Good lord, I had no idea how bad the situation was. Check it out, they are still locked in angry debate, with new comments going up on the talk page as of yeste

Good lord, I had no idea how bad the situation was. Check it out, they are still locked in angry debate, with new comments going up on the talk page as of yesterday: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_controversy —————— @Gamaliel: What new accounts? What does your closing and hiding of this thread have to do with new accounts editing the article? The thread had nothing to do with new accounts editing the article or not editing it. We were talking about how people respond to reader feedback on the talk page, not editing the article. What kind of grounds for closing and hiding a thread is this? As the grounds given for closing and hiding this thread make no sense whatsoever, I will open it again after waiting an appropriate amount of time. Chrisrus (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC) —————— Chrisrus again unilaterally declares that “the grounds given for closing and hiding this thread make no sense.” They make sense to the rest of us. This is simply disruptive editing. Will someone please take the appropriate steps already? Thanks! MarkBernstein (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)