User talk:ColumbiaLion212

Hello, ColumbiaLion212, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * The Help desk (a help forum run by the community) and the New contributors' help page (for users that are new to Wikipedia)

June 2015
Hello, I'm Happysailor. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Cranial electrotherapy stimulation with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. - Happysailor  (Talk) 15:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia
Hi ColumbiaLion212. Along with working on health related content in Wikipedia I work a lot on conflict of interest issues.

Your account is what we call a single purpose account and your edits are promotional for Cranial electrotherapy stimulation‎. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some questions for you below.

Hello, ColumbiaLion212. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Question
Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review.

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. Would you please let me know if you have any relationship with companies selling Cranial electrotherapy stimulation‎ devices?

You can reply here - I am watching this page. Once you do, we can take it from there. Thanks in advance for talking! Jytdog (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Response to COI
Dear Jytdog:

Thank you for the invitation to engage in a dialog re: the editing of the Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation page. I am fairly new to editing Wikipedia and initially created my account for the purpose of editing the page. I am a subject matter expert as a result of working for a medical device company, but am not paid to promote any product or write Wikipedia content. I discovered the page to contain misleading information and wished to correct it. Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation is a technology category that is in the public domain (all CES tech that I’m aware of is out of patent), so there are no companies or private interests that control or exclusively benefit from Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation, and those companies that do make CES devices are very small, unlike the giant pharmaceutical companies that produce competing products. Indeed, one of the obstacles that CES companies have faced is the overwhelming influence of competitors that often use well-placed, influential surrogates to disseminate misinformation about CES.

Following is my assessment of content on the page that is grossly misleading:

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not CES with alternating current is safe and effective for treating depression.[6]

[6] Kavirajan HC, Lueck K, Chuang K. Alternating current cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) for depression. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jul 8;7:CD010521. Review. PMID 25000907

This extremely misleading statement is supported (in citation) by a published literature review, not a clinical trial, and the publisher of this review is a small undergraduate teaching college within the University of Bristol.

In a 2010 literature review, published in a much more respected journal, Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, the conclusion is reached: “To date, whether used alone or in conjunction with pharmaceutical agents, CES has been shown to be an effective and economical therapy for mild to moderate depression.”

Gunther M1, Phillips KD. J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 2010 Nov;48(11):37-42. doi: 10.3928/02793695-20100701-01. Epub 2010 Jul 22.Cranial electrotherapy stimulation for the treatment of depression.

More importantly, there are at least two well-controlled clinical trials that have been published in respected peer-reviewed journals that provide statistically significant evidence of CES safety and effectiveness in treating depression:

Krupitsky et al. The administration of transcranial electric treatment for affective disturbances therapy in alcoholic patients. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 27:1-6, 1991

J Affect Disord. 2014 Aug;164:171-7. A Clinical Trial of Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation for Anxiety and Comorbid Depression, doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2014.04.029. Epub 2014 Apr 21.

I attempted to add this evidence to the page, yet it was repeatedly deleted.

Critics of CES research may point to the fact that subject sizes for most studies are not large when compared with drug studies, but CES study subject sizes are typical of non-invasive medical device studies. Drug studies need to be much larger because drug therapy is a chemical intervention and causes much more serious side effects. Critics may also point to the fact that CES studies examine varying patient populations and that device brands used in the studies have slight variance in electrical output. Varying patient populations are more representative of the real world, and the variance in output of different device brands is too small to skew data. The three most important aspects of studies – quality of controls, statistical significance and rigorous peer review – are soundly met in the studies listed above. In short, the Effectiveness section of this page should not be allowed to mislead the reader into thinking that there is a complete lack of evidence when in fact there is sufficient evidence

Another sentence on the page which, left alone, is very misleading:

The exact mechanism of action of CES is unclear.[9]

9. Rosa MA, Lisanby SH (2012). "Somatic treatments for mood disorders". Neuropsychopharmacology 37 (1): 102–16. doi:10.1038/npp.2011.225. PMC 3238088.PMID 21976043.

The author of the source (Dr. Lisanby) has a documented conflict of interest with CES. Dr. Lisanby recused herself from the 2012 FDA Panel on CES Reclassification as a result of having a conflict of interest – she has financial ties to Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, a competing technology. Interestingly, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation is listed in the See Also section of the Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation page, along with Trancranial Direct Current Stimulation, another competing technology. In short, Dr. Lisanby’s review is an inappropriate citation for a statement which misleads readers into thinking that the way CES works is a complete mystery. It is not a mystery.

