37
votes
$\begingroup$

The purpose of this thread is to help focus the attention of the community on posts that may require exceptional handling. This includes requests for reopen and undeletion votes. A request should be posted as an answer below.

Please do not use this thread to engage in debates on contentious matters (e.g. reasons for closure). That should be done in a separate linked thread. The goal is to keep this meta thread free of tension, so that everyone feels comfortable posting here. Please be polite, and respect the many different viewpoints in our diverse community.

To inform readers of the current (and past) states of the targeted post, please append tags such [REOPENED,RECLOSED] or [UNDELETED] at the start of the answer.

Beware that "short" requests such as "request reopening of <link>" may be automatically converted to comments by the SE software, so you may need to write more (e.g. why you think that the question should be reopened or undeleted).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ For reopen requests that are run-of-the-mill (e.g. aren't meant to debate reasons for closure), do you think it would make sense to have a generic reopen-request thread, so that we don't end up with hundreds or thousands of questions on such. Then each request would simply be an answer in the reopen thread, and it being bumped would get the same exposure as a new question. Thoughts? Unless I hear any objections I will create such a thread. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Oct 24 '12 at 17:11
  • $\begingroup$ @Bill: Yes. This crossed my mind after posting this. I agree that it would be a good idea. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 24 '12 at 17:37
  • $\begingroup$ I didn't expect that you would edit this specific question into the general question (I was writing another). But since it is done, we may as well go with it. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Oct 24 '12 at 18:28
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Bill: I saw no reason to wait with that idea. There was no actual discussion in this thread anyway. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 24 '12 at 18:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Gerry: The solution would be to add a few words, I suppose. For example why it should be reopened. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Nov 9 '12 at 12:16
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Asaf, I opted for cursing the darkness rather than lighting a candle. Anyway, the question has been reopened. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Nov 9 '12 at 21:54
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @Gerry: Darkness is just the light's way of proving the empty set exists. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Nov 9 '12 at 21:55
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Willie: I think that we should delete old reopening requests and perhaps have one post/additional thread for indexing them. I should also think that any request older than $n$ days for some reasonable $n$ should be deleted. If something has not been reopened and the initial votes expired... well, it makes sense to conclude that there aren't that many people interested in reopening. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Nov 30 '12 at 9:49
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Willie It's probably useful to have some nontrivial history remain so that folks $\rm < 10K$ can gain some idea about what types of questions do get reopened, and what types don't. By quickly scanning the requests it might help to convey some idea of the community consensus on marginal topics. To keep the unopened requests at the top of the active sort, they could easily be bumped if there is still interest. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Dec 1 '12 at 1:44
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Belgi: This is why I prefer to browse Meta with answers sorted by activity. $\endgroup$ – Rahul Jan 5 '13 at 21:38
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Belgi Sorting by activity solves the problem. I just bumped the only active discussion to the top with an edit. There are two requests dated by November 2012, which I guess are no longer ongoing conversations (but anyone so inclined can bump them; it's a CW). $\endgroup$ – user53153 Jan 5 '13 at 22:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for the workaround, I still think theres no reasons for this to log all reopen request that were/will be made $\endgroup$ – Belgi Jan 5 '13 at 22:10
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Per the (short) discussion in this deleted meta post, I have edited this thread to support requests for votes to undelete as well as votes to reopen. $\endgroup$ – Alexander Gruber Jul 13 '14 at 14:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The question got protected again; I'd assume, but cannot check, since it fulfills criteria for autoprotection The simplest way out would be to restart a question of this form. IMO this would be desirable regardless the protection issue. $\endgroup$ – quid Oct 17 '14 at 13:58
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @quid: Yes, yes, I see that protection triggering every time I remove it. But I gave it some more thought, and for now it seems harmless after all. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 17 '14 at 14:06

213 Answers 213

-5
votes
$\begingroup$

[reopened] Thanks

Why was Understanding the community stand point on posts about self harming unilaterally put on hold by a moderator's close vote?

The following passage is a direct copy of about meta:

What is "meta"? How does it work?

Meta Mathematics Stack Exchange is the part of the site where users discuss the workings and policies of Mathematics Stack Exchange rather than discussing math itself. It is separated from the main Q&A to reduce noise there while providing a legitimate space for people to ask how and why this site works the way it does. Meta is for...

  • ...Mathematics Stack Exchange users to communicate with each other about Mathematics Stack Exchange (asking questions about how the websites work, or about policies and community decisions)

  • ...Mathematics Stack Exchange users to communicate with Stack Exchange the company (posting bugs, suggesting improvements, or proposing new features), and

  • ...Stack Exchange to communicate with the community (soliciting feedback on new ideas or features, or discussing policies that affect the whole network)

The first bullet point is about asking questions about policies and community decisions which the linked question is about.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Alas, it's not the only unilateral action by the new mod. He also unilaterally deleted the main question just below on convergent sequences. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Dec 26 '14 at 18:00
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque I am having buyers remorse over my selection of one of the three. He wanted to close one of my meta post as well for no reason. $\endgroup$ – dustin Dec 26 '14 at 18:02
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Oh no, a moderator employing his powers. What have we come to? Why elect someone moderator if you don't want him to use the new tools he has at his disposal? $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Dec 26 '14 at 18:10
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @NajibIdrissi I want them used properly. $\endgroup$ – dustin Dec 26 '14 at 18:12
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ How can something that was closed by three users be considered a "unilateral moderator action"? Maybe it's because I'm not a native English speaker, but I believe that unilateral means "(of an action or decision) performed by or affecting only one person, group, or country involved in a particular situation, without the agreement of another or the others." and if a moderator casts the third closing vote, then it's not quite unilateral. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Dec 26 '14 at 18:57
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Sure, but that's not unilateral. There were already standing closing votes. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Dec 26 '14 at 18:58
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ If it would have been a fifth vote, would it still be unilateral? $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Dec 26 '14 at 19:08
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ @Bill, first of all I was under the impression that "unilateral" meant as a single vote. Not as a third, fourth or fifth vote. Apparently being a non-native English speaker means you're not allowed to raise an opinion. Secondly, suppose that this is not reopened, will you concede it should be "unilaterally" closed if two more votes to close appear? Finally, dustin, I really have no problem with you. You may refer to my discussion with you on that answer you posted on that closed thread, but I have an issue with that issue. It has nothing to do with you. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Dec 26 '14 at 19:30
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Uh. So it is possible to cast reopen votes on a post that was closed by a moderator. It's also impossible to withdraw reopen votes, apparently... You learn something new everyday. (I'm not 100% clear on how my reopen vote can be the only one at this point in time, considering the discussion -- I'm also not sure why this whole exchange blew up, considering that). $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Dec 26 '14 at 19:49
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @NajibIdrissi Correct on both counts. Moderator closures can be overturned by regular users. (Moderator deletions cannot be.) $\endgroup$ – user147263 Dec 26 '14 at 19:55
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @Behaviour Which leads me to wonder what the big deal is, and why my vote is the first. I guess complaining on meta is more important than actually achieving something? $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Dec 26 '14 at 19:58
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila What change? Moderator closevotes were always subject to being overturned. Random example from 2012. $\endgroup$ – user147263 Dec 26 '14 at 20:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ As an aside: the definition of "unilateral" implies that a "unilateral vote to close" means that the power was exercised without consulting other users (i.e. a single vote to close). When a mod closes as the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th vote, that cannot be considered unilateral. (Yes, I know I'm just reasserting what Asaf said, but I wanted to chime in to signal that he isn't alone in his understanding of the meaning of unilateral.) $\endgroup$ – apnorton Dec 27 '14 at 4:08
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @dustin Ok, great. Now that we've decided that every collective or individual action on the site (i.e. every action period) is unilateral, you might as well remove it from your post as it's redundant. Or did you want it to have the usual force of the word unilateral as it's commonly used on MSE without it having the usual meaning? $\endgroup$ – Scott H. Dec 27 '14 at 5:44
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Please, see this. Regards, $\endgroup$ – Pedro Tamaroff Dec 27 '14 at 12:02
-7
votes
$\begingroup$

[Undeleted, Reopened, Reclosed, Redeleted, Re-undeleted (but still closed) and flagged for moderator attention]

I think that this question should be reopened.

The question asked "How many digits of $\pi$ are currently known?". I believe that my answer is interesting enough to save the poor question ("poor" because "currently" is ill-defined - and my answer side-steps this!).

