I've noticed a couple of "axe to grind" X.Meta.SE questions recently. You can tell because the OP is critical of other users' behaviour, the answers going against the question get highly upvoted, and if another user posts an answer basically mirroring what the OP said in their question, it gets accepted despite having few or no upvotes.

I don't see the value of these, since they're basically just rants in disguise, and the behaviour of the OP in allocating the accepted answer betrays their motivation (i.e. not to have a discussion, but to find someone who agrees with their position). The OP often gets argumentative when people post comments. The questions are not usually recognisable as having an axe to grind until the OP has had a chance to respond to other users' input.

What's the best way to handle these? Ignore, comment, downvote or flag? If flagging, what would you flag it for?


Whenever askers are focusing on other specific users (no matter how heavily veiled they may be in that attempt) rather than working to improve content, I think the best thing is to start with a downvote because it is not useful.

I think you should then flag the moderators of that site with your concern, using the Other reason to describe it.

Any comment you make may help to support the user being targeted, but it may also serve to identify you as an alternative target. That should not happen but it may.

Moderators working together should be able respond to targeting of any users, including when a moderator is targeted.

You must log in to answer this question.

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