Talk:Ariel Fernandez/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Quick note

I just exchanged emails with Ariel and I believe he is standing down now. The article should be able to unfold more peacefully now. I archived the whole Talk page, as it was mostly stale. Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for removal of not notable and false new information

Contributor Bueller 007 has added a paragraph describing a conflict with the self-published blog "Retraction Watch", where Ariel Fernandez has allegedly threaten to sue this blog. This information is false, unverified, completely unimportant. Who cares whether Ariel Fernandez threatened to sue Retraction Watch or not? Furthermore, same contributor includes expressions of concern, which are also not notable as they do not signify removal or retraction of the articles published. These expressions of concern were previously dismissed in other attempts by Retraction Watch to defame the subject. Finally, Annual Reviews of Genetics has NEVER issued an expression of concern. That information is also false. The reference [8] added by Bueller 007 is not an expression of concern.

190.224.156.37 (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Alex

I have removed the material, per our WP:BLP policy. If it is to be re-added it needs to be better presented using the available sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Precisely 0% of the material added was false. And it is not at all insignificant: attempting to use threats of legal action to stifle reporting on errors in one's academic work deserves to be documented. Certainly, biographies of celebrities contain far less insidious and more trivial information.

1) Ariel Fernandez did threaten to sue Retraction Watch. His comments are documented on Retraction Watch [43] and at Popehat [44].

2) Expressions of concern have been issued by BMC Genomics, Nature Publishing Group and Annual Reviews. In fact, the Annual Reviews "expression of concern" is essentially an indefinite retraction, as the article had been set to appear, but it came to their attention that the paper was "derive[d] from at least one article in the primary research literature currently under dispute due to unsettled anomalies in the data and/or interpretation" (emphasis mine). Just because the words "expression of concern" do not appear in the link does not mean that that is not what the link is. The article has been in limbo for over a year; to say that this statement is not an "expression of concern" is disingenuous. Annual Reviews removed the paper entirely. Perhaps it should be more accurately worded on Fernandez's page to indicate this.

3) In addition, I note that Ariel Fernandez seems to have a history of using sockpuppet accounts on Wikipedia (including banned users AriFer and Haydee Belinky, among countless other IP users using various names in the Archive of this talk page.) It should perhaps come as no surprise that--like all the others--"Alex's" IP address is also in Buenos Aires. I do not have a dog in this fight so I don't particularly care, but it seems rather clear that the subject of this article has been engaging on this talk page under multiple pseudonyms. If this is the case, I would encourage him to stop doing so, as such behaviour would reflect poorly on one's integrity. It seems like the kind of behaviour that should be censured by Wikipedia as well. Bueller 007

(talk) 05:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sir or Madam, please! Not everyone living in Argentina is Ariel Fernandez! Retraction Watch is a self-published blog, not a serious reliable source for BLP. Who cares if Fernandez intends to sue them or not? That is trivial. The note you keep quoting in Annual Reviews Genetics did not issue an expression of concern but simply a note postponing publication. In any case, expressions of concern are not retractions and thus do not represent serious definite actions as the journals keep the papers.

190.224.156.37 (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Alex

Cwobeel please define "better" or perhaps re-add the information yourself in a way that you see fitting. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The source Retraction Watch is a self-published blog and judging from the title of their posts, extremely biased against the subject of this article, so not a valid source for BLP. Annual Reviews Genetics (ref 8 in Bueller 007 version) did not issue an expression of concern but just a note postponing publication. Previous similar attempts at discrediting the subject by Retraction Watch were dismissed at Wikipedia.

190.16.58.196 (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Maureen

While Annual Reviews may not have issued an expression of concern, Nature certainly did, so this point seems a bit irrelevant to me. Moreover, when you say "previous similar attempts," I assume you mean this version. That version was removed since Retraction Watch was considered a weak reliable source - I'm not sure you could say the same about Nature. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Note, I have struck disruptive and over-reacting additions by socks of the banned user. Ariel stop playing games. I will take action to get even this Talk page semi-protected if you continue which will prevent IP addresses from posting here. Other editors may choose to just go do that themselves. I prefer to avoid drama all around. There are three papers that have issues and there is no way to keep that information, which is reliably sourced, out of this encyclopedia article, as far as I can see. Description of that is very relevant and deserves some weight for a biography of a scientist; there is no way around that. Jytdog (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I will not comment on the sockpuppets and behavioral issues, just on the content. The material can be re-added as there are solid sources, but I am not sure Retraction Watch is a reliable source about an alleged threat to sue. The withdrawal by BMC Genomics and Nature Publishing Group is well sourced and can be re-added. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

retraction watch is reliable; we use it all the time. See here. That site has no reason to lie about the litigation threat nor does popehat. As you can see Ariel is (sadly and self-destructively) quick to wave legal threats around. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

My view is that a legal threat is not notable unless significantly covered in RS. The rest can remain, of course. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree. It is not covered by any secondary RS. It needs to be removed for now. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

the reason I included Popehat was to provide independent sourcing, as a backup. But RW has no reason to falsely report the threats. And Popehat verified that. RW is very reliable. And I am adding Forbes article on this now. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Popehat is WP:SPS... when it comes to BLP, we must be extra cautious. Please allow the discussions on BLPN and here to conclude before re-adding it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: which forbes article? There has not been one mentioned here yet. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

i am not responding here. it is stupid to discuss the same thing in 2 places. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

sources for named chair at Rice

cn tag was placed on this content. I provided one source - his CV - but there are several others out there.

• review article he published at that time
• signed thesis from Rice (formal university document where titles wouldn't be fudged)
• student newsletter from 2007 while he had that position
• [omicsonline.org/editor-profile/Ariel_Fernandez/ never updated bio on Omics site]

plenty of other breadcrumbs like this. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

nothing connected with this article is pleasant. I am unwatching. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: - Awwww.... Don't go. I'm going to miss your company. NickCT (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not contesting that he was a "Karl F. Hasselman Professor". But I'm not sure that was a "endowed" position. All the sources that say this was a "chair" position seem to be from the subject himself. Given the subject penchant for self promotion, I'm not sure we should take this at face value. NickCT (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A title like "the Karl F. Hasselmann Professor of Bioengineering" always means an endowed chair. There is no distinction to be drawn between having this title and having a chair. If you are not familiar with this system you should not be nominating academic articles for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: - I don't think a named professorship is always synonymous with an "endowed chair". NickCT (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for your belief? Or is it just something you made up out of ignorance of how the US academic system works? There are distinctions between different kinds of named chairs (some are for junior faculty, some are ex officio for administrators) but that's not a distinction between names and endowments. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: - re "you made up out of ignorance of how the US academic system works" - You caught me. I was completely making it up. Hahaha...

Nah. But for realz. There are lots of places that treat named professorships different from endowed chair. Try U. Wisconnsin for example.