I should also point out that the question has such a low score because the OP was, quite frankly, odd (this is explained in the comment by Ilya).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Ilya's comment is every possible reason for having this deleted. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Sep 16 '14 at 14:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Asaf The SE model is based around the idea the the OP does not "own" the question (and answerer's do not "own" their answers). That, combined with the age of the question, makes me feel that it is not justified deleting the question based on the actions of the OP. (Also, it seems that this was the OPs only activity here, although they logged on on 3rd May...) $\endgroup$ – user1729 Sep 16 '14 at 15:02
  • $\begingroup$ I don't fully buy that approach here. But I really don't want to get into an argument. Suffice to say, I don't think this should be undeleted. (With all my appreciation to your contributions to the site, and to that particular thread.) $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Sep 16 '14 at 15:04
  • $\begingroup$ @Asaf I am not interested in having an argument either :-) Can I ask you one final question though: would your opinion be different if the OP had been normal? If there was none of the noise? $\endgroup$ – user1729 Sep 16 '14 at 15:06
  • $\begingroup$ I might have considered that, but in all likelihood, I wouldn't. This is ultimately an easily Google-able question, whose answer can change when someone wishes to test the new Intel Knight Landing to its full power, and calculates more digits than before. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Sep 16 '14 at 15:08
  • $\begingroup$ @Asaf That is the point of my answer - that, in a certain sense, you don't have to think about it in terms of computing power! (Although I may be stretching the phrase "in a certain sense" to its limits with this comment...) $\endgroup$ – user1729 Sep 16 '14 at 15:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, it's quite a stretch. I think that if this question should be on the site, then it should be better written. Your answer is good and all, but in that case, the questions should be fixed. And since visibility of highly downvoted questions is low. It's better that you just post a question like that which has proper formulation, and then re-post your answer. This question, as written, is garbage, and the product of a mind eager to post a question, so they could gain some points or transfer a bounty to a second account. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Sep 16 '14 at 15:18
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ So if you really think this answer should be on the site, why not post it on a question that deserves being on the site as well? $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Sep 16 '14 at 15:19
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila That thought did occur to me. But, at the moment, I am trying to wind down my activity here (something along the lines of research+teaching leave, and extended paternity leave...). So maybe I will post a similar question when I have more free time. $\endgroup$ – user1729 Sep 16 '14 at 15:24
  • $\begingroup$ I apologize for voting to close again; I vaguely remembered the question, but I should have checked the history before voting a second time. Somehow I expected the software would prevent it. I do think the question should be deleted, but I did not intend to vote twice. Now I cannot see how to retract my vote. $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert Sep 21 '14 at 1:45
  • $\begingroup$ Now this is reopened. $\endgroup$ – jdoicj Sep 23 '14 at 8:33
  • $\begingroup$ And now closed, for the 4th time (!), once as Not A Real Question, once as Off-Topic, once as Exact Duplicate, and now as Unclear What You're Asking. It has 24 upvotes, and 31 downvotes; it has an answer with 24 upvotes (and 2 downvotes), and another answer with 34 upvotes (and 6 downvotes). It cannot be said that this question hasn't received any attention! $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Sep 24 '14 at 1:01
  • $\begingroup$ And then deleted again, and then undeleted. Holy cow! $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Oct 26 '14 at 10:12
-10
votes
$\begingroup$

[Auto-Deleted]

There is a question:

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/987284/fuel-level-in-horizontal-cylindrical-tank/987290#987290

I did answer it some time ago. The question is a PSQ. The question is closed because the OP hadn't shown any research effort. I've no problem with the downvotes that question got. The problem is that the answers on that answer weren't worthy of downvotes. My answer could have some mistakes but my method to calculate the volume by using integration is completely correct. The other answer IIRC had 2 upvotes initially. Mine had 1 upvote. It is obvious that the question has become a victim of the massive-deletion campaign.

Please undelete the question, for the answer can be(are for me at-least) useful for the future visitors.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/9959/… In particular the "provide context" part. $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Nov 5 '14 at 17:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If you are advocating closing the question, does it matter what the stated reason for closure is? $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Nov 5 '14 at 21:57
  • $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson I'm not advocating to close it; rather I want it to be reopened, but if it is closable according to some policy of this website then they should give the correct reason. IIRC Posting homework questions without providing research effort was allowed on MSE but seems like the policies have been changed as I cannot find the homework tag itself! $\endgroup$ – user103816 Nov 6 '14 at 3:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The homework tag got banished some months ago --- you can probably find the discussion we had here on meta. There is a posse that goes around closing questions-without-effort, and the "provide context" reason is the one they generally give. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Nov 6 '14 at 11:57

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .