I'm not going to opine on the decision that's being voted upon by Arbcom; I've been there, and ultimately the decision is based on the quality and nature of the evidence that people bother to present - which often means that the decision that ultimately gets posted, because entire "sides" of the story are not presented by someone as evidence, seems to have very little to do with the original reason for accepting the case. I have, however, entered a plea that they rename the case. The decision they're voting on now has almost nothing at all to do with the Gender Gap Task Force, and isn't really addressing any of problematic behaviours that are evident on the talk pages of the wikiproject. (It's obvious to me that a significant proportion of people posting there, including ones whom I otherwise hold in fairly high regard, just really don't get gender gap issues. There was belittling of suggestions, an insistence that the way things are done now is the "right" way to do them, that there's no such thing as topics of particular interest to women....well, we all know the story.
I've asked Arbcom to rename the case to something that doesn't include the name of the GGTF. It's hard enough to attract editors to participate constructively on the topic now because of all the nonsense noted above. It will just become that much more difficult to attract editors who prefer to work in a non-confrontational environment once this case is closed. Note that the wikiproject will be the subject of discretionary sanctions effective at the close of the case, as well. [1] As if that will make any difference.