Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
I have just had for the second time the experience of addressing in good faith comments by fpqc to a question of mine, only to be drawn into a game of his repeatedly making and then deleting comments. Some of the comments that fpqc has made and quickly deleted are quite disrespectful, signficantly more so than the comments he lets stand. I find the practice of posting and then deleting impolite comments in the hope that the intended recipient will read them but that the moderators will not catch them highly inappropriate. I think most other MOers would agree with me.
Up until now, my strategy for dealing with fpqci had been an approach of rewarding his good behavior and calling attention to some of his more egregious bad behavior. I can see now that this is not effective, or at least not effective enough.
My new strategy is a non-feeding philosophy: at the present time I will no longer answer questions or respond in any way -- including voting, either up or down -- to answers or comments posted by fpqc. (Exception: I will still flag blatantly inappropriate posts.) I will keep up this policy for one week and then reevaluate.
If you feel this is a good strategy, please go ahead and join in. If you agree that there is a problem here and have some better idea in mind please let me know, by email if you wish.
MODERATOR (scott): This discussion has degenerated into a pointless argument. I am about to edit out the use of fpqc's real name, as he has asked that it not be used in this thread, and I don't think any meaning is lost, and then close the thread.
Then... maybe you shouldn't post them at all?
Look, it's not very hard to think before you post something. It's a habit we should all try to cultivate and maybe it will temper some of the problems you've been having on MO. This doesn't just extend to rude comments - I've noticed that you have a tendency to misinterpret questions and then aggressively press your point of view until you realize you've misinterpreted the question. In particular, you seem to be very quick to assume that the people you are arguing with - who are almost always older and wiser than either of us - are wrong. Have you considered that the attitude that needs changing is yours and not Pete's?
What Dan said. Not that this really affects me one way or t'other, mind.
@Pete Clark.
Why do you stress yourself out unnecessarily? It is nasty business to get into nasty arguments, etc.. It distracts us from our purpose and puts us in a foul mood for the whole day or sometimes even more.
My philosophy about such issues is the following: It is the mods headache to establish discipline, etiquette, etc. here.. If such things are not here, the populace should just keep out until it gets done. Indeed I got fed up of such personal arguments and for some time now I had been using MO under different names, and I substantially cut down my involvement in meta. In particular I do not at all get involved with people I consider to be nasty. Anyway this strategy of avoidance is good for me since I am a grad student. You are different since you are more senior.
But still, I am advocating the same for you because I feel bad for you. I agree with your comments, but I would suppose that it is a great waste of time for an arithmetic geometry researcher and a young, enthusiastic and active assistant(asssociate?) prof in a promising situation, to get into disciplining matters. Leave that to the mods. You are a math professor, not a phys ed teacher, for god's sake! The emotional energy you waste for this could be spent on much, much better things. .
@dan peterson.
Yes, I am aware of that fault of mine. However I have essentially stopped using the Anweshi name in MO, and indeed when I post in other names, I believe I haven't made the same offence so much.
Sometimes the comments following made me look like such a jackass .. So I deleted out of embarassment. In many situations I have taken care to post a note afterwards that I deleted so-and-so comment.
@Pete Clark.
Your description of the problem, as I understand, is as follows: A user says sensible things sometimes and becomes too smartass at other times. The solution is simplicity itself: do not encourage in any way; except when something really good is contributed by the user in such a way that you are forced to appreciate it. I suppose, this is much like what you would do with such a person in real life.
This is for a common user to deal with the said user. I however do not know what the mods are supposed to do. As the site grows up, I suppose there will be many high rep users and dealings will become less impersonal. The mods can at the moment promote the growth of the community with high quality users, and then hopefully after a while things will stabilize with many people to delegate the micro-management tasks.
Dear fpqc,
Please consider again the advice given to you by Kevin Buzzard, myself, and Noah Snyder. And consider the following: mathematicians typically value technical strength and competence, and are often rather scornful of those who profess to have such strength and competence, but who in fact don't (or have less than they think they do). As the three of us mentioned above, mathematics is also a rather small world. People earn respect within the world by virtue of their mathematical achievements, and by virture of having earned it, usually expect to be treated with it. I suggest that you attempt to be more respectful to others on the site, regardless of whether you find this chafing or unfair. I also suggest that you enforce your unilateral policy of not posting on meta, and perhaps extend it to commenting on MO. There is no need for you to comment in order to read or answer questions, and experiences suggests that by commenting, you very frequently get yourself into hot water. As you noted yourself, there is a danger of travelling ever further down a self-destructive path (at least in so far as your mathematical career is concerned).