The mechanism of action of most brain related interventions, whether drug or device, are never completely clear, because the brain is so complex and imaging is only beginning to tell the whole story. But the way CES works is by no means a complete mystery. There is very strong evidence, published in respected journals, that CES stimulates the production of serotonin and other neurochemicals responsible for reducing and eliminating depression, anxiety and insomnia:

Liss. S. and B. Liss. Physiological and therapeutic effects of high frequency electircal pulses. Integrative physilogical and behavioral science 31:88-94, 1996

Shealy et al. Cerebralspinal fluid and plasma neurochemicals: response to cranial electrical stimulation. J. Neurol. Orthop. Med. Surg. 18: 94-97, 1996

Shealy et al. Depression: a diagnostic, neruochemical, profile & threapy with cranial electrical stimulation. J. Neurol. Orthop. Med. Surg. 10: 319-321, 1989

2005Gilula MF, Kirsch DL. (2005). Cranial electrotherapy stimulation review: a safer alternative to psychopharmaceuticals in the treatment of depression.Journal of Neurotherapy, 9(2), 2005.doi:10.1300/J184v09n02_02

Kennerly, Richard. QEEG analysis of cranial electrotherapy: a pilot study. Journal of Neurotherapy (8)2, 2004.

My efforts to provide this research have been met with repeated deletion.

The page as it stands right now seems intentionally designed to make readers think that Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation is a risky, unproven technology. Not only is there sufficient evidence, but CES is prescribed by thousands of doctors, many at the top of the psychiatric field. The New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation recently approved the device for use in its 11 hospitals – including Bellevue, Jacobi and Metropolitan Hospitals. The page should reflect the scientific evidence and broad clinical support the technology has behind it.

Sincerely ColumbiaLion212 (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for writing back!
 * Quick notes: I was going to paste the comment that you left on my talk page here, but I see you already copied it above. One place is all we need! :)  I also cleaned up your message a bit - not something we usually do, just trying to help a bit with housekeeping.
 * Turning to the substance of your message - let's separate out the COI issues with regard to you (which we should discuss here on your talk page) from the content issues with the article (which we should discuss on the article Talk page, and which I will gladly do once the COI issues are worked through). User Talk pages like one are for discussing issues with editors (that is what they are for), while article Talk pages exist for talking about the article itself - that is what they are for. The COI stuff should not take long to work through, and then we get to content which is what we all care about.  Is that acceptable to you?  I won't write more for now. Jytdog (talk)  20:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * let's finish the COI discussion, OK? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to discuss anything further. ColumbiaLion212 (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)ColumbiaLion212
 * Great! OK - above you wrote that you work for a medical device company. Does that company make/market/sell/lease etc CES devices?  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are back at the article, but have not replied here yet. Would you please finish this discussion?  Having a conflict of interest does not bar you from Wikipedia - not at all.  It just means disclosure and peer review - and it builds good faith.  Please do answer.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I have furnished you, Alexbrn, Doc James and SandyGeorgia with COI queries and look forward to your responses. This raises grave concerns given the possible coordinated effort that the four of you have made in editing the CES page in a manner that misleads readers. I have already furnished you with an answer re: my own potential COI - that I do work for a medical device firm. The firm makes alternating and direct current devices, include TENS and CES type devices. I have no more conflict of interest in the CES page than a car company employee would have in the page for the internal combustion engine. There are many special interests, however, that are financially incentivized to mislead readers about CES - companies that have much to loose if CES grows in popularity. I plan to be vigilant not only in preserving the integrity/neutrality of the CES page, but in making as transparent as possible the conflicts of interest that are producing a highly coordinated editorial attack on the CES page. I am confident that soon I won't be the only editor who takes a stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColumbiaLion212 (talk • contribs)


