User:IntoThinAir/Ridiculous Fram stuff

Here I will compile the things people have said at WP:ARC regarding the now-deleted column by Smallbones recounting comments by users who felt Fram had harassed them that I consider especially ridiculous, and, in some cases, my responses to these statements.

• "The article is an inappropriate fishing expedition allowing people with a grudge against Fram to throw accusations at him without supporting evidence and under a cover of anonymity." (Haukur)
• "I urge Arbcom to take immediate action to remove this blatant harassment." (Mr Ernie)
• "We err on the side of caution in matters relating to BLPs and I dread to think what Fram's blood pressure stats may be at the moment." (Sitush)
• "That "article" is a personal attack that we shouldn't be publishing. It's in breach of WP:BLP/WP:BLPTALK ("Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. (Original emphasis) The trash-piece fails all three of those policies; it's trial by media." (SchroCat)
• "What was published went beyond anon. allegations, Signpost saw fit to publish speculative allegations of grievous nature, an act that might have repercussions even for an independent media. "Investigative journalism" isn't a valid excuse, far from it." (Usedtobecool)
• "Smallbones should probably be blocked for his egregious BLPvios—particularly as, since the material had been removed before going live, he was aware that it was contentious. All others at least reprimanded. In what universe is speculating on another editor being a sexual harasser satisfactory Wiki-behaviour? It is NOT the Signpost's job to be contentious unless it markets itself as a yellow-sheet tabloid..." (Serial Number 54129)
• "This was a blatant violation of WP:BLPTALK and it's disturbing that a group of people are working to restore it. In the context of Wikipedia, there's no more marginalized group of people than people who aren't allowed to directly participate in their defense." (CoffeeCrumbs)

This one wasn't on WP:ARC but on the talk page of the now-deleted Signpost article (i.e. Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-06-30/Special report): "Are you still beating your wife? This is one of the most crass examples of trial by media I've seen." (SchroCat)

Though there is clearly much competition for the person whose opinion is most laughably absurd here, I would have to award the prize of most ridiculous defense of someone accused of harassing other editors to CoffeeCrumbs, for the absurdly false statement that "In the context of Wikipedia, there's no more marginalized group of people than people who aren't allowed to directly participate in their defense." Surely the mere prevalence of frequent harassment against minorities on Wikipedia, for example, negates this point, demonstrating as it does that trying to take accusations of harassment seriously is far less of a problem than the harassment itself.