P.S. This discussion is forking. Mind keeping it to AfD for clarity? NickCT (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Legal Concerns

I have legal serious concerns about material I find about myself on the Wikipedia page in the BLP. In regards to the Wikipedia article “Ariel Fernandez” of which I am the subject, I hereby request the removal of contentious material that may be construed to disparage or defame me and which does not inform of misconduct or wrongdoing on my part. I am referring specifically to the paragraph citing editorial notes on my papers in BMC Genomics, Nature and Annual Reviews Genetics. The first two notes allude to differences in interpretation of the data, with no concrete accusation of wrongdoing, while the one in Annual Reviews Genetics simply informs of a postponement of publication. These vague notes do not inform on any specific error or misconduct on my part. The paper at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences was withdrawn because of overlap with a previous paper of mine. In the note quoted there is no indication that scientific fraud was involved (thus the results remain valid) and does not delineate my responsibility in the matter. 190.224.156.37 (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Ariel Fernandez (strike comment by indeffed user evading his block Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC))

• Please do not blank the message above, as the conversation is worth having, and regardless of outcome, the response to this complaint should be documented on the talk page. I am open to the possibility that the "statements of concern" and retraction are not worth mentioning on this biography. It should be a decision made by the community. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bueller 007: The user is site banned from Wikipedia. Per WP:NLT, If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Wikipedia, please contact the information team at info-en@wikimedia.org. The user can email that address if they feel something needs to be changed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

My response is not regarding legal concerns, as it is apparent that the information cited is accurately worded and appropriately sourced. And therefore he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on here. My comment is that there is a conversation worth having about whether the information is worthy of being mentioned at all. Bueller 007 (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Retractions would seem notable enough for inclusion to me, but perhaps it would be best to ask Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Science_and_academia. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

State of Buenos Aires Medal

In regards to the CLARIFICATION NEEDED, the medal "Government of the State of Buenos Aires" is awarded to the best graduate in the university and was awarded to Ariel Fernandez in 1980 (CV). Its intent is described in the official decree at url http://www.gob.gba.gov.ar/legislacion/legislacion/80-688.html 190.224.156.37 (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Ariel Fernandez (strike comment by indeffed user evading his block Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC))

Google Translate link for convenience. --Richard Yin (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion nomination

Dear Nick CT, This is Ariel Fernandez. I welcome your motion of deleting this article from Wikipedia on grounds of notability. I concur with you in that I am certainly not notable. I request and welcome the deletion of this article that has me as the subject. In fact I would encourage speedy deletion. Please write to me if you need to verify my identity.

Ariel Fernandez (ariel@afinnovation.com)

190.16.58.196 (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Ariel Fernandez (strike comment by indeffed user evading his block Jytdog (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC))

For the record, the above was cross-posted from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ariel Fernandez, where an apparent sockpuppet posted an argument to keep earlier. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

actual sockpuppet. The IP addresses are identical and the behavior is the same. Jytdog (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Academic credentials

It should be noted that the academic credentials given for Fernandez on the Rice University faculty list [45] do not seem to directly match those in his own CV [46] or in the current version of the Wiki article. Rice lists them as: "BA (1978) Universidad Nacional del Sur, Argentina; MS (1983), PhD (1984) Yale University" Bueller 007 (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

so its a matter of 1978 or 1980 when he got his BS. hmmm. i think this is pretty trivial and we can just perhaps not report the year, since we have a conflict among the sources. If part of your concern is the masters degrees - people who obtain a PhD are given them along the way and rarely report them. We shouldn't either. Jytdog (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

humbolt

somehow the article got edited to say that AF won the Humboldt Prize. This error apparently came up a couple of years ago too, as arifer clarified that he did not win that prize, but rather a grant from the humboldt foundation. see User_talk:Arifer#Humboldt_Award.3F or see here for the dif. it came back in a good-faith mistake here. NBD. Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

my edit note was wrong on this by the way - I cited the wrong foundation. Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

BLPN discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Question_about_content_and_source_in_a_BLP_article_on_Ariel_Fernandez. Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Note - the result of the discussion at BLPN over whether or not to keep the following:

Fernandez threatened to sue Retraction Watch for its reporting on the expression of concern by BMC Genomics.

was that there was no consensus that the sources were reliable enough. per WP:BLP the content stays out. I closed the discussion. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is now archived at: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive211#Question_about_content_and_source_in_a_BLP_article_on_Ariel_Fernandez. Rubiscous (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

dead link

The current link in ref. [4]: http://www.iam.conicet.gov.ar/cms/?q=en/node/185 is no longer active.

The official site for Ariel Fernandez has migrated to: http://www.conicet.gov.ar/new_scp/detalle.php?keywords=&id=33676&datos_academicos=yes

Please replace link accordingly.

AF has published a second book (not mentioned) "Bimolecular Interfaces", Springer, 2015, ISBN 9783319168494 The publisher link is https://www.springer.com/la/book/9783319168494

Argentine Natl. Research Council — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.219.85.151 (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

i fixed the dead link.Jytdog (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Retracted papers paragraph.

There is an active discussion about this paragraph on WP:BLPN#Ariel_Fernandez, but given that consensus seemed to be trending towards removing it, and given that this is a WP:BLP, I removed it for now. My feeling (which I'll note down here so it isn't lost if this comes up again in the future) is that a retracted paper isn't automatically worth including in an article, and definitely not in a BLP. Going over the sources, Retraction Watch, as I understand it, covers retractions indiscriminately, which makes it useless to establish significance. The only other secondary source mentions it only in passing, only to note that Fernandez disputed it on Twitter, and is merely using Fernandez to make a more general point -- they make no assertion that the retraction has any significance in terms of Fernandez' biography. My feeling is that to mention something like this in a BLP, we need a source specifically saying that it matters; the sources provided here definitely do not provide enough to include it. This is especially true in the context of the article -- that sentence reads like someone has collected every issue or concern that has ever been raised about Fernandez' papers to try and imply some impropriety or some other negative judgment of Fernandez; but without a source explicitly making such allegations, it comes across as WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes let's continue talking at the BLPN. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not an issue of a single retraction. There are several "expressions of concern" issued by prominent journals in recent years. While a single questionable paper would not be appropriate in a BLP unless it was an egregious violation of scientific ethics, a repeated pattern of papers with problems in the data is worthy of a mention. If sources are the issue, linking to the actual journal expressions of concern instead of Retraction Watch is an option. 72.21.225.66 (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

No it is not an option. Until a reliable source puts forward the case that these expressions of concern are significant then we shouldn't take them as notable enough events in this man's career to be included in his biography. Things that are worthy of a mention by their very nature get mentioned elsewhere. Rubiscous (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

So now it is mentioned elsewhere. An edit summary you gave ("merely repeats what Retraction Watch says as a comment on Retraction Watch, not the article subject") is incorrect -- the CHE article doesn't simply repeat what RW says, instead it contacted Fernandez and got his perspective as well. Anyway, to a certain extent journalism/reporting involves reporting what people say; we'd have reason to worry about that if we thought that what was reported might be untrue, but in this case we know from the primary sources (the journals themselves) that what is being reported is true. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

We have a content-related issue regarding the Wikipedia Biography article Ariel Fernandez. The matter has come up at least twice in BLP notice board. Yet, although concensus trended towards removal, there is a line repeatedly being removed and added back that mentions three papers by the subject that have been questioned by the journals where they were published. Challenged papers are a common occurrence in science and, in regards to the papers in question, no definite action has been taken by the journals. Furthermore, nobody has pointed to a serious breach of ethics in the research practices of Ariel Fernandez. In our opinion, the paragraph is not adding meaningful content to Wikipedia, while some Wikipedia contributors have referred to it as potentially libelous given the lack of balance of the article itself. Please advice.