 * Thank you for disclosing your relationship with a company that makes CES devices. You have a COI. I will tag the Talk page of the article so that editors there are aware of the COI. Please do not edit the article directly going forward, but rather (as you have been) please continue to discuss proposed changes on the Talk page.
 * Again, you are new here, and it is in general a bad idea to get into arguments when you arrive at a new place, where there are rules that you don't understand... in this case, with added intensity due to your conflict of interest.  This is not a good path, that you are following.  Please do keep in mind that editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right.  Your leaving those COI notices, is we call "pointy behavior", and if you continue behaving that way, you will end up getting indefinitely banned. Do not continue doing that.  As you can see, I approached you respectfully above, and simply asked you about your COI, based on the promotional nature of your edits (which I can judge, as I have been editing WP a long time, and know what new editors with a COI tend to do, when they arrive here).
 * For what it is worth, I have no relationship with any company that makes CES devices, nor with any company that competes with such companies. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You wrote "AlexBrown works for consulting firm Griffin Brown, a firm that is hired to influence and edit Wikipedia pages". The text I have italicised is not true. Please retract this untrue statement. Alexbrn (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

ColumbiaLion212, do you feel bullied by that comment? Please be aware that our policies do NOT forbid editors with a COI such as, perhaps, multiple editors of the article, from editing articles directly, as Jytdog will confirm (or at least not deny) if asked, point blank. Given the concerns you raise above, I think it may be quite appropriate for you to continue to edit the article directly. Don't want you to feel bullied into not editing where you're allowed to. Though if there's a Cochrane review out there, that's pretty much the gold standard. Makes sense to discuss review quality on the talk page adequately before editing the article directly. (And I've viewed neither, IIRC.) 2010, 2014, Cochrane... haven't read up enough to comment. And Jytdog, if you think I'm hounding you here, act on your threats already and bring it up at ANI. --Elvey(t•c) 04:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the concerns you raise above, I it may be quite appropriate for you to continue to edit the article directly. ← could you unpack that a bit? COI editing is strongly discouraged - how do ColumbiaLion212's "concerns" then make it "quite appropriate"? Alexbrn (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Our policies do NOT forbid editors with a COI from editing articles directly. Please confirm or deny that you understand that, Alexbrn.--Elvey(t•c) 07:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The only person using the word "forbid" is you. I alluded to the 3rd paragraph of WP:COI which states "COI editing is strongly discouraged". Anyway, how about answering my question? Encouraging this problem editor to engage in COI-tainted editing because of some lies they've told would seem to be spectacularly ill-judged, and looks like it's in pursuit of some kind of skirmish with Jytdog. Alexbrn (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * our COI guideline says "COI editing is strongly discouraged."  It doesn't get much clearer than that.  And I strongly object to your coming here and encouraging a new, confused, and upset editor with a  COI  to edit directly, especially on the basis of groundless accusations of COI against others made in confusion and anger.   If you continue interfering in this way I will go to ANI and seek to have you topic banned from discussing COI in Wikipedia.  What you are doing here is not good. (ColumbiaLion, all of this is also what Wikipedia is like) Jytdog (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It gets a ton clearer than that, Jytdog! And here I'm going to use your own words against you: What COI actually says, is "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing." (emphasis from the original!) We have debated that sentence a lot at WT:COI and we cannot get consensus to make that stronger... into "cannot" (latter emphasis added by Elvey)  It doesn't get much clearer than THAT.  You are violating WikiBullying, in particular the part that reads, Making "no-edit" orders contrary to policy (WP:NOEDIT) Another form of wikibullying is to issue no-edit orders which are not backed by current policies (or guidelines). A "no-edit" order is a message sent to a single editor (who is not banned) or to the Wikipedia community not to edit at all or in a particular manner, or not to edit a particular page or part of a page at all or in a particular manner. I need you to stop with the idle ANI threats, Jytdog.  What part of "act on your threats already and bring it up at ANI" do you not understand, Jytdog?  Our policies do NOT forbid editors with a FCOI from editing articles directly [edit: though I wish they did].  I need you to confirm or deny that you still understand that, Jytdog.  Pronto.  I strongly object to your coming here and saying what you said, and implying that you have some position of authority such as one that allows you to speak for me and the rest of the community.  You do not.  Right, User:Risker?  And stop engaging in contentious edits without providing an edit summary.  Got it, Jytdog?  If not, please leave. you are on thin ice due to your misbehavior; you were told: Simply deleting every piece of content for all of the shopping malls of one of America's largest developers, nominating clearly notable articles for deletion after gutting them of content, etc. because one of the editors — not the one who added all the content — has a COI, also appears to be a WP:POINT violation.  You are not telling the truth when you claim to know and describe the "basis" for why I told the user, "it may be quite appropriate for you to continue to edit the article directly", which you even assert is me encouraging groundless accusations of COI.  You are making deceptive comments regarding policy.  What crap that is. --Elvey(t•c) 14:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Cranial electrotherapy stimulation. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia etiquette
In this diff, you changed another editor's comment, exchanging a link to your username with a link to their username. Please, never do this again. Editors who do that get banned from Wikipedia - it is a very serious breach. Just letting you know. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I sincerely apologize. I believe it was an honest mistake in trying to gather content, and assure you and the community that I will not do this again. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will not make the same mistake twice. I have every desire to adhere to Wikipedia rules and am doing my best to learn them as I go along. As I mentioned in the past, I'm a relatively new user trying to understand the nuances.ColumbiaLion212 (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's OK, you didn't know! No big deal, the first time. :) Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

COI notices
Please stop sending COI notices to editors with whom you appear to disagree. The editors you're templating are experienced editors who are active in medical topics. Accusing them of a COI can be considered a personal attack absent clear and compelling evidence. Being a health care professional is not a conflict of interest. Please stop trying to "win" a dispute through accusations of COI.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Acroterion My intention is not to initiate a personal attack. Simply looking at the history of these editors' contributions and patterns of responding to me for one another, I would like to make sure there's no possible COI. There have been instances of double standards in the way that certain edits have been made or reverted.

I have collaborated with the editors on various talk pages and have tried to resolve any differences in a civil manner. As you can see from my contributions, I have tried my best to ask for clarification on rules and to collaborate with editors who have contrary viewpoints. I have no desire to "win." I only care to uphold Wikipedia standards. My COI notice is simply reflective of a pattern of events I would like to get a better understanding on.

I also would like to ask a question to you. Does being an experienced editor exempt someone from having a possible COI? From my understanding, only Doc James is a medical professional. I've actually found that he's engaged me very well and most frequently, though, as my talk page will reflect, he neglected to answer straightforward questions that I asked him.ColumbiaLion212 (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Who I am is clearly on my talk page. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You wrote "AlexBrown works for consulting firm Griffin Brown, a firm that is hired to influence and edit Wikipedia pages". The text I have italicised is not true. Please retract this untrue statement. Alexbrn (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Lots of people edit with a potential COI. However, being a professional in a given field does not mean that an editor may not edit there: quite the reverse, we want people with specific expertise to edit in those topics. What we do not want is for editors to seek to influence content to the advantage of an organization with which they have a direct beneficial link. I'm an architect, I edit extensively in architecture-related topics. That's not a COI. If my firm had a Wikipedia article (it doesn't), I would be enjoined from editing it unless I had specifically declared my interest and followed WP:BPCOI. A new editor with a narrowly-focused agenda accusing broadly-experienced and broadly-focused editors of a conflict of interest is a red flag in any topic. Wikipedia is a big place, and a new editor that claims that their narrow focus is the object of scrutiny by experienced editors with a broad editing history because they're competitors or opponents is usually an indication that the new editor needs to rethink their goals. An editors' primary objective should be to improve the encyclopedia.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn I have removed the content, per your request. ColumbiaLion212 (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Doc James I can see who you are from your page. I appreciate that you worked with me on several talk pages, and only asked for clarification as to why I had to ask you the same question multiple times in order to get a response. It didn't feel like you were respecting the rules of wikipedia that are considered a general courtesy, as well. Just because I am a relatively new editor doesn't mean you should disregard my questions when I am trying to collaborate with you to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. ColumbiaLion212 (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You asked if a specific source was "good". I replied that I did not think it was because its impact factor was very low. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Acroterion In response to your last post, I made no indication that any particular user's professional background is the reason why I believed there to be a COI. I understand that Wikipedia, in fact, needs the valuable input of those people in particular, though being a subject matter specialist doesn't give one hierarchy in asserting their will as much as properly sourced information does. In several instances, I would interact with one user, asking for information on why certain edits were made or where I could read up on certain rules. I would either be ignored completely, or responded to with a causal deflection of my questions, occasionally by a completely different editor than I originally engaged. My talk page and the talk page for Cranial electrotherapy stimulation‎ will highlight what I'm referring to. I have adhered to the identifying reliable sources page to the best of my ability, and have not engaged in edit wars in order to better work with the community at large. My intention has only been to improve the encyclopedia, and I am confused as to why you believe my intentions have been anything otherwise. My history on Wikipedia shows that I am trying to learn, have engaged many users, and have only made edits according to the rules. ColumbiaLion212 (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Reboot
Hi ColumbiaLion212. Well the drama above has been resolved for the most part. Sorry about all that. I'd like to resume the discussion about how we manage COI in Wikipedia. Can we do that, please? Do let me know. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog Sure ColumbiaLion212 (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks. OK, so you disclosed your COI above with regard to CES devices, and that has been disclosed on the CES article talk page as well.  Next step of the disclosure part now.....  You also edited the Fisher Wallace Laboratories‎ article.  Do you have a relationship with that company?  Thanks. (note, once we finish the disclosure part, the next step will be discussing how to disclose that in WP, and the last step will be talking about how COI is managed in WP, beyond disclosure.  Just to give you the road map.  Thanks for your patience) Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am currently employed by Fisher Wallace Laboratories as a customer service representative. I have no ownership stake in the company and am not paid to edit Wikipedia. I am a non-invasive brain stimulation subject matter expert. As I mentioned before, CES is not a patent protected technology and there are numerous companies that manufacture CES devices along with other types of devices. I have no more financial interest in the CES Wikipedia page than a car company employee would have in the Wikipedia page for the internal combustion engine.

