Frankly, shameful. Editors, especially in mathematics, should be able to judge the work on its merits.
It's a question of compliance with the journal's formal publication process.
It's not a mathematical paper.
The AMS version is headed:
> This essay incorporates with permission material from our pseudonymous colleague XOR'easter, who also contributed many suggestions during the writing process. By the extent of XOR’easter’s contributions, they would normally be credited as an author. However it was not possible in time to find a way to strictly preserve anonymity and assign legal copyright. All four contributors disagree with this exclusion. I regret its necessity — Ed.
You might end up receiving hundreds of (perhaps AI-generated) submissions every day and reviewers would just refuse to read any of it.
Other good papers on ArXiv or even cited papers never published on specific venues other than crypto ArXiv are held back by very biased crank editors on wikipdia. One of them is a clown called ... MrOllie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MrOllie
Who has been doing his fair share of introducing paid bias by certain third parties. I wonder if this is not one of the puppet accounts of David Eppstein.
Wikipedia as it has converged is nothing close to what the David Eppstein has outlined in the article he advertised. Sorry. Far cry.