Argentine Natl. Research Council181.228.138.187 (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

It isn't mentioned elsewhere in the context in which it is presented in your edit, ie without mention of the spat with Retraction Watch. If there had been no heated exchange, if there had been no legal threats from Dr Fernandez, there would have been no mention of events in The Chronicle of Higher Education, and I dare say there would be no attempts to make mention of them in this Wikipedia article. The questioning of the papers are currently being presented as noteworthy events in and of themselves, which is not something that is supported by the source. Rubiscous (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like an argument for including mention of the legal threats against RW. Fine with me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

It's an argument against including mention of the expressions of concern stripped of context. I remain to be convinced that the whole affair is worthy of mention. In the interests of NPOV I would suggest that as CHE contacted Fernandez and got his perspective then that should be included for balance. Rubiscous (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

As always, happy to consider a proposed edit. I have no axe to grind here, apart from re continued attempts of the article subject to whitewash. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

As far as we can see, the questioning of research articles authored by Dr. Ariel Fernandez is not noteworthy, and there is no source justifying or supporting inclusion in Wikipedia. Please advice.181.228.138.187 (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council

BLP Concerns

I noticed this article is listed at the BLP Noticeboard. I have reviewed the article is its well written, well sourced, NPOV, it's a very good piece of work. It looks like there are some capable editors reviewing these matters. I see no serious BLP concerns over adding or not adding the content, so long as it is properly weighted. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

There are potential BLP concerns. We need to make sure there are not negative implications that are not reliably sourced. Minor4th 01:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, please stop abusing us and deprecating Dr. Ariel Fernandez. Dr. Ariel Fernandez has done more than writing 3 questioned papers. According to the public records, he has published at least 350 papers, wrote two books and holds two patents. As numerous editors have indicated, the BLP on the subject is not in compliance with the neutrality tone that must prevail at Wikipedia. Please stop your hate-driven attack on the subject! The National Research Council of Argentina has regional centers throughout the country and Dr. Fernandez, who resides in Basel (Schweiz), is probably unaware that you are defaming him by abusing the Wikipedia platform. He certainly has the right to defend himself but has not done so as far as we can tell. We don´t owe you any explanation, yet we feel we need to tell you to please stop attacking everybody who stands up for Dr. Fernandez.190.97.61.112 (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council

Proposed edits to Career

In an effort to get a balanced neutral description of the career of BLP subject Ariel Fernandez and following indications (NPOV notice board) from senior editor Minor4th and suggestions from other editors, we are proposing the following revised version with appropriate secondary sources for the Career section in the BLP Ariel Fernandez. It is our understanding that the senior editor may intervene to help with the editing and ensure that the article complies with the neutral point of view. Our proposed version including reputable secondary sources is as follows:

Career

Fernandez developed the concept of the dehydron, an adhesive structural defect in a soluble protein that promotes its own dehydration. A dehydron consists of an intramolecular hydrogen bond that is “underwrapped” or incompletely shielded from attack by water in the protein's solvation shell. Dehydrons cause "epistructural tension", that is, interfacial tension around the protein structure and thus promote protein–protein interactions and protein–ligand associations. Therefore, the interest of dehydrons in molecular targeted medicine was recognized since they were first characterized.

Dehydrons were shown by Fernandez and collaborators to be nonconserved structural features across proteins of common ancestry. More specifically, Fernandez and collaborators observed that a higher level of dehydron enrichment occurs in proteins from complex species with small populations, where deleterious mutations have a better chance to prevail. Since dehydrons were shown to promote protein associations, this analysis unraveled a possible molecular origin of biological complexity.

Fernandez has noted that the nonconserved nature of protein dehydrons has implications for drug discovery, as dehydrons may be targeted by highly specific drugs/ligands engineered to improve dehydron wrapping upon binding. Thus, dehydrons constitute effective selectivity filters for drug design, giving rise to the so-called wrapping technology, a platform to design safer drugs. This technology was first applied by Fernandez and collaborators to redesign the anticancer drug Gleevec, in order to remove its potential carditoxicity.. In a recent invention (US patent No. 9,051,387) applying the wrapping technology, dehydron-rich regions in a specific protein have been targeted by Ariel Fernandez and Richard L. Moss to design drug leads to cure heart failure.

Two of Fernandez's scientific papers have been questioned by journals that accepted them, one in BMC Genomics and one in Nature. One article has been retracted due to significant overlap with a previous publication by Ariel Fernandez.

Thank you very much for your help.200.49.228.32 (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council

Editing and Improving Career Section for Neutrality

Dear Minor4th, Thanks much in advance for your help improving the BLP for Ariel Fernandez regarding NPOV. We are ready to work with you at your convenience on the proposed edits to the career section. We placed the edited version in this page, quoting the appropriate primary and secondary sources. Thanks much for your help with this.181.228.138.187 (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council

I will try to take a look at this later today. Thanks. Minor4th 15:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much, Minor4th. Dr. Ariel Fernandez is now aware of the need to fix the BLP.181.228.138.187 (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council

Thank you Minor4th. Your intervention here would be most valuable in order to achieve the required neutrality and balanced point of view. I concur with the proposed revision to the career section. 50.4.224.33 (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Ariel Fernandez

Neutrality

This article does not conform to the neutral point of view! Fernandez has done a lot more in his career than getting 2-3 questioned papers. His CV lists 350 peer-reviewed articles, two books, two patents, etc., with comments in Scientific American, Nature, Royal Soc Chemistry, etc. What's going on Wikipedia?128.146.70.145 (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)OSU

Unfortunately, the problems of lack of neutrality and inbalance and undue weight of negative content still persist. This needs to be corrected since the BLP is possibly libelous as it now stands. One editor, Minor4th, is pointing this out.128.146.70.145 (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)OSU

Libel has to be false. Please point to the false statements in the article not supported by a reliable source. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Fernandez has published 350 papers, two books and is an inventor on two patents with several secondary sources and this article has chosen instead to focus on 3 questioned papers where no wrongdoing has been proven. Thus it is putting undue weight on negative content, portraying the doctor in an intended negative light. The article is, in my view, neither neutral nor balanced. 198.30.200.16 (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)OSU

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2015

• Note: I have asked for input at Wikiproject Chemistry. I'd be grateful if this edit request could remain open until we've had some feedback from someone there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

In its current version, the BLP for Ariel Fernandez places UNDUE WEIGHT ON NEGATIVE CONTENT: According to his updated CV quoted in Wikipedia, the subject has published 350 papers, 2 books as sole author and holds 2 patents. The Wikipedia article mainly focuses on 3 questioned papers. In an effort to get a balanced neutral description of the career of the BLP subject, and following indications (NPOV notice board) from senior editor Minor4th and suggestions from other editors, we are proposing the following revised version of the Career section with appropriate reputable secondary sources in the BLP Ariel Fernandez.

