> What conclusion was this case supposed to come to? I said this already: in the real world companies send press releases to trade journals, who then turn thos

> What conclusion was this case supposed to come to? I said this already: in the real world companies send press releases to trade journals, who then turn those into editorial content. The equivalent on Wikipedia would be that the PR professional makes his suggestions on the talkpage but is banned from the main article. It this even a question? What alternative do you suggest? Neither Harvard nor Maharishi University get to write their own pages in US News & World Report College Rankings Issue. I can understand well how someone can go mad and eventually become completely out of order when faced with a history of ethically questionable behaviour. Unfortunately Wikipedia isn't very lenient with mad people. > Is it your belief that the whole of ArbCom are secretly in the tank for commercial transcendental meditation? They are just inexperienced and clueless. But that isn't an excuse, clue is required when in a visible position at one of the world's top websites. Did you ever read the Conflict-of-Interest RfC? Actually it is a product of that TM Arbcom case. There are some real howlers in there: Jclemens: Whether an editor is directly paid to edit Wikipedia is irrelevant to the quality of their contributions Sandstein: Conflict of interest (COI) is a problem only where it leads to the production of non-neutral (or unverifiable, or otherwise policy-noncompliant) content Sven Manguard: We should not treat paid editors differently from unpaid editors. Elen of the Roads: ... to be clear that the problem is not working for Acme PR, being Prof Elk or having a lifelong interest in debunking astrology. It is breaching the contract with the reader that articles will be fair, balanced, neutral, give due weight to all the current thinking. All of these are prominent Wikipedians with very, very muddled thinking.