I did read that article before seeing your response here. I honestly don't feel like it does much to change my perception of the events that led up to it. My understanding of the claims that you are describing as horseshit are that someone who maintained gem and bundler for years got intentionally pushed out after Ruby Central was threatened to have their funding revoked from Shopify if they didn't take over those packages and remove him. I had never heard of this maintainer before, but I have used bundler and gem before, so my perspective is that even if he was a problem and there was an argument that he should be removed, having one third party threaten another into removing him by forcing the change in ownership of the tools used by the entire community is an extremely myopic way of doing it. Doing an improper job of it that gave him an opening to potentially exploit his continued access is exactly the sort of thing that explains why you shouldn't go about forcing changes like this without adequate transparency and community consensus; instead of improving the security for the community, now a bunch of people who had never heard of the parties involved with this conflict need to be worried about the collateral damage. If you think someone is dangerous, it would make sense to be prepared for this sort of thing after you escalate your conflict with them.
In the absence of any other explanation about what actually happened, the only accounting of the events paints the change in ownership as at best reckless and irresponsible. I'd love to be wrong, but without anything concrete to explain why I shouldn't trust this, I can't differentiate between the reality we're in and one where the accusations are correct and the responses to them are being made in bad faith, and the simplest explanation is that it's because they're the same.