Please replace:

Current Career Section:

Fernandez developed the concept of the dehydron,[5] a structural feature in a protein consisting of an intramolecular hydrogen bond incompletely shielded from attack by water in the protein's solvation shell. Dehydrons cause "epistructural tension" in proteins and thus promote protein–protein interactions and protein–ligand associations.[6]

Two of Fernandez's scientific papers have been questioned by journals that accepted them, one in BMC Genomics[7][8] and one in Nature.[9][10] One Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences article has been retracted as an apparent duplicate publication.[11][12]

For the following more balanced/neutral version:

Proposed Career section:

Fernandez developed the concept of the dehydron, an adhesive structural defect in a soluble protein that promotes its own dehydration. A dehydron consists of an intramolecular hydrogen bond that is “underwrapped” or incompletely shielded from attack by water in the protein's solvation shell. Dehydrons cause "epistructural tension", that is, interfacial tension around the protein structure and thus promote protein–protein interactions and protein–ligand associations. Therefore, the interest of dehydrons in molecular targeted medicine was recognized since they were first characterized.

Dehydrons were shown by Fernandez and collaborators to be nonconserved structural features across proteins of common ancestry. More specifically, Fernandez and collaborators observed that a higher level of dehydron enrichment occurs in proteins from complex species with small populations, where deleterious mutations have a better chance to prevail. Since dehydrons were shown to promote protein associations, this analysis unraveled a possible molecular origin of biological complexity.

Fernandez has noted that the nonconserved nature of protein dehydrons has implications for drug discovery, as dehydrons may be targeted by highly specific drugs/ligands engineered to improve dehydron wrapping upon binding. Thus, dehydrons constitute effective selectivity filters for drug design, giving rise to the so-called wrapping technology, a platform to design safer drugs. This technology was first applied by Fernandez and collaborators to redesign the anticancer drug Gleevec, in order to remove its potential carditoxicity.. In a recent invention (US patent No. 9,051,387) applying the wrapping technology, dehydron-rich regions in a specific protein have been targeted by Ariel Fernandez and Richard L. Moss to design drug leads to cure heart failure.

Two of Fernandez's scientific papers have been questioned by journals that accepted them, one in BMC Genomics and one in Nature. One article has been retracted due to significant overlap with a previous publication by Ariel Fernandez.

198.30.200.84 (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)OSU

References

Sockpuppetry

Is nobody else taking notice that "Argentine Natl Research Council" posted here and elsewhere from numerous IP address in Buenos Aires, Ariel Fernandez later posted from an address in Cleveland OH, and now "OSU" is posting from IP addresses in Columbus OH? Fernandez is visiting the MBI at Ohio State (gave Nov 5 talk) and likely posted as himself in the airport on the way from Buenos Aires to Columbus. Why is his established pattern of sockpuppetry being allowed to continue? Also, there are THREE papers with expressions of concern on them now, not two, the the proposed "neutral" version makes factual claims that are related to work that journals have flagged as potentially containing invalid data. Molevol1234 (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Most of the experienced editors watching this article are aware that something is going on. To be clear the only actionable infringements are when socks support each other (i.e. one proposes something and another supports it, or similar). Blocking transiently-used IP addresses is a fools game, because most people have access to a very large number of public access computers relatively easily and other people use those machines too, creating collateral damage. The article itself is locked from such interference and the socks are welcome to waste their time on the talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Understood. There are also rules against subjects editing their own wiki pages, which is pretty well violated when "Argentine Natl Research Council" is submitting proposed edits.Molevol1234 (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

We haven't been quick to implement the requested edits, though. It's okay for someone with WP:COI to propose something -- but there's no guarantee it will be adopted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Point taken. The whole thing is just so ridiculous when the AS is submitting the proposed edits in violation of the rules and following prior lock down of this article for the same behavior. Molevol1234 (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

His submission of proposed edits is not in violation of the rules - in fact, it is encouraged that he propose edits instead of editing it himself. I was one who thought the article lacks balance upon a quick reading; or the subject is not notable enough for an article. It's worth looking at whether his proposed edits have any merit - I just haven't had time. Minor4th 20:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, Molevol, could you please move your edit request to its own section with today's date? You have placed it right in the middle of another edit request and comment. Minor4th 20:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I will move it. As to the rest, I hope you guys will not reward shady behavior from someone hiding their true identity when requesting edits to their own bio.Molevol1234 (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS Dear Molevol1234, We are trying to protect Ariel Fernandez, one of our prominent researchers, from defamation after being alerted by a senior officer at our organization. We don´t know what exactly is sockpuppetry but it seems unfair to accuse anyone of such a thing without proof, particularly when you yourself keep hiding in anonymity! Dr. Fernandez is probably not even aware of these hate-driven attacks. We should remind you that questioned papers are not retracted papers, and that there is no mention or proof of misconduct by a reputable source that would justify inclusion in his biopgraphy. After all, Dr. Fernandez has published 350 papers, two books as sole author and holds two patents. Furthermore, Retraction Watch is not a valid secondary source since it is a self-published blog in a crusade against the doctor. The changes you are proposing would furter contibute to the lack of neutrality of the article, placing undue weight on negative content, not justified by any serious secondary source.181.28.51.63 (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Argentine Natl. Research Council

unfounded accusations

Balanced biography for Ariel Fernandez

In consonance with opinions of several senior editors/administrators of Wikipedia, including Minor4th, Gamaliel, Rubiscous and others, as well as people in academia, we continue to object to the inclusion of negative content which has been placed undue weight in the biographical article on Ariel Fernandez.The article violates the premise of neutrality required for Wikipedia articles and is potentially damaging to the subject due to unsubstantiated negative implications. Dr. Fernandez has published 350 professional papers, two books as sole author (Springer-Verlag) and is an inventor in two patents. Yet, the Career section of the BLP focuses almost exclusively on three questioned papers, for which no evidence of invalid data has been substantiated,in detriment of any mention or discussion of the significant opus of the subject. Again, no evidence of wrongdoing has been established in regards to the questioned papers by any reputable source. At the behest of editor Minor4th, proposed edits have been offered in the Talk page by someone from Ohio State University to try to balance the article. At the very least, we request that the objected negative content be temporarily removed pending resolution of the matter.201.254.123.252 (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Res. Council

Discussion to include/exclude retracted papers (please stay on topic)