Dear Colleagues,
I believe that there has been more discussion on meta regarding fpqc than regarding any other user. Various appeals have been made in various directions. I am sympathetic to the appeals for tolerance for the same reasons that I am sympathetic to appeals not to close questions, not to down-vote, and so on, namely, I believe that openness is generally a good thing. Furthermore, I believe that fpqc does not deliberately act in bad faith; he simply seems to have great trouble curtailing his strong opinions and avoiding arguments.
On the other hand, it has been pointed out to me by others who regularly read the site, that by trying to be fair to fpqc, one is potentially being unfair to many other users and potential users of MO. Most regular (or even semi-regular) users of MO are aware of fpqc through his very opinionated comments, which are often abrasive, and sometimes worse.
I don't know what the solution is. I hope that fpqc will unilaterally decide to stop commenting on MO and meta (while still posting and answering questions). If he doesn't, perhaps the moderators will have to intervene. In the meantime, I will not join in any moratorium on answering his questions, but will continue to treat them like any other question on MO, answering them or not as I feel like it.
Dear fpqc,
You've made strongly worded technical comments on material that is much beyond sophomore level. If these were uniformly correct, that would be one thing; but they are often incorrect, not quite to the point, or similarly off-target in some way. You have advised other users on courses they should take to learn certain material, without having any idea of their level of seniority in the mathematical world. Comments like this damage your credibility, and irritate experts. It is because of them that you have received unsympathetic comments from Buzzard, myself, Martin Brandenburg, and others. (Here I speak authoritatively only for myself, but I am confident that I understand the motives of the others as well.)
While I am not joining Pete Clark in his moratorium, I think you are grossly misinterpreting his stance. He is an established mathematician; his only a priori interest in an undergraduate positing on MO is as to whether they might make a good graduate student in the future. However, in his view you are causing enough trouble on MO that he feels it is necessary to do something about it. If he had moderator powers I am sure he would suspend you; since he doesn't, he is doing what he can. Your troubles stem from your commenting, not from Pete Clark. Please consider a self-imposed moratorium on commenting.
Have you considered the possibility that Dr. Clark is using your full name to remind you that your actions on MO have consequences? Whether you use your full name in this particular thread or not, many users on MO who have the opportunity to affect your academic career in the future already know what it is. It seems like more of a rhetorical strategy than an unfair tactic to me.
The hightest reputed user, David Speyer, has got 3285 profile views as of now(old timers like Kuperberg has more, of course). fpqc is close behind, with 3283 views as of now. Definitely much ahead of the second most reputed user, Pete Clark, with 2191 views and admin Anton, with 2682 views.
That says something about how much attention fpqc recieves within MO. fpqc is perhaps the only user with high reputation, but with even higher number of profile views.
@zskoda. Welcome to MO! I am very much aware of your presence at nlab and I am very hopeful that you will have a good time at MO and you can be equally good at MO as at nlab, if not better. It was time overdue you that you came here, I would say. I request you to have a look at my question on theories of noncommuative geometry and perhaps leave a comment whether the question is appropriate or not. I faced some problems with getting it accepted; but I will accept your opinion as I think you will be unbiased.
As for your comments on fpqc: We are all aware of his good qualities, which are admittedly exceptional for a sophomore. To see what are the difficulties we are talking about, I suggest that you hang around for a while and find out for yourself. If you still feel the same after a few weeks, then it would be true that the crowd is wrong, and fpqc has improved. Which would be a greatly positive thing, of course.
For the moment, it might help you to notice that fpqc himself has taken down most of his posts. A number of them were problematic and had driven us to frustration in the past. But this last action was the even more frustrating, for the evidence is gone and we now look like a bunch of bullies ganging up on on an innocent.
Still, I must praise you for your support for a promising student.
Zoran, I think the misgivings people here have had with fpqc's conduct (myself included, from time to time) stem more from manners rather than mathematics; however, I would also say that the signal/noise ration of his contributions may be higher on the nlab and its relatives. As I'm not a regular there, I (and others I'm sure) am happy to take your word for it.
@SheldonCooper: Users with 10k+ reputation can see deleted questions and answers, but cannot see deleted comments. I don't know if this is true of the moderators.
Nobody can see deleted comments, which makes problems like this extremely frustrating for moderators (see the last paragraph of this comment). If you can, please vote up this request on meta.SE to allow moderators to see deleted comments.
I think this thread (or a moratorium) are ultimately counterproductive. Pete, as I understand it this thread is an attempt to hold fpqc accountable and to show him that his comments (even if they are quickly deleted) have serious consequences. While I agree with this motivation, it's hard to read this thread as much more than an attempt at public humiliation. While that's unpleasant, I think it makes it harder for fpqc to transition to being an "upright citizen," which should be the goal. Moreover, the publicity amplifies the effect of any moderator action (I think), making it more difficult for moderators to act decisively. I'm personally less likely to take any action against a user if that action is going to be perceived as public humiliation.
If you agree that there is a problem here and have some better idea in mind please let me know, by email if you wish.
If you have such problems in the future, please email the comments (as clearly as you can remember them) along with a link to the post where the comments were to me or another moderator. I think we can handle these matters privately in a way that takes less time and effort from everybody, is less noisy, and (I believe) more effective. Last time this issue came up, you (Pete) said you were satisfied with our actions so far and with our plan for response to future incidents. I hope that's still true.
@dan petersen. No problem for calling me out on my behavior. After all you noted only the truth.
Now about the rest: Yes, it seems that Dr. Pete L. Clark is indeed going out of his way to scold fpqc. I do not know what is in his mind, prompting him to use fpqc's real name(which we take on trust). But it is also true that Pete Clark and many people who are more senior went out of their way so many times in the past to explain things more politely to fpqc. If it is real life, how many times will you explain in very decent and soft terms and not lose your temper as the offence repeats? What I can read from this, is that Pete Clark is a bit peeved.
Also I see that you are new to meta. I must suspect that you do not know of all the past history. Yes, at first sight this might look like settling a grudge. But what is the grudge? There is a lot of history buildup here, which you are probably not aware of. And which is unfortunately deleted by now.
I would have liked to support fpqc's request to Dr. Pete L. Clark to not use fpqc's real name, which is a fair enough demand from considerations of reputation. However if I do that, what guarantee do I have that fpqc would not do something regrettable in future, biting me back in the ass? Absolutely none. He is not in my or your control. Only fpqc can clarify his motives and his future plans about the difficulties.
@Pete Clark. Now somebody has questioned your integrity and character, and accused you of going at an undergrad to settle a grudge. We who were here longer are able to see the justification for your actions. But what about a newcomer? I am finding it hard to explain to two new meta joinees what exactly the problem is. I hope you understand what I mean. It is below your level to have an internet fight with an undergrad. You are at a disadvantage here. You will be required to keep all high principles, and you will be required to stick to your words all the time etc., while the opposing party can be more free with wayward behavior and can do rude stuff while simultaneouslly requiring others to be polite to him and respect all his rights.
<<Edited: Here I had something written addressed towards Anton, which I now feel is not a very relevant comment. Sorry for deleting. I didn't want to sidetrack; so I hope the deletion is justified.>>
@fpqc. I saw your deleted comment asking me to stop instigating, and I waited for a good bit of time for another one to perhaps appear, thinking that you wanted to put it in a different way.
You asked me earlier also to leave a discussion about you, without specifying any reason whatsoever. Then I obliged. However this time I must demur. Might I ask you a reason now for me to quit?
Oh? I am not instigating a fight between Pete Clark and Dan Petersen. Dan Petersen questioned the motives of Pete Clark, and I tried to defend him since he is not here at the moment.
For the record, I state here clearly that I am strongly on the side of Pete Clark(except in the issue of using fpqc's real name, which I myself do not use nowadays, but I am not going to ask Pete Clark to refrain from its use either.). If ,Dan Petersen wants to address something I said, I do take responsibility of my statements and will answer them instead of Pete Clark(if I am awake, not in lectures, etc.)..
Also, you're suggesting that I've been "fighting dirty". That's absolutely untrue, and you can see it if you read my posts in this topic.
It is true that in this thread you are not fighting dirty(or in recent ones in meta). I had acknowledged your betterment earlier also.
But you have done "this nonsense" many times earlier. Admittedly, my memories of such incidents are of one month or so ago. But there were plenty of such incidences then, and it had stuck in my mind.
@fpqc. That was just two weeks ago. No, I didn't mean that incident. In that thread I acknowledged that I was rude to Anton and apologized for it. In that thread you might have been in the right. The only issue I had you with you then was that I was not in the mood for addressing each of your objections.
Thanks for your edit adding pots, kettles and all that. It's precisely what I wanted to say to you. After your initial rampage here, you should be the last person to accuse people of being rude.
After my tantrum, I totally changed my style of usage of MO, and out of laziness I didn't change my username in meta. I essentially kept to my word to shed that username. On the other hand, did you, reverend Sir, do anything at all towards keeping to your plan of sticking to math alone?
Suspended only once! The mods have surely read Shakespeare on mercy!
Let's call people as they prefer to be called. It's polite and less confusing to people who don't know how to decode the usernames.
I have now closed this thread.