@leftworks1 got in contact to say they tried to reply to your comment here but had some trouble. I offered to post it:

I suggest, perhaps, that the current focus should be on the evidence that I, and others, are now uncovering and presenting, rather than on my alleged improper behaviour in the past.

A month ago I had very little interest in Wikipedia except as an end user. I joined Wikipedia as an editor because I read that some information that I regarded as common knowledge, and a matter of public record, and as in the public interest to be disclosed as widely as possible, was being edited off the Oliver Kamm page by someone again commonly believed to be a partisan gatekeeper acting as the judge of what should and should not be disclosed on many Wikipedia articles.

I knew nothing of Wikipedia procedures, and made many mistakes, and stuck to my guns, and battled more experienced people in edit wars, and as a result I am banned from Wikipedia. Shrug. I am resigned to that as an entirely understandable result. My heart is not broken that I will never edit Wikipedia again. I accept my fate.

While I was edit warring, I looked into other pages edited by this alleged gatekeeper, and what I found astounded and outraged me. I suggest that people go and look at the circumstances under which the pages "Tim Hayward (academic)", "Piers Robinson", and "Tara McCormack" were set up. In particular, go and look at the Hayward article just after it had first been finished with by Philip Cross, but the Robinson article has also been described by a Wikipedia editor, certainly not myself, as an "attack page". The timing is important. These three pages were set up on, or the day after, an extremely hostile report on these three academics by the British "Sunday Times". It is as clear as daylight that the purpose of setting up these pages was to attack and discredit them. There does not seem to be any evidence that they were added as new work to be set up in any normal way. One editor, "Philafrenzy", was perhaps privately requested to set them up by Philip Cross, who then stepped in to edit them all a day or two later.

These three academics were also tweeted about by a well-known journalist. The hostile accounts were set up the same day. Twitter users are currently documenting what appears to be a very peculiar symbiosis between this journalist and Philip Cross. On the face of it, there seems a most unhealthy conflict of interest issue here.

If the Hayward account in particular is examined closely, it is clear that the original articles referred to in the Wikipedia page contain a good deal more balanced material than was originally included on the page. The selection of material appeared to me to be thoroughly partisan. This is also the opinion of Professor Hayward himself. Professor Robinson has expressed similar opinions. Doctor McCormack had no idea that her page had even been set up, and was most unhappy about the matter when I informed her of it.

Rightly, or wrongly, that is how the Hayward-Robinson-McCormack situation presented itself to me. There were other aspects to the matter. For example, the McCormack page cited opinions of hers, which were accurately cited, certainly, and were also very controversial. It appeared to me that the reason these opinions, and these alone, were cited, were to make her look like a radical lunatic. It was particularly notable that "Spiked", a publication which I had no doubt would have in any other circumstances been booted from Wikipedia by this gatekeeper as an unreliable source, was retained and cited as a footnote. The obvious reason was that it contained opinions by McCormack that seemed ridiculous and outrageous. There appeared to me to be a very unpleasant agenda behind these pages.

Since then, of course, the number of people looking at this matter has substantially broadened and more evidence has come to light, and more is forthcoming all the time. I welcome that. I am not in the least interested in publicity. All I am interested in is getting this evidence out there and shown to people so that they can judge for themselves. I make no claim to be any sort of hero. Five Filters did not consult me before they quoted me, and the only reason they seem to have quoted me is that I have presented evidence which they believe is worth bringing to light. I concur with that.

There is an enormous amount more to say - I have presented only one example, which barely scratches the surface - but I have probably said enough for people to understand that, however wrong-headed I have been, I am not simply some random vandal, and I have not acted out of some personal animosity, or even thought-out agenda. I have simply wanted some information out into the public domain. That has led me to the discovery of other matters, which I also think properly belong in the public domain.

Never mind me. Please focus on the evidence that is being brought forth, on Twitter and elsewhere, and use your own judgement as to whether or not it is reasonable.

Best wishes, Leftworks.