12:21 AM
Hallo, @amWhy

@amWhy @Did, @user21820, @ZacharySelk, In fact, the user was indeed a sock-puppet, and the account has been deleted.
@XanderHenderson Hello there!

I'm not really here :)

@XanderHenderson I know!, that's why I said "hello there! :P

5 hours later…
5:13 AM
@amWhy <− @Did @ZacharySelk: I've voted to delete these two totally zero-effort PSQs that amWhy mentioned, Obviously, leaving them closed (and not deleted) for a while is not an option here, because some users have inexplicably voted to reopen.
This PSQ has been closed for more than 2 days now and the asker hasn't bothered to improve it.
@amWhy One of the comments is real funny:

5:37 AM
@amWhy Another PSQ by the same user, who is not new at all.
1 message moved to Sandbox

6:04 AM
@Did @amWhy @ZacharySelk @ProfessorVector @XanderHenderson: This user seems to post only PSQs despite having been told how to ask a good question since 2016: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

2 hours later…
8:06 AM
@user21820 Comments to an answer to 10 berating the users voting to close.

@Did Also, somebody upvoted a few of those PSQs just after I posted those links. Can you believe it? This is why deletion is the only way to maintain site quality, because people otherwise subvert the other features of the site to preserve rubbish against site guidelines.

8:22 AM
@user21820 Indeed. If the discussions of these last days show anything, it is that the party defending their "constitutional right" to post and answer any rubbish whatsoever, is again very strong at mse. (The idownvotedbecau.se links could prove useful here, despite the fact that they were written in a computer science context, if only to remind that closures of offtopic questions do not result from a whim of pervert lunatics but from the mere application of the rules of the site.)
@user21820 See also this, written by the same CS user for the good of the math SE community (who basically hurried to forget the message).
@user21820 And this. (I wonder what the user concluded from the total lack of reaction by this community to their tries to add some context to the discussion. That this was a lost cause, perhaps?)

3 hours later…
11:20 AM
@Did @amWhy @ZacharySelk @ProfessorVector @XanderHenderson: Yet another plain PSQ here.

1 hour later…
12:45 PM
Another PSQ by a user who will be familiar to you. @user21820, @Did, @ZacharySelk

@amWhy I think I do not know this user.

3 hours later…
3:20 PM
This no-effort PSQ needs to be closed, @user21820, @Did, @XanderHenderson, @ZacharySelk, @ProfessorVector.

@amWhy The asker didn't even bother to get the image link right!

@user21820 I know! What is going on this last couple of days? Jack and the group he conspires with seem to have intimidated users from even casting downvotes, let alone close votes.

3:50 PM
@user21820 This user has been a recurrent and chronic PSQ ASKER, and despite folks taking them to task, they continue. Usually with the same theme: "Here's the problem. I do not understand." Or "[fill in the blank with a PSQ]. I do not know. Please help." They often take recourse in deleting many of their downvoted questions. Note that given four close votes on the question I linked above, they've deleted it.
@Did, @user21820, @XanderHenderson, @ZacharySelk, et al. Note this argumentative mse main post: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2666118/…

@amWhy I saw it. I'm not sure what to do with it (other than downvote).

@XanderHenderson You can vote to close it.

4:06 PM
@amWhy ...Rather funnily, at the moment, the outcome does not seem to be the one the asker was trying to get.

@amWhy "piece" not "peace"
(re: your comment on that L'Hospital question)

@XanderHenderson thanks! Fixed in time.

@Did I posted a factual comment, but well you know how difficult it is for some of my factual remarks to be accepted even if more self-evident than the axiom schema of replacement...

@user21820 Hey, do not let these get at your morale... :-) The last comment by José to their own answer seems to me to distill the essence of the matter in a clear way.

