[neom]

This site might very well be crazy, but in this instance you did something that caused confusion and now people are confused, you yourself admit it's a poor joke/poorly constructed point, it's not difficult to believe you - it makes sense, but i'm not sure it's a fair attack given the situation. Guessing you don't know who wrote the hit piece either?

[staticassertion]

The assertion was that they're the bot owner. They denied this and explained the situation.

Continuing to link to their profile/ real name and accuse them of something they've denied feels like it's completely unwarranted brigading and likely a violation of HN rules.

[verdverm]

Maybe they shouldn't have been so snarky? https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/pull/31138#issuecom...

be snarky, get snarky in return

or violate HN guidelines themselves? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46991274

[staticassertion]

This is a shameful equivocation. This is "be snarky, get publicly dox'd and harassed".

[verdverm]

I'm not sure which way you are implying here, what is shamefully equated?

[staticassertion]

The "snark" of opening the PR vs the "snark" of people dox'ing the guy who opened it.

[potsandpans]

"this abuser might be abusive, but in this case you did something that really did set the abuser off, so you should know about that next time you consider doing something."