Can we keep this simple and on topic please. I agree with the (increasingly louder) editor above that the section on his papers being retracted is given UNDUE weight given the volume (and quality) of the subjects work so far. If you disagree, please state so below and why you feel it should be included - so we can put an end to this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It should be included because the sourcing on the matter is solid and reliable. What should be discussed is whether to add to the article along the lines the IP editor suggests above; if there's a need to address WP:UNDUE, that's the path for us. I am likely in favour of doing so -- but I have requested feedback at Wikiproject chemistry so that we can be confident that things are being portrayed correctly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Well just because something is reliably sourced is not a reason to include it. Thats what UNDUE is for. Given their previous body and quality of work, it is quite weighty to devote a significant part of their BLP to what is effectively less than 1% of their career. Its pretty much textbook non-neutral editing. Science papers get retracted all the time, rarely are they of notable significance (one example would be the Lancet autism/vaccine study) is there any evidence that his papers being retracted is a notable event (rather than just being reported by a reliable source which while reliable, is hardly evidence of notability)? Is this going to cause a scandal along those lines? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It figures prominently in the recent Chronicle of Higher Education article on the topic of retractions. I was sympathetic to previous arguments along these lines, until that article was published; I left it out (despite misgivings about sockpuppets and other angles of NPOV) but then restored it when that article came out. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Meh, I have generally been sceptical of that approach as when people are mentioned in articles about third parties, they rarely get the option of a right of reply - likewise as the article is not about them often the emphasis is not balanced shall we say. While the CHE does devote itself to retractions, I am not sure why it is notable about Ariel. Perhaps WP:Chem can give an answer, I do know as it currently stands the article is certainly not neutral given his career. The old 'Well add more positive things' approach can work, but that depends on there being enough material to work with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I think there likely is enough material to work with -- I just figure it's best to have it evaluated by someone who might know something. Not sure what's meant about the "right of reply" issue -- Fernandez did comment to the CHE and they included (at least part of) what he said. I haven't added it -- it seemed like doing so would exacerbate the weight problem -- but we could consider doing so. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

While I agree you ultimately want a NPOV, the proposed edits of the AS do not accomplish this. The first paragraph is mostly fine, but the second paragraph is based on research that has been discredited (Nature didn't issue the first expression of concern in its history for no reason at all, and this in itself makes the situation notable enough to include here.) The third paragraph should be edited to state established facts regarding patents and drugs, whereas the puffery and claims should really be revised. Finally, there are three expressions of concern, one article put on hold without publication, and one retraction for self-plagiarism. The first four of these happened within the time span of about a year, all toward claims made about dehydrons as forming the basis of molecular evolution. Perhaps a few expressions of concern spread out among 300+ publications over a career would not be notable, but that isn't the situation at hand. The wheels of justice are unfortunately slow, but in the meantime, let's try to keep wikipedia free from being tainted by claims for which a significant enough challenge was presented that the editors of the premier science journal Nature felt the need to flag the work as questionable. Molevol1234 (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

"Given their previous body and quality of work" is exactly the sort of independently-sourced idea to include, but merely asserting it (no matter how many independent or COI editors assert it) is futile. Most scientists publish a lot, that's not notable, merely merits a sentence. When work gets external attention from within the field due to its impact on the field or other reasons, it becomes notable. When work gets external attention from outside the field, it becomes notable. Consider that every notable person probably does tons of not-worth-mentioning things, but instead WP:UNDUE extactly tells us to focus mostly on what has gotten external reporting regardless of what fraction of the person's life or work that represents.

Coming from WP:Chemistry, a few sentences about a scientist's research topics is standard...what the field of study is, what advances/discoveries/contributions he has made to them, etc. Secondary references (review articles on his work as a whole, or highlighting some of his contributions to a certain area of study), some eponymous chemical or reaction, etc...those are ways to demonstrate that those aspects of his research merit even more discussion (both what they are and what impact they have had). Not because WP dwells in detail or uniform depth of coverage, but because it's what other published sources think are important. There are lots of textbooks, Chem. Rev., and other places where external attention might be found. Press releases and crowing by the subject and/or his affiliated institutions don't matter. But it's quite possible that the major source of notabililty (which as with all of WP has nothing to do with quantity of work or interest of editors) is a controversy that possibly involves substantial negative attention. Some scientists are mostly rememebered for having their ideas be disproven or being personally thoroughly discredited overall. DMacks (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

An expression of concern is not a retraction and is not an indication of invalid data. Furthermore, as far as I know, there is no evidence of false data in my published record. I see no reason to include information on 2-3 challenged papers where no evidence of wrongdoing has been found. I remain innocent at least in the parts of the world that still uphold the rule of law. As I scientist I seek the truth and if any of my works ever proves to be incorrect, I would be eager to retract it.181.28.247.203 (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Ariel Fernandez

That's fine, there's no evidence of wrongdoing -- and so it's appropriate that our article does not say anything about wrongdoing. As I say above, the reason to include it (while not making any assertion about wrongdoing) is that high-quality sources (including the CHE) has given attention to it. This is quite normal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I just can't see how that is informative of Ariel Fernandez. Seems to me undue weight on negative content, don't you think? Perhaps it would fit into an article entitled "The three questioned papers by Ariel Fernandez"? Probably not very notable... I am not an expert on these things, just doesn't feel right and could be potentially damaging. 181.28.247.203 (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Ariel Fernandez

Actually, the five papers are very informative about Ariel Fernandez. Molevol1234 (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Expression of concern or delayed publication is no retraction. No false or invalid data is involved or proven to be involved. No news here.181.28.247.203 (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I have a very interesting email from Tanguy Chouard addressed to you with a copy of a retraction notice for the Lynch & Fernandez 2011 Nature paper. I know why it was changed to an EoC, and it wasn't because the data were valid. I'm sure Ivan Oranksy would be interested to follow up on it. If you are successful in whitewashing your wiki entry, I may feel compelled to send it to him. Molevol1234 (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that Ariel Fernandez is not the only one with a conflict of interest here, but this talk page is only for discussing improvements to the article. Which we will attempt to do, according to Wikipedia policy, despite efforts from the article subject to "whitewash", and indeed despite efforts from activists wishing to, "rightly" or "wrongly" smear the article subject. Rubiscous (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I have never edited Fernandez's wiki page. I don't know what is the legal definition of "smear" but I do know the legal definition of libel, which is that it has to be false. In this respect, I am on 100% solid ground. As to a conflict of interest, my only interest lies in presenting the honest truth. If that reflects poorly on the AS, well that is because it reflects poorly on the AS. Molevol1234 (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The honest truth is irrelevant to Wikipedia unless and until it is discussed in reliable sources. Rubiscous (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no argument from me in this regard. My main intent is that relevant and reliably sourced information should not be deleted from his wikipedia entry, nor AS-contributed puffery added to it. I'm largely inclined to let the powers that be handle the broader situation, but in the meantime please do not allow him to misrepresent himself. This will be my last comment on the matter, and I will trust and hope that the wikipedia editors do what is proper here. Molevol1234 (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The only truth we are aware of in regards to the AS is the following:

"Prof. Ariel Fernandez does not have any paper retracted for invalid or false data."

