Welcome to Wikipedia, where this shit makes sense......
We can only take action regarding what sanctions were actually placed......I do not see the need for even a formal warning. Thryduulf (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The request is meritless. These edits and pages are not about British politics. I would take no action. Sandstein 21:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The first remedy in the Arbcom decision states that Cross "is warned to avoid editing topics with which he has a conflict of interest", ....... --NSH001 (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
No action. Sandstein 11:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
While Sandstein's approach to enforcement does come in useful, he sure does drop the ball sometimes. Still, I'd take that any day, over the routinely biased or predictably incompetent actions of others who turn up to play mall cop.
There is something really fucked up with a system where a formal warning not to do something, when ignored, doesn't result in anything. I would be surprised if there is anything in the actual documentation that says they can only enforce sanctions like topic bans, as in, warnings are to be ignored for the purposes of AE. It can't say that, because that is absurd.
If this shows anything, it is that there is a gap in the governance system. AE should be a venue where quick and obvious violations are acted upon, but if there is no place to adjudicate the more complex cases, where there is an obvious violation and it is a pattern, but only when you properly get into the weeds and examine prior records, then inevitably stupid shit is going to happen.
Still, this wouldn't be the first time when Wikipedia has required a second Arbitration case simply because of the failings of the first, both in drafting and enforcement.
I will say it plainly, so they can't pretend not to have realised it. Even by Wikipedia's lax standards, Cross has done enough to merit a ban at least from all BLP related editing, because of ongoing concerns about his inability to edit solely in the interests of Wikipedia, and his apparent willingness to skirt boundaries, not interpreting his Case as a second chance but as vindication. These don't even need to be proven to be conscious behavour for it to merit action, even though it seems unlikely it is not deliberate.
Not for the first time, he has chosen to say nothing in his defence, rather than open his mouth and confirm suspicions. Wikipedia has no Fifth Amendent, this can be assumed to signify bad intent.
Also not for the first time, this idea that a violation wasn't immediately noticed, voids the need for a response. I am quite sure this is explicitly not meant to be a thing in AE, again because it is absurd, but it persists.