tl;dr Promising young researcher skated on stats and talked up faulty finding, career seriously damaged by lack of replicability; reformers who are too earnest about a good cause (replication, statistical rigor) can be total assholes to well-meaning people who just make mistakes; conflict ensues.
It's OK to be oppositional or confrontational to people based on what they say and do, but self-styled reformists sometimes become personally vindictive in pursuit of their own interests. Picking a fight with a public figure is an easy way to gain publicity, and if your own reputation rests on winning that fight then it can be tempting to carry on into harassment. Gamergate was an extreme example of this.
It's OK to be oppositional or confrontational to people based on what they say and do, but self-styled reformists sometimes become personally vindictive in pursuit of their own interests. Picking a fight with a public figure is an easy way to gain publicity, and if your own reputation rests on winning that fight then it can be tempting to carry on into harassment. Gamergate was an extreme example of this.