His work has been widely recognized in a number of reputable secondary sources mentioned in the paragraphs we proposed to edit the career section. We respectfully request that he be treated fairly in consonance with the neutral tone of Wikipedia. Thanks much for your attention.181.28.63.62 (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Arg. Natl. Res. Council

We'll not be including that for the same reason we're not including the text Fernandez has no known convictions for molesting goats. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

In evaluating the credibility of a research paper, I'd definitely take into account whether the author has had papers retracted for double publication, has had coauthors request removal of their name from papers, and/or who has published corrections to published papers removing funding sources. There is absolutely nothing non-neutral about presenting this information and allowing readers to form their own opinions. In fact, the inclusion of these episodes is a necessary part of a WP:NPOV presentation of the overall picture. 2601:643:8100:8AF4:C0A5:9377:2BD6:D798 (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Support inclusion of the contested material. This has already been discussed at length here, at RSN, and at BLPN. Retraction Watch is a valid source, and the coverage in the Chronicle of Higher Education gives it plenty of weight. Omitting the content would not be NPOV. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Retraction Watch is a self-published blog. See WP:SPS (Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.) , see WP:BLPSPS (Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject). Note the word never. Note how it is in bold in the former. The discussion linked in [your] and [Nomoskedasticity's] edit summaries can safely be consigned to a bin marked 'meritless'. It is a self-published blog, the articles in question were written by Ivan Oransky who is the co-founder of the blog, the articles were not published in a newspaper and were not subject to editorial control. Please elaborate on where you think Wikipedia policy is ambiguous on this matter as all I can see from here is the word Never. Rubiscous (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

You would be on target if it was self-published -- but the discussion at RSN establishes that it isn't (published by the Center for Scientific Integrity, etc.) The material in question is not a matter of opinion -- there's no doubt that Retraction Watch is accurate in its depiction of this situation. Apart from policy-wonkery, there's nothing in question here about this material. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as we can see from the blog itself, Retraction Watch is a self published blog relying on tipsters and commenters who are allowed to say virtually anything, especially if what they say fits the agenda of Alan Marcus and Ivan Oransky. The Center for Scientific Integrity is a partner of Retraction Watch, not the publisher of the blog.201.219.74.176 (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Res. Council

That's not the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_197#Retraction_Watch. The organisation does have a Board of Directors that oversees operations. If you stretch it far enough, many newspapers are self-published, and in particular many of the highest quality newspapers. The New York Times is published by The New York Times Company. That's not how we interpret "self-published", and I maintain its not a useful way to interpret it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The board of directors is not for the blog but for the partner Center for Scientific Integrity. There is a big difference between a blog, where tipsters and commenters say whatever they want, and the New Yor Times.201.219.74.176 (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Nobody suggest referencing the blog comments, where "tipsters and commenters" say whatever they want, just like nobody suggests referencing the comments here. We are talking about the articles posted by the staffers of the organisation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

But the RW staff write anything they want precisely because RW is a self-published blog! Fernandez has no invalid data. As far as science is concerned, he is clear.Spinrade (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion at RSN is a poor one, it establishes nothing. What on earth is policy-wonkery? Sticking to policy? Isn't that what we should strive for? Especially as all we could possibly need to mention about these events is helpfully detailed within the Chronicle of Higher Education article which is undisputedly RS. What is your explicit editorial reason to take a liberal view of policy in this case? What relevant information do you feel can be sourced directly from Retraction Watch that cannot be sourced from the Chronicle of Higher Education article? Rubiscous (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I would just like to ask whether someone can explain why it is necessary to reference Retraction Watch at all. There are direct journal sources for all the Expressions of Concern (3), delayed publications (1), retractions for self-plagiarism (1) and corrections to remove NIH funding and ORI juristiction (8). I would be very happy to assemble the entire set of links if this is needed. Molevol1234 (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Molevol1234, we realize that you hold a mega-grudge against Prof. Ariel Fernandez and want to destroy him by any means. You keep threatening him, you insult his mother, and you have no clue about how Wikipedia operates regarding secondary sources, notability, etc. Due to your massive conflict of interest with Fernandez, I suggest that you be excluded from further discussion. Nobody has indicated/proven that Fernandez has published invalid or false data in his 350 or so articles. Expressions of concern or corrections or overlap between two papers is no indication of invalid data and is not notable unless a reputed secondary source picks on the topic. I can see that you would be "very happy" to destroy the professor, but since that ain't going to happen, I suggest you seek advice regarding your anger management.Spinrade (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

If someone who is not an Ariel Fernandez sockpuppet wants to respond to my inquiry, that would be appreciated. I remain happy to provide primary sources for various journal corrections/retractions/expressions regarding his publication record and will leave the wording of changes to his bio to objective wiki editors seeking a true NPOV. Molevol1234 (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Gladly. We must make mention of Retraction Watch, as the only reason that the questioned papers have received enough attention as to merit mention in this BLP is because Fernandez's behaviour towards Retraction Watch upon their calling attention to the questioned papers kicked off enough drama for the whole episode to be documented in the Chronicle of Higher Education article. There is no need to go into great detail, more than enough information is available in the Chronicle of Higher Education article from which to construct a concise summary of events with the appropriate weighting. One thing is clear, the spat with Retraction Watch has so far caused more waves than the mere fact that his papers have been questioned. To present the mere fact that his papers have been questioned as the sole reason we are talking about Ariel Fernandez in this context, as the article currently does, is utterly wrong. TL;DR: the AS is currently less notable as a bad scientist than he is notable for being an arse. Rubiscous (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, thank you, Rubiscous. As a scientist, I honestly consider the spat with Retraction Watch to be a minor footnote in this situation. The main role of RW has been to compile data on academic misconduct that might otherwise go unnoticed. I personally don't find the fact that Fernandez threatened to sue RW to be that pertinent. Whatever you want to say about 350 papers, when a significant fraction of them in the past 5 years have been flagged, it matters. In any case, much thanks to all of you at wiki for your thoughtful review of this situation. Indeed it is drama, but the truth will ultimately prevail. The story will continue to unfold. Molevol1234 (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

As this discussion has gone on, I'm more and more inclined to include Retraction Watch coverage of the subject. I'm not seeing any negative comments about Retraction Watch, either in the WP:RS discussions, on it's talk page or in google, except by those it covers. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's see: Retraction Watch is a self-published blog, and WP:SPS states "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Spinrade (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC) — Spinrade (talk •

Something is wrong here

I recently joined Wikipedia because I felt I could contribute with my expertise in stat mech. About a year ago, I came across the work of Ariel Fernandez and thought it was pretty cool stuff. When I recently looked it up in Wikipedia I noticed it was underplayed or missing. I tried to fix that, and a bunch of people instantly showed up and almost cut my head off. Then I tried to fix the Fernandez page and realized I was blocked. Then I joined the Talk page and was immediately accused of being a puppet of Fernandez. The attack came from Molevol1234. This person surely holds a grudge against Fernandez. He seems full of hatred and eager to destroy Fernandez. Everyone who sides with Fernandez seems to be accused of sock puppetry, whatever that is. For the record, I never met Fernandez. In fact I thought Fernandez was a woman since the first name suggests so, and became aware that he is a man when I searched in Wiki. It is obvious to me and to everybody I know that Fernandez has done much more in his career than getting two papers questioned or a paper with significant overlap. Give me a break! Why are you overplaying this? I read the Chronicle of Higher Education. It is obvious that Retraction Watch told the writer what to say, and the article is not even about Fernandez. There are people with more than 10 retractions for false data not even mentioned. One guy in Japan has 187 retractions (and counting). Not a word about him. There is not a shred of evidence pointing to misconduct or wrongdoing in Fernandez record, none in the public domain. I have never seen anything like this. Someone should fix this article.Spinrade (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Ariel, will you please stop wasting everyone's time? Do you honestly think we are all so stupid to not see through your shenanigans? You are setting yourself up to be the laughingstock of science, in addition to a notable ethics case study. Molevol1234 (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not AF. Please stop calling me that. That will take you nowhere. Spinrade (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I could not find any Wikiproject Chemistry, presumably consulted by editor Nomos... to check validity of secondary sources in proposed addition to Career section by Argentine Nat. Res. Council. I have checked every secondary source and they seem water tight and respectable.Spinrade (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry. Gamaliel (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Gamaliel! (sorry, I am relatively new here)Spinrade (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2015

Please change: Two of Fernandez's scientific papers have been questioned by journals that accepted them, one in BMC Genomics[7][8] and one in Nature.[9][10] One Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences article has been retracted as an apparent duplicate publication.[11][12]

To: Four of Fernandez's scientific papers have been questioned by journals that accepted them, one in BMC Genomics,[7][8] one in Nature,[9][10] one in Annual Reviews of Genetics,[11][12] and one in PLoS Genetics.[13][14] One Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences article has been retracted as an apparent duplicate publication.[15][16]

References are as follows, inserted between current refs [10] and [11]. [11] http://www.annualreviews.org/page/genet/111212-133310 [12] http://retractionwatch.com/2013/10/24/fernandez-genetics-paper-in-limbo-over-data-concerns/ [13] http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1005499 [14] http://retractionwatch.com/2015/09/24/plos-genetics-updates-flagged-paper-with-expression-of-concern/ [15] is currently [11] [16] is currently [12] Molevol1234 (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Objection to Molevol1234 proposal Dear Molevol1234, We are trying to protect Ariel Fernandez, one of our prominent researchers, from defamation after being alerted by a senior officer at our organization. We don´t know what exactly is sockpuppetry but it seems unfair to accuse anyone of such a thing without proof, particularly when you yourself keep hiding in anonymity!! Dr. Fernandez is probably not even aware of these hate-driven attacks. We should remind you that questioned papers are not retracted papers, and that there is no mention or proof of misconduct by a reputable source that would justify inclusion in his biopgraphy. After all, Dr. Fernandez has published 350 papers, two books as sole author and holds two patents. Furthermore, Retraction Watch is not a valid secondry source since it is a self-published blog in a crusade against the doctor. The changes you are proposing would furter contibute to the lack of neutrality of the article, placing undue weight on negative content, not justified by any serious source.181.28.51.63 (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council

Please feel free to provide a name and legit CONICET email address for yourself. Similarly, provide a name and valid OSU address for whomever posted from Columbus. "Hiding in anonymity," sounds a lot like the language used by "Weishi Meng" in "her" blog where "she" interviewed Ariel Fernandez asking questions like "Why does Ivan Oransky hate you, because you are so good looking?" Molevol1234 (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Molevol1234. You are not making sense. Please try to manage your hate or take it elsewhere.181.28.60.21 (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)Arg. Natl. Res. Council

Funny how "Weishi Meng" was an IP lawyer, much like established wikipedia sockpuppet "Haydee Belinky" who apparently met Ariel Fernandez at a trial before voraciously editing his wikipedia page, and who miraculously happened to have the same name as his deceased mother. Anyway, here is the "interview": https://web.archive.org/web/20141207160735/http://scienceretractions.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/interview-with-dr-ariel-fernandez-on-the-nature-paper-controversy/ Molevol1234 (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Mdann52 (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not to include the challenged and retracted papers is a separate discussion. I am simply noting that the list of papers as currently listed is incomplete.Molevol1234 (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2015

Following indications of senior editors Gamaliel and Minor4th, and suggestions from Noticeboard and Talk page, we would like to propose the following edits to the career section of BLP for Ariel Fernandez that currently places UNDUE WEIGHT ON NEGATIVE CONTENT. In an effort to get a balanced neutral description of the career of the BLP subject, we are proposing the following revision/expansion of the first paragraph of Career section with appropriate reputable secondary sources. Please notice that we are not proposing edits or changes to the paragraph dealing with "questioned papers" raised in the CHE piece.

Please replace first paragraph in career section:

Fernandez developed the concept of the dehydron,[5] a structural feature in a protein consisting of an intramolecular hydrogen bond incompletely shielded from attack by water in the protein's solvation shell. Dehydrons cause "epistructural tension" in proteins and thus promote protein–protein interactions and protein–ligand associations.[6]

For the following expanded version:

Fernandez developed the concept of dehydron, an adhesive structural defect in a soluble protein that promotes its own dehydration. A dehydron consists of an intramolecular hydrogen bond that is “underwrapped” or incompletely shielded from attack by water in the protein's solvation shell. Dehydrons cause "epistructural tension", that is, interfacial tension around the protein structure and thus promote protein–protein interactions and protein–ligand associations. Therefore, the interest of dehydrons in molecular targeted medicine was recognized since they were first characterized.

Dehydrons were shown by Fernandez and collaborators to be nonconserved structural features across proteins of common ancestry. More specifically, Fernandez and collaborators observed that a higher level of dehydron enrichment occurs in proteins from complex species with small populations, where deleterious mutations have a better chance to prevail. Since dehydrons were shown to promote protein associations, this analysis unraveled a possible molecular origin of biological complexity.

Fernandez has noted that the nonconserved nature of protein dehydrons has implications for drug discovery, as dehydrons may be targeted by highly specific drugs/ligands engineered to improve dehydron wrapping upon binding. Thus, dehydrons constitute effective selectivity filters for drug design, giving rise to the so-called wrapping technology, a platform to design safer drugs. This technology was first applied by Fernandez and collaborators to redesign the anticancer drug Gleevec, in order to remove its potential carditoxicity.. In a recent invention (US patent No. 9,051,387) applying the wrapping technology, dehydron-rich regions in a specific protein have been targeted by Ariel Fernandez and Richard L. Moss to design drug leads to cure heart failure.

References

Thanks much for your attention to this matter.201.219.74.176 (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Arg. Natl. Res. Council

@201.219.74.176: Done Eteethan(talk) 12:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Eteethan: did you notice that this issue has been under discussion for some time, and the same edit request was rejected by another editor above? There isn't consensus for it, so it's not clear why any editor would simply go ahead with it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Whoops. Didn't see that. Eteethan(talk) 12:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Eteethan:, Nomoskedasticity: As far as we can see, the edit rejected above is not ours. Our intent with the proposed edit is to provide a neutral point of view to the subject, balancing the Career section.201.219.74.176 (talk) 12:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Arg. Natl. Res. Council.

Sorry, by "above" I meant "in the archive". It's true, the one above is from someone else -- but the one in the archive is the same thing. Apologies for any confusion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Nomos... As far as we can see our edit proposal in the archives has not been rejected. Furthermore it is completely different from the one rejected.201.219.74.176 (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Arg. Natl. Res. Council

So, despite my strong sense that the various IP editors are -- well, it's obvious, isn't it -- I've gone ahead and implemented this edit. I'll defer to anyone else who is confident there's a problem; it would be much better to have input from someone who has a better grasp of the chemistry. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I am a chemist and I know -because I had to study AF's papers- that the subject has done more for chemistry than getting those papers questioned. The reputable secondary sources incorporated reflect this, I believe.Spinrade (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, please at least update the discussion of the challenged papers to note that there are five of them. My edit request was a correction to information that the editors have decided to include, and it should be updated for factual accuracy. Thank you. Molevol1234 (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

(Potential outing removed. Do not restore theories about someone's real life identity. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC))

@Eteethan:, @Nomoskedacity:, I am not inclined to debate Spinrade, who is under investigation for being a sockpuppet who related to Ariel Fernandez and "Argentine Natl Research Council." I am opposed to the AS-drafted puffery, but it is not my decision whether to add it. However, if the consensus is to include discussion of the retractions and expressions of concern, there should at least be an accurate accounting of them. There are five challenged papers, not three. I provided all relevant primary sources in my original edit request, which should be reconsidered. Factual corrections do not require a consensus, they just need to be a factual correction to the information given in the wiki entry. Thank you. Molevol1234 (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

(Potential outing removed. Do not restore theories about someone's real life identity. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC))

@Eteethan:, @Nomoskedacity:, I request that the above comment be permanently deleted. I do not wish uninvolved third parties to be brought into this discussion. Molevol1234 (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Molevol1234: I cannot permanently delete edits. If there is a problem please bring it up at ANI. Eteethan(talk) 22:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Eteethan:, @Floquenbeam:, thanks for the help. Things appear to be resolved with names in the comments, and Spinrade was blocked for one week over the sockpuppeting. Molevol1234 (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've removed the real-life name from view, and starting now, no one on either side should speculate on the real life identity of another editor. To be clear, I removed some comments because they speculated on a real name, not because they are not allowed to participate in the discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Molevol1234 For what is worth I suggest you quit attacking Dr. Ariel Fernandez. Wikipedia is not the right place for this. Your exchanges make it clear that you have a COI with the subject. The expressions of concern you refer to are NOT retractions! They are not notable in and of themselves, unless a reputable secondary source says so and writes about them. The blog Retraction Watch is a self published source where any commenter says whatever they like, and hence it does not count as a reliable reputable secondary source. Wikipedia has strict rules about self published sources, and they were made abundantly clear to you. If you need further explanations, I suggest you contact senior editors Minor4th, Gamaliel or @Nomoskedasticity:. In regards to the puppetry you seem obsessed with, please remember that there are indeed people like me who may side with Ariel Fernandez when he is unfairly treated. I should remind you that you keep attacking Ariel Fernandez hiding behind a pseudonym.Spinrade (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed edit

@Eteethan:, @Nomoskedasticity:, Now that it's been firmly established that Spinrade, Argentine Natl Res Council, OSU, etc, are all sockpuppets of Arifer, can you please consider correcting this bio to indicate the correct list of papers that have been retracted or otherwise flagged as questionable? There are more of them than are mentioned in the bio. There are also eight corrections made to funding sources, perhaps in an attempt to remove oversight by the Office of Research Integrity, though including these probably warrants some consensus vs. simply correcting the inaccuracies in the current bio. Given the repeated sockpuppet investigations of Arifer, there will surely be new sockpuppets on here to argue against this, but at this point they should be evident. Thank you for your thoughtful attention to this matter. Molevol1234 (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Molevol1234: can you please do a proposed edit that indicates the sources? I agree it's probably reasonable to give an accurate portrayal, though it's best if the source is at least a secondary one like Retraction Watch (rather than a journal statement). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: sure, I will be happy to do so. Really, I did this already back in November, and one editor made a unilateral decision to decline the request. I appreciate your reconsideration. My question is what you would like me to include. Previously, I gave both primary (journal) and secondary (retraction watch) sources for the flagged articles. Do you want anything different from this? What about the author corrections to funding sources, several of which happened simultaneously with no reason given? Should these be included? Finally, "Spinrade" from "Germany" is also fluent in Spanish, and the biography at en.wikipedia.com needs to be updated and protected as with this one. Is there some way to arrange that? Thanks for your help with all this bother. The wiki editors are saints for dealing with all this nonsense in a mostly thoughtful and objective manner. Molevol1234 (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Editors may wish to check Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ariel_Fernandez, but I don't see anything new there. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Multiple refs as we currently have is good as far as I'm concerned. We need to avoid both implying malicious intent to author corrections and allowing the total proportion of the negative material to increase substantially, however. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Molevol1234 Conflict of Interest with subject

Here as well -- no need to carry on with an extraneous topic started by a sock. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Molevol1234 wants to include in a BLP info on papers challenged but not even retracted or invalidated. That is absurd, unheard of, unless he has a vested interest. Clearly he has a COI. This editor should be banned.JosiahWilard (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC) This account was created yesterday. Perhaps one of the editors wants to have a checkuser confirm whether this is one of Fernandez's "colleagues" in Argentina who said they would no longer get involved here? Let me guess, Josiah has no relationship with "the doctor" but learned of his work and just happened to have been following this entire discussion and now wants to contribute. Or, perhaps some people never learn no matter how many times their dishonest behavior is uncovered. Molevol1234 (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Since Fernandez himself has been posting today on the talk page for his editing account, which is suspended, a CU can easily check whether posts for Josiah geolocate to the same place. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ariel_Fernandez_Ph_D Molevol1234 (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Molevol1234! My account was NOT created yesterday! Your proposal for defaming AF has already been rejected before! It did not get consensus and is full of fallacies (archives to this Talk page). You will not get any kudos for obsessing about AF. Move on with your life!JosiahWilard (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC) I stand corrected on that point. Your account appears to have been created around the time the last sock puppet investigation concluded. It seems you are now under investigation as well. Regarding fallacies and defaming, it has been explained repeatedly that these words refer to information that is false. Information that is unflattering does not constitute defamation, so if you want to make a claim of it, please be explicit in regard to what information in my proposed edit is not correct. I posit that it is factually accurate and easily verified from the linked sources. As an analogy, someone might not like to have it mentioned in a wiki bio that there was enough evidence to indict them for a crime, but it is not defamation to mention it irrespective of innocence, guilt or any presumption thereof. Molevol1234 (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)