They could perhaps be believed by a sceptical media, if they didn't undermine their claims to have performed a thorough investigation by introducing garbage like this in their proposed decision.....
This suggested timeline is, of course, a total lie. His lack of neutrality were being raised on and off wiki for a long time before May 2018. Nobody who has looked into his case to any degree, and several journalists have of course, would be unaware of this fact. All that remains is to ask, why lie? Are they lying by omission to hide their failings, which is the Wikipediot's speciality, or have they infact not done a proper investigation, on account of them obviously being incompetent?Prior dispute resolution and topic ban
3) In a discussion at the Administrators’ noticeboard in May 2018, editors expressed significant concerns about the neutrality of Philip Cross’ edits to the George Galloway article. As a result of this discussion, Philip Cross was restricted from editing the George Galloway article directly. Subsequently, the neutrality of Philip Cross’ editing in the overall area of modern British politics was questioned.
There's lots of other stuff that hasn't been mentioned too. No mention, for example, that Cross apparently pushed one of his victims to the brink of suicide. Or played lots of games surrounding issues of transparency, giving conflicting accounts both in just his on wiki statements, and ones that contradicted others made off wiki, seemingly taking advantage of certain rules that were most assuredly not written to protect people who are found to need topic bans like the one he is about to receive.
I'd love to know if Cross even submitted anything to the case privately. Or if he just sat back, safe in the knowledge that he has never done anything sil!y like admitted he is Kamm, or takes instructions from Kamm, meaning all anyone can do is make a judgement about whether or not that is the inescapable conclusion of looking at his edits and his brief and inconsistent statements.
ArbCom are most strident in how they have sought to clear him of any more serious crimes, and portrayed him as someone who has been wronged as much if not more then he has done wrong. I hope this is just a lack of perspective from ArbCom, but it really does look like an attempted whitewash, a case of protecting a member, their own reputations, and that of Wikipedia.
If they want to make a useful finding, one that reflects a harsh truth of this case and indeed many others before it, they should acknowledge that it is quite rare, most likely extremely rare, for random Wikipedians to just one day suddenly become a target for harassment. And it is unheard of at this scale. It is almost always the case that 1) they did something bad, and 2) the Wikipedia machine tried to avoid having to deal with it, usually by shooting the meseenger, closing ranks, erecting huge obstacles to justice, or just plain lying their asses off and pretending everybody else was crazy or stupid. Just like Jimmy Wales did on Twitter in this very case.