See:

1. why the heck is 'probable' in parentheses????? that's a very important word

2. "The probability that those are primes is almost 100% anyways". You are trying to apply heuristics to specific numbers in a really bad way. (comment continues)

3. I'm suree thsi senetence is undesrtandable, but we shuoldn't wriet liek this

At some point two other users replied to him:

Notice he did not even apologize to Maximilian nor Peter, he just said "I will take your suggestion under consideration".

$$\qquad$$

$$\qquad$$

$$\qquad$$

$$\qquad$$

In another post:

$$\qquad$$

$$\qquad$$

$$\qquad$$

This time, all the flags that I raise were helpful and mod(s) remove all of his annoying comments (except 1., they just removed ????? to ? but they left heck... ).

This time I won't ask: What should be done about it? I really believe that something like a temporary suspension is required. As I said to mod quid in math mods office, if no strict actions are taken, then this user will continue writing mean, rude, undesirable comments and hence causing annoyance, not only directly but also indirectly, to Math.stack's users. But this is just how I see things. I'd like to know the community point of view about such situation.

I have been in this site for more than 2 years and I have never ever never found such a thing like that, such comments by a user. I have seen one per user every once in a millenium and that's it, never more than once.

EDIT 1

I've just seen this comment (piece of) by this user (he commented this today, two hours ago):

"..., and I don't think it's bad to say unkind things -- nearly everything said on this site is unkind. (continues)"

$$\qquad$$

How could someone say such things?

EDIT 2 I'm posting the 'complete' conversation (related to EDIT 1) so that things look fair. All this comments were deleted already. The black is hiding his name.

I think I'll leave this. I just wanted to stop him from continuing to leaving mean/rude/unkind/annoying/.../ comments on user's post and so making users feeling bad for reading such comments. And that's it.

He will keep doing so if no actions taken, and a proof to it is that HE DOESN'T THINK IT'S BAD TO SAY UNKIND THINGS, he said this just yesterday.

• To be fair, “Mike Hawk” is kind of inappropriate for a name. – URL Dec 26 '19 at 23:55
• "I have been in this site for more than 2 years and I have never ever never found such a thing like that, such comments by a user." For what it's worth, I have seen users who were considerably ruder than this – elli, consider yourself lucky that you haven't seen some of what I've seen! – Gerry Myerson Dec 27 '19 at 2:49
• I thought the site was generally against discussion of specific users and their behaviours? Perhaps it only applies to suspended users, but it seems like a good principle. This post, especially linking back to the previous one, seems rather like an ad hominem attack. – postmortes Dec 27 '19 at 9:34
• @postmortes I disagree, an ad hominem is something of the form "this argument by X is wrong because X is not a credible person". This post points out inappropriate behaviours by this user but doesn't seem to be an ad hominem, at least in my opinion. – YiFan Dec 27 '19 at 10:29
• khanacademy.org/partner-content/wi-phi/wiphi-critical-thinking/… – Roddy MacPhee Dec 27 '19 at 13:36
• Whatever the definition of ad hominem may be, I think the situation is this. Elli reported the user to the moderators. The moderators removed (most of) the comments that offended Elli. I assume the moderators also told the user not to leave rude comments in the future. The user has continued to leave rude comments. The ball is now in the moderators' court. The consistent thing for them to do, assuming that I have reconstructed the history correctly, and assuming they too find the user's comments to be rude, is for them to suspend the user. – Gerry Myerson Dec 27 '19 at 15:46
• Perhaps I should point out that there are several moderators, which means there are probably differences of opinion among them as to what constitutes rudeness and what's worthy of suspension. I don't know how closely the moderators work together to coordinate their actions. – Gerry Myerson Dec 27 '19 at 15:49
• Regarding your edit I think you quote a bit selectively, also I had asked you to use flags. What you do here is inappropriate. – quid Dec 27 '19 at 21:42
• @quid To your first comment, what are you referring to? I never said there is something funny about it – Bellatrix Dec 27 '19 at 21:53
• @quid To your second comment: ok, Do I post the complete conversation (covering his name) then?. Sorry I forgot to flag, I was about doing it know, but you (or another mod) already deleted it. //Why is inappropriate what I am doing here? I'm hiding his name as much as I can. – Bellatrix Dec 27 '19 at 22:04
• My apologies, elli saba. – Gerry Myerson Dec 28 '19 at 3:20
• The first half of the phrase you quote said "Also, I agree what I said was unkind (i.e. not kind), but I don't think anything I said was rude, [...]" This makes quite a difference. Regarding the appropriateness of this post, I had asked you in chat not to post to meta about this. The difference to the first post is that there it seemed more like you were asking what you should do. This post seems more like exposing another user, even though you made an effort to not do so directly. – quid Dec 28 '19 at 9:42
• @quid To your first comment. That's not true. //The only comment that I said was a replied to URL's 1st comment: "Is it? why? .According to google translate Hawk mean halcon or sparrow" – Bellatrix Dec 28 '19 at 21:41
• I had said just before "You definitely should not ask about the conduct of a specific user on meta." This obviously continued to apply. You ignored that and also the request to flag, which you forgot. It is not exactly clear what you are up to. – quid Dec 29 '19 at 14:52
• I did not reply that because I thought, apparently in error, that I had already made clear what was the appropriate course of action and what should not be done. Next time I will try to be more clear in my instructions. At this point there is no point in flagging the comment as it was dealt with, but I appreciate your willingness to help maintain a civil atmosphere on the site. – quid Dec 30 '19 at 2:35

• I realized about this recent comments, not looking directly to his profile but throught a charoom conversation where he was. When I did click I didn't know I was going to find out his name. As I could see a not very kind (but not rude) comments I decided to go to his profile. Now I can also see that for some people, his comments may be like meh, whatever idc but others might take it very very different, to the point to feel $\ddot \frown$ or more, idk. – Bellatrix Dec 30 '19 at 1:20