Disclaimer: I am fully aware that we have a no-names policy on the meta. However due to recent events I am sorry to be the one to break it on such a delicate topic. Willie tried to do it without resorting to names, and it seems to have failed. In this thread I wish to discuss the behavior of a particular user, which is unprecedented on this site. I will do my best to avoid a judgmental tone, and to remain impartial throughout the post.
I am asking the community members to read carefully, point out mistakes on my retelling, and suggest whether or not this behavior should be acceptable or not, and why.
In the past two weeks the user Makoto Kato has posted over ten questions to this site. The majority of these questions were about whether or not a particular property for particular type of objects would hold without the aid of the axiom of choice.
He would go and answer most of his questions on his own, posting incomplete answers with the intention of completing them on a later occasion. Despite the repeated requests (see 1, 2, 3) that he first sit to write his answer [almost] completely and then post it, Makoto has dismissed this as a matter of personal taste and insisted that he was not misusing the site.
One important link is Makoto's answer here which was edited no less than 81(!) times, of those only two edits were made by other users. Surely a record throughout the SE network. This was not his only excessive edit, and many of his posts were edited well into the CW-hammer (e.g. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). There is no arguing about the amount of effort and energy Makoto is putting into these posts, it is clearly a great amount.
Upon my suggestion that he opens a mathematical blog to post the complete proofs there and only put a summary alongside the link, the user replied that he once did that and only got downvoted (cf. 9). Ironically, by continuing his behavior he gets downvoted regardless to the content of his posts (I will address this issue later).
In another comment he said that the many questions he posts and answers are "I'm trying to solve this problem:math.stackexchange.com/questions/155392/... I think I solved it. But it's long. So I split it to several questions." (quoted from 10 and 11) and upon my suggestion to write a paper and post it on arXiv (see 12) his reply was that it is not worth the trouble (cf. 13).
Later on, however, in this question the following appears:
Motivation This question came from my efforts to solve this problem presented by Andre Weil in 1951.
Can we prove the following theorem without Axiom of Choice? If the answer is affirmative, by using this, we can get many examples of Dedekind domains without using Axiom of Choice. This is a related question.
In my eyes solving a problem presented by Weil is definitely a good enough topic to post on arXiv. That is a subjective opinion though, and I suppose it remains as such.
So it seems that this user decided to tackle a big problem, which is definitely encouraged, but also decided to use this website as his personal scratchpad for writing his proofs, posting partial answers and completing them later on. The result is scary: answers so long that it is impractical to read them all from a screen of a website, especially one that lacks a proper printing function (I know about the stackapp, it's worthless).
In the various links above it is visible that many of the comments calling Makoto to cease this behavior are upvoted, and the apparent number of downvotes on his various questions and answers is also an alarming sign telling us that there is a portion of the community which is very dissatisfied with this sort of behavior.
Now to address the downvoting, I agree that downvoting due to the person and not the mathematical content is a bad move. However I am also aware that it is a natural reaction of a community which cannot otherwise signal a member he is acting wrong. If a thorn is intruding the body, the immune system will react to the foreign object even at the cost of harming the body itself to some degree. Indeed it will often harm the body to signal the organism that something is wrong. In this aspect the downvotes are merely a rather violent response to Makoto's behavior and disregarding the requests of others.
I believe that this has made things worse. Today Makoto edited not one, not two, but six of his questions repeatedly (often in successive bursts, one after the other) and edited into each and every question the same content about his motivation, a question about the downvote (something which is often done in the comments) and lastly a link to MathOverflow he found interesting and related. This is well after Bill Dubuque has informed him that editing bumps the questions and take front page space which should be shared amongst other askers as well (see 14).
The latter is something I find very offensive, regardless to whether or not it is intentional. I should remark that seeing how Makoto was already informed that this is not something people appreciate on this site, it becomes an even more severe situation.
Now I ask, what do you, dear community members, think? Is there a misuse of the software? Should we accept someone editing a single post over 70 times within a few days? Should we allow someone to edit a bulk of his questions repeatedly entering the same content?