Dude, you could have posted all of this stuff in a single thread, you know.

Dude, you could have posted all of this stuff in a single thread, you know.

Indeed. If there is going to be any meta response to this at all (about which I am of two minds, but I think that the right kind of engagement could be beneficial), could one of the moderators please compress these seven threads into one?

I see little evidence that you've been "polite and civil" in your confrontations with other MO users. For example, based only on these meta threads, you have accused top researchers of being "despicable," accused us of being a clique of witch-hunters (who are also apparently popular girls in a sorority), and compared Scott Morrison to Karl Rove.

Let me say that I am sorry for the somewhat catty remarks I've made on your questions and answers from time to time. They were unprofessional of me. But they come from a frustration with many of the contributions you've made to MO that, as I'm sure you can tell, others share. For example, as Kevin Lin and Ryan Budney point out, much of the time your questions are just off-topic. People who close these questions aren't doing so out of a personal vendetta against you; they're doing so in accordance with MO policy, just as they would if anyone else posted those same questions.

That is the "first level" of frustration. The "second level" comes from your reactions when people try to tell you that, for example, one of your questions is off-topic. In your responses, you frequently use language which suggests that other MO users are somehow colluding to make sure your voice isn't heard. I would like to make this very clear: I am not colluding with anybody. Have you considered the possibility that maybe the MO users who react negatively to your contributions are just independently coming to the same conclusion about, for example, whether one of your questions is off-topic? I know you feel very strongly that MO should be used in certain ways. The fact that we disagree with you is, again, not because of any personal vendetta against you: it is because MO was not designed and never intended to be used in those ways.

Part of the problem, I think, is the old issue that it is difficult to interpret emotions over the internet, and I think you have been overestimating the hostility that others feel towards you. I am trying to make this response as non-hostile as I can because I can see that you have good intentions. I hope you don't think of me as an enemy. I just want to clearly explain my point of view on this issue so that we can come to some kind of resolution.

Edit: One more thing. You have mentioned, on occasion, that you feel as if you're being treated worse than Harry, whose behavior you perceive as being more disruptive, and you think this is due to favoritism on the part of the moderators. Maybe you weren't around when this was happening, but the history behind the moderators' and other users' responses to Harry's behavior is long and not particularly worth getting in to. But Harry has been willing to admit his mistakes, and his behavior has improved. As far as I can tell, you have never admitted that any of your behavior is inappropriate for MO.

@Andrew: I've exchanged a number of emails with you in which I think I made my views pretty clear, so I assume you're interested in getting the reactions of other members of the meta community rather than the reactions of the MO moderators. If I feel a need to express my opinions, I'll probably simply quote my emails to you since a fair amount of thought went into them. Unless you ask me to do otherwise, I'll quote the relevant bits of your emails for context. If you feel you've been treated unfairly, I'd happily agree to post our email exchanges in their entirety and bear all the criticism I deserve.

(Edit @Akhil below: sorry, I deleted the comment of Harry's that you've replied to since I thought it might turn this thread into an argument between him and Andrew)

Dear Andrew,

In your postings on this thread and its prequel, you describe yourself as having a blunt manner, and claim that your suspension, and the restrictions on your posting, are not justified, but are the result of a clash between this blunt manner and the moderators of MO. I am not one of the moderators, and in several meta discussions I have taken a position which is in disagreement with the moderators and the majority view that typically coincides with theirs. Nevertheless, in this case I think they are justified, and I am commenting here to add my support to their actions. Let me explain why.

The moderators' primary goal is to keep MO running smoothly, and in particular, to make it an attractive place for research mathematicians to come and interact.
If I've understood the sequence of events correctly, the comment thread that led to your suspension included the claim that top researchers who are also good teachers "are the exception and not the rule". Even if this were true, it would be a statement that is likely to offend a good number of research mathematicians, and so it is hardly surprising that the moderators are reluctant to have such comments appearing on the site.

But if you consider for a moment, who are the research mathematicians who come to MO? While I personally don't find your remark offensive, just ill-considered, let me use myself as an example. I have asked two questions, and given 213 answers. What do you think my motivations are for doing this? And I'm hardly alone in being a researcher who participates in MO mainly through answering questions, rather than asking them. What I am getting at is that your comment has the most potential to offend precisely those research mathematicians who participate in MO, as well as those who don't, but who the moderators would like to have participating. When looked at in this way, I hope you will understand better why the moderators feel compelled to act. They can't afford complete freedom of speech for one user at the cost of driving away many other users, or creating an environment on the site that discourages new users from participating. This is (at least in part) what I believe Scott Morrison is referring to when he writes in his email to you "...[these kinds of comments] can seriously affect the positive reputation of MathOverflow".

As for the claim that you are being driven off MO: the moderators have imposed a penalty which is designed to incentivize you to align your participation on the site with its primary purpose, which (as many have said) is to ask and answer mathematical questions, rather than to engage in discussions about mathematics. This is not the same thing as being banned from the site. I appreciate that it's also unpleasant, but if you let it drive you off the site, that's your choice; the penalty imposed leaves plenty of scope for the opposite to happen as well.

Yours sincerely,

Matthew Emerton

+1 to Ryan Budney, with the addendum that while on some of AL's posts I've voted to close or claimed that the question was off--topic for MO, this is not meant vindictively nor to single him out. I try to be fair about what I vote to close or express MO-disapproval of.

I get the impression, from a quick look at the question & comments that seemed to have prompted the latest moderator action and AL's responses, that the parts which are most likely to cause offence/irritation are not the claims that there exist high-and-mighty-mathematicians-who-are-bad-teachers -- though I too think this is more of a cliche and caricature than a commonplace -- but rather AL's recurring gripes that Soon The Powers That Be Will Stifle My Dissent. But perhaps I have misread in haste.

Also, if AL is reading, I would like him to reconsider his claim that Shirley Sherrod got better treatment (cf. recent USA politics) than he has received here. While the frustration that leads to such overstatement is understandable, in isolation it is close to what posh people like me call "hyperbole", and uncouth people like me call "bullshit".

@Yemon: You are technically in the hardline clique. Among the most visible members of this clique are Andrew Stacey, you, Akhil Mathew (recently), me, and (before he became a moderator) Scott Carnahan.

I mean, I was talking about the leaders of the departments of the OBN. However, I don't know if the OBN meets the technical definition of a clique.

I'd second that, Kevin. I know it's nice to have meta be a fairly relaxed and permissive place, but we should all still attempt to be constructive, polite, and professional here too!

I don't know if people who commented realize this, but it's Yemon who is at fault here: he has been repeatedly baiting on the subject of "Which clique do I belong to?" (there have been at least 2 previous instances; I passed on it, but he caught Harry). He also wins my "inappropriate attempts at humor" award in this thread. For once, please, give Harry a break. (@Harry: don't get complacent!)

@Kevin: you are trying to project a certain impression about MO that other people also would like to believe, but not everyone agrees with your view.

Well, I for one expect to be informed of every clique I belong to!

@VP: thanks for your kind words. The courtesy is much appreciated (especially since online it seems a diminishing quantity).