I think François was out of line to reopen the question when it had four votes to close and thus extended this discussion. It would have probably been closed and not reopened without his intervention. I wasn't even going to comment on this thread, as I have nothing nice to say about this question. By the way, I was the one to cast the vote to delete and, as someone correctly guessed, it was a vote of protest.

No. It can't be done anyway.

@François: thanks for the additional clarification. I just looked again at the open/close cycles and saw your name among the last batch of closers. Which makes your decision to reopen a little more impressive (I say 'your' since yours was the public face of that decision, even if it was arrived at jointly with other moderators).

After a few iterations the system has worn out its usefulness, so we call a draw and ignore all votes.

I take that to mean that any decision to close thereafter is to reside solely in the hands of the moderators; yes? Also, is that a general policy, and if so, does it kick in after some predetermined number of open/close cycles? Or is this a case-by-case sort of thing?

Surely, It is odd to convince a mathematician that proof is indeed important. But, for a moment, please forget this aspect of my description and you will see how constructive the question turn to be. Of course, you have faced a lighter version of the question many times before, for example, when you were asked it by your students: "why should we prove this when we clearly see that is true?" In this regard, the question is like the other question asked by Gowers:http://mathoverflow.net/questions/37610/demonstrating-that-rigour-is-important. However, as the most answers shows, the current question is more "philosophically" and "intra-professionally" oriented. Moreover, we may think of the question as a "dumb question" about our own practice. Then, we may see some merits in the question since as Tao says "one should be unafraid to ask “stupid” questions, challenging conventional wisdom on a subject; the answers to these questions will occasionally lead to a surprising conclusion, but more often will simply tell you why the conventional wisdom is there in the first place, which is well worth knowing." Thus, if we keep the answers clean, constructive, related and junk-free, the question will be worthwhile professionally, philosophically and educationally. To this end, and to respect the moderators' decision and the concerns of all those who voted to close the post, and all those who found some merits in the main question, I edit the body of the post and delete the two sub-questions within. With all respects to fedja, this decision is to keep the possible future answers more focused around the main question.

As Felipe pointed out, the close/reopen manoever was just to clear the votes and end the war.

I take that to mean that any decision to close thereafter is to reside solely in the hands of the moderators; yes?

Yes, it's a trigger for moderators to do some more traditional "hands-on" moderation. Each question is evaluated on its own merits and community input is always considered. Remember that this is a conflict resolution mechanism whose main purpose is to keep disputes from escalating. The goal is not to "judge" whether the question should be closed or reopened.

Also, is that a general policy, and if so, does it kick in after some predetermined number of open/close cycles? Or is this a case-by-case sort of thing?

This is the traditional way to handle close wars. Three cycles is the typical threshold. Less if the dispute has taken a bad turn. More if productive discussion is still happening.

I confess that I have been unable to understand almost anything that the questioner has written here in defense of the question. It seems that Amir's methods of communicating written ideas do not match well with my methods of taking them in. Perhaps I am allergic to heavy use of analogies and quotations.

Regarding war policy, I think we passed the threshold of unsatisfactory answers right around the beginning, and this is because the question that was asked does not lend itself to reasonable answers that directly address it. As far as I can tell, any positive contribution to the current question would be more appropriate as an answer to Gowers's question.

Does anyone have a good reason for keeping it open any longer?

What do you see as good about the question, Gil? To me the question sets a rather bad example of public mathematical behaviour -- gossiping about a misunderstanding that one had by listening-in on a prominent mathematican's private conversation. It's sort of tabloid mathematics.

Ryan, I like the question as it appeared in the title: "Is rigour just a ritual that most mathematicians wish to get rid of if they could?"
I find this question , while a bit provocative nice and quite good. The way the question is presented and the reference to the public discussion about proofs is not entirely clear to me (but it is not crossing the gossiping line).
The quote of Milnor is nice too (but it is not clear where it ends).

Regarding war policy, I think we passed the threshold of unsatisfactory answers right around the beginning, and this is because the question that was asked does not lend itself to reasonable answers that directly address it.

The only breath of fresh air, in my opinion, was Andrej Bauer's answer (which was posted yesterday). The question as expressed in the title sounded more or less rhetorical to me, and the body of the question had these annoying sound bites ("death to Euclid", "philosophical breakdown", "I couldn't get to sleep", and whatnot) which even if accurate just made matters confusing as hell. It was this that imparted the tabloid-y aspect to me -- not precisely gossip, but close to zero information that one could really make use of in formulating a response. And so we get answers that try their best but verge close to platitude.

Yay to Andrej for saving the day. My heart was lightened and gladdened by his response, and it deserves to be read several times.

I like Gil's suggestion, but would change the date of closure to, say, May 9, 2013. Perhaps that's too soon. I'm willing to compromise. Say, two days from now?

So, as discussed, any chance the moderators may close the question now?

There is no pressure, Gil, no debate, and no war. A suggestion was made by the moderators, and I would like to see it implemented. (But I'm sure I would find your answer insightful, as usual. So I am fine with the moderators deciding to wait for your answer, if that's the route they choose to follow.)