::::::Yes. I understand that getting a group largely made up of men to care enough about gendered oppression to react effectively or expediently is a painful, mindnumbing, soulsoucking experience every step of the way - and that bc it is, few people want to do it, so it never gets done. It sucks that you're expected to behave as if none of it personally affects you AT ALL TIMES since you're engaging with people for whom it doesn't personally affect (in this case). I also recognize this is likely NOT the kind of discussion you want to be having right now, but I came here because the media storm happening right now is so full of people writing about it that 1. Don't understand WP bureaucracy. and 2. Don't have all the facts. This is slowly going to paint the criticisms of the ArbCom decision as ignorant and be written off. This statement actually does a fair job, I think, of trying to explain your side of what's wrong. Unfortunately they, too, start backing up their viewpoint with patently false (maybe uninformed) claims about many of the pro-gamergate editors who were also topic-banned. I'm writing, also, because I think you and the other editors were largely doing a good thing - but this was a wake-up call that things were getting out of hand on both sides, the other side did win because your side blew up. But ArbCom can't/won't/either/both take the stand that people don't have to be held accountable for their reactions, even if provoked, and especially when those reactions are causing a breakdown of legit consensus-based neutral article building. I'm just hoping this media attention brings in enough energy so no one has to get that jaded, and the article building can keep going in a neutral encyclopedic fashion. ﻿ 