4:15 PM
@Did I upvoted his answer and comment, for precisely that reason.

does someone a lot more clever than myself feel like forking idownvotedbecau.se to create something more appropriate for MSE (and less about code)?
2

@XanderHenderson iwontbecau.se/itsjustaboutbasiccourtesy, and having such a website tells a lot about the lack of courtesy in certain communities, on the part of those asking for help that is.
=)

5:03 PM
Open for deletion, 2 days old: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2662069/…
@Did, @user21820, @ZacharySelk, @ProfessorVector, @JohnMa, See see the link immediately above.
Also, to all, math.stackexchange.com/questions/2666118/… is likely to be reopened.

@amWhy It hasn't been "on hold" for 2 days yet, so some people will complain if we don't wait.

Of course, if Jack has so much power so that he dictates behavior on this site for multiple users, arbitrarily, those who want to follow him, or whatever guide they have; those who are not dictated solely by Jack or such "restrict deletions, expand answering of crap, expand defending crappy answers." the user makes clear that they decided working, in response to DonAntonio, wasn't worth it and declared abandonment.

@amWhy That's true. But sometimes I feel like letting people who want to keep dirt on their face remain dirty.
Haha..

5:18 PM
Not a problem... I get that, but along comes Jack or someone from the group who Jack coordinates may come along, conspire to reopen, and upvote. That's the only reason Jack wants users to wait; so he and his friends will have time to edit the question (not necessarily in-keeping with the actual question asked), solicit upvotes, solicit reopen votes, etc.
In any case, @user21820 did you see my comment that Jack's army seems to be close to having Jack's non-question on main reopened: 4 reopen votes.

@amWhy @Did @ProfessorVector: Anyway, since they like attention on lousy answers, this is totally useless. "→" is meaningless when x's behaviour is not specified.

I seem to recall getting into an argument with another user who liked to use "$\to$" in an ambiguous manner quite a lot...

5:49 PM
Jacks opinion editorial posted in mse main: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2666118/… has been reopened, @user21820, @Did, @XanderHenderson, @ZacharySelk.
These are the reopeners, the first of which goes without saying: Jack, ChristianF, A. Goodier, Leucippus, José Carlos Santos

@user21820 Some people never let go.

6:06 PM
@Did I guess not!

@amWhy @user21820 Even WP is clear on this LH thing (search for "A common pitfall")...

@Did Indeed; unfortunately, it seems as though Jack and his supporters are more interested in convincing others that he's right, than he is in actually being right.
@Did @user21820 It seems a mod finally semi-responded to the first attempt by Jack to bring a meta issue to main: See last comment below Jack's opinion here

7:22 PM
Hello. I don't see a way to make this question salvageable. Since there has been sufficient interactions from the OP and the community (I think), I suggest deletion. math.stackexchange.com/questions/2666234/…

7:39 PM
Someone made on edit on the following post of mine, but deleted crucial information in the process:
2

First I must point out the following corollary in my book: If $G$ is a finitely generated abelian group generated by $n$ elements, then every subgroup $H$ of $G$ may be generated by $m$ elements with $m \le n$. Here is the problem I am working on: If $F$ is a finitely generated free gr...

Would someone undo his edit? I can't figure out how to do it.

@user193319 Like this?

@ProfessorVector Looks as it should. Thanks!

8:09 PM
This question made it onto the HNQ but I'm kinda meh on it

8:28 PM
@SimplyBeautifulArt Agreed
@SimplyBeautifulArt Adding mathjax somewhere in the title boots it from HNQ.

@amWhy lmao
that's kinda evil

@SimplyBeautifulArt So it its being placed in the HNQ evil!

@SimplyBeautifulArt my goodness, I make so many stupid typos these days!! =P
@SimplyBeautifulArt Did you see this question, in which Jack has brought his argument from meta, into main?

:S
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. — quid ♦ 31 secs ago
>.>

8:38 PM
@SimplyBeautifulArt When the question was previously closed, Jack actually reposted the question on main, again. That second post was closed as a dupe of the one I linked, and it remains to be seen whether the linked post will ultimately survive or not. As Jyrki suggested, to me I think the question was posted in bad faith, as an extention of his meta post.

2 hours later…
10:56 PM
@Did, @user21820, @ZacharySelk: answer open for deletion