When we run across questions that appear to pushing for a certain answer ether by the way the question was written or the way they attack given answers what is the appropriate close reason for it?

An example of this would be a user asking about a claim made in a video and responding to answers with claims from that video to attempt to discredit that answer. When we run into a question like this where the user appears to be looking for a specific answer what is the appropriate action?

  • Flag it for moderator action and explain that it appears to be using the question itself to discredit answers in an attempt to push a specific agenda?
  • Flag it was a close vote that is designed for these types of push questions? (I know other sites have close reasons for push type questions)

In cases where it appears that the poster appears to be fishing for a specific answer should we do one/both of the ideas I mentioned or should we do something else?

  • 1
    Could you rephrase the 1st sentence 2nd para? An (the) example would really help to understand this better. I'd also like to focus this more on the specific example. For the general issue of "push", it gets imo more complicated, since "SkepticsSE is different" (to, say, PolSE…). Whether a Q is pushy is a probably different problem here compared to OPs reacting strangely to As? May 11, 2021 at 14:51
  • How do you want me to rephrase it? And what I mean by push is a question that is looking for a specific and will discredit or ignore any answer they don't like
    – Joe W
    May 11, 2021 at 15:13
  • 2
    That user's most recent comments have made the "push" nature of their question explicit.
    – F1Krazy
    May 11, 2021 at 15:25
  • 1
    I understand what you mean by push, but you need to reword your second paragraph here so I understand what exactly are saying. So someone asked about a claim in a video, then tried to refute answers with that very video? That's just a weird Twilight Zone thing. I mean at that point, it's a problem with the user not the question. Probably should just flag for moderator attention.
    – user11643
    May 11, 2021 at 15:31
  • 1
    With regards to what you call a push question, it's very difficult to try and qualify what that is and devise a rubric or something so that users can appropriately vote close. Like Lang suggests, sometimes people are just reading too much into it. Other times the asker has contrived some weird game. We want to create something that finds the latter and leaves the former unmolested.
    – user11643
    May 11, 2021 at 15:34
  • @fredsbend I tried to clarify my question and add more detail.
    – Joe W
    May 11, 2021 at 15:39
  • Now I understand the Q here much better, thx. @F1Krazy If that's the thread under discussion here, then would you agree that this is primarily a pushy user & specific user behaviour, rather a problem with "pushQs"? Seems to me that aspect should be the main focus to handle here? (Crazy: the comment thread is a freaky mess, yet now we need it kept for a while to discuss this… ?) May 11, 2021 at 15:48
  • @LangLаngС I was trying to keep it generic as it is likely that this will happen again in the future and I was wondering how best to handle it when it does.
    – Joe W
    May 11, 2021 at 16:07
  • Watching the development on the example Q: I strongly suspect that we would need a much tighter definition for "What is a push Q on S:SE?" (Or trolling, for that matter.) The Q had & has still a lot of problems in itself and around it (dysfunctional comments for starters), but whether it is or might be a pushQ isn't settled, imo. So, for a generic type of Q, I believe we need the prolegomena for 'push' on this site with its special nature laid out. May 12, 2021 at 18:13
  • @LangLаngС Sounds like the start of an answer.
    – Joe W
    May 12, 2021 at 18:19

1 Answer 1


Well, in this case, the OP has posted this addition:

Edit : Only answers that don't reference papers based on analogous grounds as those that have been fact checked in the video are acceptable. Unless the conclusions and reasoning of the video is disproven.

And my comment to it, together with VTC (for now) is this:

you need to list here the papers from the video you linked to and the grounds on which they have been dismissed in the video. The question needs to be self-contained, here. Don't expect people to watch 13 minutes of rambling to answer your question in the precise way that you hope for.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .