This user has recently posted a number of questions here on Skeptics about controversial recent political events, sometimes concurrently cross-posting on Politics.SE, sometimes self-answering. Most of the questions have been downvoted and several closed. In a comment on this since deleted post, the user states:

I've been trying to use StackExchange to publish my attempts to do fair-minded, possibly neutral, Internet stuff on these current events

This seems to fit with the previously discussed behavior of using comments to discuss off topic political elements edited out of their otherwise on-topic questions.

We don't care about your political opinions, cross posting is clearly frowned on, and, while self-answering is part of the SE model, it seems the community wants to avoid users turning this site into their personal blogging platform.

Is there something else we should be doing in response to the posting behavior by this user, or should we just keep applying the quality standards and bringing readers attention to cross posting in the comments?

I can't see other deleted questions, but it seems, with some of this user's questions being well received, s/he may have an overall positive question record. There may be a "throw everything at the wall to see what sticks" strategy involved here, or a lack of understanding about the purpose of this site, but from my perspective the user may have some positive things to contribute, but the overall effect has been negative.


I wouldn't bother with anything more than voting and commenting where appropriate. I'd say their contribution is overall positive. The few issues I've seen were corrected by the community. Seems to be a user that will learn and follow the guidelines, rather than choosing obstinacy.


Posting in agreement with fredsbend's answer.

I don't think there's anything here that requires more than continued guidance on what is and is not correct behavior (with closure/deletion/etc as appropriate). In my experience, the user has demonstrated that they are happy to fit their questions and answers to the community standards when said standards are explained sufficiently. I'd say that polite users following the rules from a contrarian perspective are a positive boon to a place like skeptics. Helps us fight off the natural tendency to go echo chamber.



Why is that? If your blog is about claims made publicly that you're skeptical of, I would welcome you turning it into your own personal blogging platform.

  • You could look at the meta post I linked to in order to reference the community consensus... It sounds like you have a minority view here. You might want to post your argument in response to that question – De Novo Oct 10 '18 at 2:09
  • That's because the term "blog" in the linked context is different from the context you used it in. A direct quote from the top answer "The reason is not the fact that you self-answered, but that your questions are on controversial political topics and we get the distinct impression that your questions are motivated by more than curiosity." Are you making the case this users "blogging" is based on something more than skepticism and curiosity – Evan Carroll Oct 10 '18 at 2:58
  • 1
    If you look at the downvoted and deleted question/answer pairs by the user, you'll see that is exactly what I was referring to, which I thought I was clear about in my post. As I understand it, skeptics is about asking questions and getting answers, not publishing personal opinions. You do tend to express minority views on skeptics meta, but I appreciate the distinction you're trying to make here -- if the questions and answers are good, then there is no problem. – De Novo Oct 10 '18 at 17:55

You must log in to answer this question.

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