I would like to know why you deleted the COI queries I submitted to you Jytdog, docjames, alexbrn, and SandyGeorgia. You submitted a COI to me simply because I appeared to have a single use account. I submitted a COI to you and the other editors because you are bullying me and compromising the neutrality of the CES page by editing it in a manner that promotes a negative view of the technology. Specifically, I am concerned that you and the other editors are working on behalf of the Cochrane Collaboration, a political non-profit organization that has a long history of aggressively lobbying against pharmaceutical and device-based psychiatric treatments. The Cochrane Collaboration published the biased 2014 literature review of CES research that excluded all depression studies based on arbitrary exclusion criteria. This review was not peer reviewed and was published by Wiley, a corporate partner of the Cochrane Collaboration; Wikipedia is also a corporate partner of the Cochrane Collaboration (http://www.cochrane.org/about-us/our-partners-and-funders/wikipedia). You and other editors have used your influence to cite the Cochrane Collaboration literature review on the CES page as the most reliable source, and have deleted and challenged any sources that contradict it. Moreover, the same Wikipedia editors who have edited the CES page negatively have also changed the Identifying reliable sources (medicine)‎ page in order to suit their efforts in citing the Cochrane review. Cochrane publications are even singled out on the Identifying Reliable Sources page as being exempt from rules that apply to other publications.

In my opinion, it is inappropriate for you and the other editors you are collaborating with to use the Cochrane Collaboration review as propaganda to diminish the perceived legitimacy of CES – a technology which has been the subject of published research for decades, prescribed by thousands of doctors, approved by many hospitals, and has been validated by the FDA which cleared the technology for the treatment of depression, anxiety and insomnia and now is in the process of fully approving it. The CES page should not be entirely positive by any means – it should be neutral. Your and the other editors to whom I submitted COI notices are not editing the page in a neutral and objective manner. ColumbiaLion212 (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If it is OK with you, I would like to finish working with you to manage your COI, and then we can turn and address other matters. Thanks for disclosing that you work at Fisher Wallace.  I will go ahead and add the connected contributor tag to that article's talk page.  To finish the COI disclosure process, it would be great if you do one more step - namely, add something like the following to your user page: User:ColumbiaLion212, along the following lines, to disclose your COI (and expertise) to the community. " I work at Fisher Wallace Laboratories, which makes [Cranial electrotherapy stimulation]] devices. I have expertise in non-invasive brain stimulation technologies but also have a conflict of interest on those topics."  Something like that.  Would you please do that?  Once that is done, we can talk about the "peer review" part of the COI management process in Wikipedia, and then this will be finished. Thanks for your patience.  Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to oblige. I'll put something up similar to what alexbrn has on his page, but tailored to what you've suggested.

I work at Fisher Wallace Laboratories, which makes transcutaneous nerve stimulation and cranial electrotherapy stimulation devices, and as a result I have expertise in non-invasive brain stimulation and nerve stimulation technologies. I have a potential conflict of interest in regards to these topics in the same way a car company executive has a potential conflict of interest in editing pages about internal combustion engines or other technologies relating to car manufacture. The only Wikipedia page that poses a direct conflict of interest is the one for Fisher Wallace Laboratories, where I am employed.
 * fwiw, you are still new here and i don't think you really understand how COI is viewed or handled in WP yet.. so it would be unwise of you to add your own evaluation of your COI to that statement - it is just likely to draw negative attention to you. Better to just make the statement in the first sentence. fwiw.  But you will do as you will there.Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

OK - so like I've said above, managing COI has two steps in COI - the first is disclosure, the second is peer review. While the "disclosure" step is maybe what you are used to from scientific publishing (where you disclose COI when you submit a paper), the peer review step is pretty different here. In scientific publishing, there are really two parts to peer review. First, you submit a paper to a journal, and they either accept it or reject it. There is already peer review in that step. The second, is the normal peer review process - a journal that doesn't reject a paper, sends it out to reviewers, and you know how what unfolds then. Publishing here in WP is really different, since editors can a) create articles themselves, with no intervening publisher or peer review; b) directly edit articles and publish their changes just by saving their edits, with no intervening publisher or peer review. Right? So what we ask editors with a COI to do, is a) if they create an article related to their COI, to submit the article to the articles for creation process to allow the community to review it instead of directly creating the article; and b) instead of directly editing content related to their COI in existing articles - to instead request changes on the article's talk page, for others to review. In both cases, we ask editors with a COI to exercise restraint. Will you agree to do that? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't have a significant COI in the CES page; so, I think it's fine to qualify that in comparison to something understandable to a broad audience. Unlike other editors on the CES page, I have always and will continue to use restraint. I reserve the right to edit content which is inaccurate or misrepresentative.  I'm happy to adhere to all of the rules. ColumbiaLion212 (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that per WP:COI it is OK to change noncontroversial (broadly speaking) factual things. Anything controversial, you should work through on the Talk page.  Please note that Wikipedia has clear and well-thought out dispute resolution processes that we can use to work through disagreements.  Before you engage any of them, you should learn the "ground rules" for content.  I would be happy to explain them, if you like. (the welcome message I just added explains a lot of it - I can fill in around the edges of that.)  Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer of assistance. I think the next order of business is to revisit the COI for Alexbrn who has made biased edits to the CES page and has been the most aggressive bully towards me regarding edits to the CES page. This morning, Alexbrn admitted that he works on behalf of Wiley and the Cochrane Collaboration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alexbrn#August_2015. Given his edit history, his financial conflict of interest in promoting Cochrane Collaboration and Wiley, and his very controversial track record of editing other, relevant pages (his Talk Page is full of COI and bullying accusations by other editors), it seems reasonable that you should submit a similar COI to him as you did for me. Agreed? If not, please explain why not. I fail to see why he should be permitted to edit the CES page any differently than myself, and I plan on bringing this to the attention of the Wikipedia Board for review, and would appreciate your assistance in doing that as well, once a COI has been submitted to him and he has an opportunity to respond. ColumbiaLion212 (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Alexbrn admitted that he works on behalf of Wiley and the Cochrane Collaboration ← another falsehood (or it may be you're too thick to understand what I actually wrote?) Alexbrn (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Falsehoods
I notice you still have the following text on this page: "AlexBrown works for consulting firm Griffin Brown, a firm that is hired to influence and edit Wikipedia pages (among other services)". This is not true. Please strike this content. If I find any more of this nonsense I shall report you at WP:AIN. Alexbrn (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn I didn't realize it was in more than one place. As I did the first time, I have erased it, as per your request. Your language is rather harsh, if I may add, and your contributions to Wikipedia do show a pattern, which I plan on reporting you to senior administrators, so you know. Your lack of impartiality/collaboration shows a bias, in my opinion. ColumbiaLion212 (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It was hardly harsh considering you have been spreading malicious falsehoods here. I also note the lack of apology. Alexbrn (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn I apologize for not being thorough the first time around. You make threats as if I'm not responsive and collaborative. I'm not perfect, but I acknowledge my mistakes by adhering to your requests. {{unsigned|ColumbiaLion212|16:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome
Hi ColumbiaLion. As a new contributor to the project, Welcome! I must say that I like your style and accuracy of editing. I hope you enjoy your participation here. DrChrissy (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)