So Phillip Cross is accused of conflicts of interest. He could move to edit other pages but insists on continuing without explanation. From the diffs he has a p

So Phillip Cross is accused of conflicts of interest. He could move to edit other pages but insists on continuing without explanation. From the diffs he has a pretty clear agenda and isn't in it to just fact check, fix grammar, check sources etc. What really troubles me is how little concern editors have for the precariousness of WP's reputation. Spewing legalese while missing the larger point, misstating the case in escalation to arbitration, dismissing the claims within minutes of hearing a defence etc. Wikipedia's model is at high risk to opinion farms and any suggestion that that is happening should be taken very seriously by editors, lest they look like they're complicit. When that happens it will quickly suffer repetitional damage that will take much, much longer to repair. But they want to debate the rules and definitions, make counter accusations... To dawdle over such an obvious case is going to be hard to forgive.