Can you point to a specific example? the only things I have seen is some brigading and cabal to pressure a project owner to remove a contributor from a project, but it was akin to a lynch mob, not related with programming in any way.
'meh' did a masterful job with those:
https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/942 https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/945
If he was a genius, you probably wouldn't ever have known the issue existed. At least it seems that way to me.
If this group of thugs is good at anything, it's getting the word out and the twitter mobs mobilized.
And this is what makes the way he handled it -genius- :-)
The shield of a pseudonym allowed him to stand strong and forced his opponents to engage with him, resulting in this masterful display of defeating an SJW mob. This is a lesson to us all, and a reminder of what is no longer possible with "real name" policies.
When you see "I got a message on Google plus from one of my fellow dev buddies from the F# community linking this discussion." you pretty much know that the mob doesn't have any real interest in your project other than to spend a couple of minutes to show their outrage. This is basically why people still put a lot more weight on letters, fax, and phone calls.
> The recent witch hunt against projects that don't have Code of Conducts.
isn't really true. The issue started with a maintainer who advertised their relationship with @opal on twitter who then made perceived transphobic comments.
There is also good-natured but meaningless noise like https://github.com/gogits/gogs/issues/5. I believe this kind of support, while flattering at first, ultimately puts undue pressure on the volunteer contributor. On the plus side, the comments come from people using the project.
Perhaps GitHub was wrong to get rid of the upvote button on issues unconditionally. Having the option to enable it would probably have helped the Gogs case.