There has been some dispute over the best way to deal with the following question:
The OP has demonstrated that they have seen debunkings based on people explaining the concept is a hoax, but remains unconvinced.
The leading answer argues that the claim is unlikely, based largely on opinions, without providing direct evidence whether the phenomena exists or not.
- Upon being challenged, the answerer claims that it is consistent with scientific skepticism.
There are disputes about whether edits to the question are improvements.
People keep weighing in with comments (often deleted) and even an answer about conjectures about how it could be true (if you changed the definitions words) or it could never be true.
What could we do to fix this question and answers?