I agree, although my biggest criticism of the trio of Bernstein's articles is that they are all so vague; I have many questions that I'd like to see answered, a

I agree, although my biggest criticism of the trio of Bernstein's articles is that they are all so vague; I have many questions that I'd like to see answered, and neither this series of posts nor the linked news posts by The Guardian, Wil Wheaton et al. helped. 1. I don't know who the "gamergate supporters" are, who the "opponents" are (and thus I can't read the Arbcom's decision at all). 2. I don't see any representative edit from either party and I don't know what the war is about specifically. 3. I didn't see links to the arbitration committee proceedings; is it [1]? If so, it says that the case is currently open but the Open Tasks page at [2] says decision was due on the 21st. That is very confusing as well. 4. The decision page and the talk page of gamergate [3] are indeed too long and too unformatted for me to read. 5. If it is true what Bernstein says, that the feminists and anti-Gamergate editors have been topic-banned, does it reflect already on the Wikipedia page itself? [4] I have skimmed it but it seems fairly okay to me (and I consider myself a feminist); am I missing something? Or are the pro-Gamergate edits yet to happen, after the Arbcom's decision is finalized? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:ArbComOpenTasks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:ArbComOpenTasks [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_controversy [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy