Talk:Ariel Fernandez

Proposed Edits to Career Section, as per NPOV notice board discussion

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:

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2016

@Nomoskedasticity: @Stuartyeates: Following on our discussion, I have attempted to construct a well-documented paragraph regarding challenges to the work of the AS. Since the meaning of an expression of concern has been misrepresented on the talk pages by his sockpuppets, I have also tried to summarize its meaning based on established guidelines, which are also referenced. I give the references using letters to avoid confusion with the current citations, which I hope is acceptable.

Again as a side note, how does one go about dealing with his entry on es.wikipedia.org, which violates WP:AUTO and has been edited by numerous socks of Arifer? This artlcle should also be protected and rewritten for NPOV.

Please change:

Two of Fernandez's scientific papers have been questioned by journals that accepted them, one in BMC Genomics[18][19] and one in Nature.[20][21] One Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences article has been retracted as an apparent duplicate publication.[22][23]

To:

In recent years, several of Fernandez's scientific papers have been questioned by journals that accepted them. Publications in BMC Genomics, Nature and PLoS Genetics have been flagged with expressions of concern, and publication of an article in Annual Reviews of Genetics was withheld. The guidelines given by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) suggest issuing an expression of concern in the event that a substantive challenge to the work has been raised but for which the evidence is inconclusive at the time of the notice. In addition, Fernandez requested a number of simultaneous corrections to past articles, in order to remove the National Institutes of Health as the source of funding for the work. In 2006, a Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences article was retracted as an apparent duplicate publication.

References

Molevol1234 (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC) I don´t get it. These papers are just challenged by someone, not retracted, not invalid. They are 4, not several. Not important. RW is self published, not allowed in BLPs. Clearly Molevol1234 has a COI or vested interest here.JosiahWilard (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Definition of several: more than two, but not many Molevol1234 (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The proposed change seems good to me. I suspect that you need to prepare if differently, so an admin can just cut and paste it in. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Presumably you mean the refs? I can do that. I will wait until Nomoskedasticity and any other non-socks weigh in first. How about the question of dealing with the Spanish language wiki biography? Is there a mechanism to protect that page and update its contents to be compatible with the edits here? Molevol1234 (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates: Not seeing any requests for revisions by non-socks, I have gone ahead and reformatted the references to allow copy-paste by an editor. It will be nice to put this matter behind us at last, and I thank you for your assistance in working toward a more comprehensive wiki entry. Again, if you have knowledge of how to address the Spanish language version, which is missing information on the editorial expressions of concern and other details, this would be appreciated. Molevol1234 (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Is this for real? This is way way out of proportion. Is Molevol1234 pushing for an edit that this guy Fernandez has 3 papers challenged by someone (yes, challenged, not invalid, not retracted, no nothing) and has corrected the record for other papers? I am sorry to say this absurdity is not likely to fly. It has already been rejected (see archive 2 on this Talk page, end). It got even worse this time around! No support for these personal attacks here. JosiahWilard (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Just read Archive 2 of this Talk page. The obsession of Molevol1234 with destroying Ariel Fernandez is frightening. He even threatens Fernandez with going to Ivan Oransky (the Retraction Watch blogger) if Wikipedia does not publish his edit (It was already rejected anyway). THIS IS COI. Also, Retraction Watch is a self-published blog pùblished by Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus. As per 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., also in 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). And what are we talking here, anyway? The guy has no retractions for false or invalid data, just papers challenged? Give me a break...JosiahWilard (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I won't dignify your mischaracterization with any sort of response any more than I did your claim that I insulted Ariel Fernandez's mother by pointing out that he used her name for one of his sockpuppets, who claimed to be an IP lawyer who met him briefly and subsequently began editing his wiki bio. (Actually, I will say that if I were using my real name you would be committing libel.) As to COI, you seem to forget that the last set of edits were from an Arifer sockpuppet, which I predict you will also be marked as following the latest in 7 separate Arifer sockpuppet investigations involving over 20 separate accounts and IP addresses used to circumvent blocks. I never tried to affect the content of this page until there were attempts to whitewash it, but now I'm pretty committed to seeing that the publicly available facts will be reflected. Beyond that, if expressions are concern are no big deal, why do you characterize mentioning them as having the potential to destroy Ariel Fernandez? They must be a pretty serious matter in that case and thus worthy of mention in a biography, don't you think? Molevol1234 (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Sir, Nobody would take the trouble to collect meritless stuff on papers challenged (not retracted, not invalid), minor errata, blog gossip, etc. and try to force it into Wikipedia as notable unless his goal were to slander the subject. Quit obsessing! JosiahWilard (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: - Woah, stumbled into some drama here. This arguing clearly shows that no consensus has been reached. I will keep the edit request open for now, so another person can take a look, but consensus, especially for such a big change, is definitely needed. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 06:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: - Actually, going back on my word and closing this. Please re-open the request once consensus has been reached. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 06:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

allthefoxes, if you're implying lack of consensus from the voluble output of User:JosiahWilard, maybe check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arifer. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates: - case hasn't yet been closed, and no CU has commented, so not really taking that as weight. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 07:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Allthefoxes: can you please reopen this? The SPI has now concluded. As should be clear from my discourse with Nomoskedasticity and Stuartyeates, I am attempting to work toward a version that we are all happy with. I am still awaiting feedback from Nomoskedasticity as to any changes required to the sourcing and material for the bio. Molevol1234 (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Molevol1234: - SPERs should only be opened once there is consensus, not while we wait for it. In addition, it would be best to open this in a new section on the talk page --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 20:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

There is now a consensus, and the biography has been updated. Thank you. Molevol1234 (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• My concern with the proposed edit is that it relied almost entirely on primary sources. I think it's best to stick to material that can be attributed to secondary sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

In this case, however, wouldn't the majority of the first three paragraphs of the Career section be disallowed? Those are primary references, most without secondary ones. If all information in the bio has to be based on secondary sources, being consistent means removing most of what was previously added. If you wish to edit what I have requested based on your feelings about what should and should not be included, I am fine with that, but please at least apply the guidelines uniformly between requests. Thanks! Molevol1234 (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Just as another note, there are both primary and secondary sources for all the material with the exception of the corrections. That is because a large number of them happened simultaneously, and thus the secondary source reported on them with one article. A single one of them by itself would not be especially notable (though I am aware of no other such examples in the literature that attempt to disavow previously cited funding sources), but collectively they are notable. There is also a secondary reference for the retraction, but it overlapped with a previous reference, so I only included it once. Molevol1234 (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Secondary sources in Career section were checked by various editors and seem legit (not self published, etc.). There are secondary sources for each published statement. Please familiarize yourself with the meaning of the terms. JosiahWilard (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the editors largely felt that Retraction Watch is a legitimate secondary source. The Retraction Watch website lists the Center for Scientific Integrity as its "parent organization." It is not a self-published blog, no matter how much you want to discount it as a secondary source. This has already been discussed ad nauseum. Molevol1234 (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. Not only that, but inclusion of the primary sources helps us to be confident that what is in that particular secondary source is true. So perhaps a scaled down version of the proposed edit is possible. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding to the above, Retraction Watch has a Board of Directors. Nomoskedasticity, I am happy if you want to suggest specific changes or edit my request to ensure it meets the guidelines. I think we are all a bit tired of this never ending game of sockpuppet whack-a-mole, so please do what you think is right. As well, since the es.wikipedia.org version is effectively an autobiography, please let me know if there is a way to address this. Getting a translation is probably not too difficult, but the page needs protection similar to this one. Thanks! Molevol1234 (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've partially implemented the requested edit. I didn't include the COPE sentence; the source doesn't refer to Fernandez, and so including the sentence would fall foul of WP:SYNTH. I also don't think the NIH funding corrections are significant enough. @Molevol: could you please try to improve the references, so that they aren't bare urls? Perhaps use another footnote as a model; you could perhaps use one of the {{cite}} templates as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I think this is a reasonable compromise. I will see about addressing your request for the formatted citations soon. I will put this as an edit request with a ping to you unless there is another way you wish for this to be handled. Molevol1234 (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks -- you should be able to make those changes yourself. Or give it a try, anyway :) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I was unable to make the edits myself, so I put in an edit request. For some reason this was blocked by another editor despite the fact that we've achieved a consensus. If it's possible to either add the edits or opine on the fact that the request was made following a process of consensus building, that would be helpful. Thanks. Molevol1234 (talk) 23:10, 18 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)

JosiahWilard = Spinrade (= Arifer)

All done, SPI closed, no need to belabour this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User Spinrade was initially blocked as a sockpuppet of Ariel Fernandez on 15 December. Josiah Wilard's first edit was on 16 December. They have both posted on the same topics: hydrophobicity and Ariel Fernandez. Can an admin please confirm that this is a sockpuppet account. Bueller 007 (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC) Huh?JosiahWilard (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC) I would like to propose that Wikipedia create a "Hydra" award and announce the winners annually. Molevol1234 (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC) Sir, Your obsession with destroying Dr. Fernandez will lead you nowhere.WandaLan (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC) There are hundreds or thousands of people like me in the science who like and admire Ariel Fernandez and agree that Molevol1234 and friends are obsessed with destroying the person with material that is not notable presented like it is important. The truth is there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by Fernandez and his students. If not, the papers would be retracted by now for that reason. Molevol1234 made several intents to defame AF and they were rejected because they are two or three years old nonsense based on illegal use of self-published sources. Using pseudonyms, Molevol1234 manipulates Retraction Watch because that is just a self-published blog with no filter and wants to manipulate Wikipedia also in the same way.WandaLan (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC) Can you explain why someone with only 18 Twitter followers has a legion of admirers from around the world who are fluent in Spanish and prepared to take up battle for him on Wikipedia in two languages, each picking up when the previous one is banned? Molevol1234 (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC) Molevol1234 has written 70 contributions to Wikipedia, all trying to destroy Ariel Fernandez. His edit proposals are so aberrant that they have been always rejected. Why isn´t Molevol1234 accused of abusing Wikipedia? I agree 100% with editor WandaLane. We are scientists and will not let Molevol1234 or anybody else pull this nonsense on Ariel Fernandez at Wikipedia. Fernandez has done nothing wrong as far as we can check and there is no reason to try to present two or three-years old challenges as if they were some serious issue. Scientists get papers challenged all the time, especially people with such a fabulous output. That is in and of itself not notable at all.JosiahWilard (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Immediate removal of controversial content already rejected several times

Defamatory content has been added today to the Wikipedia biography of Ariel Fernandez as per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ariel_Fernandez&diff=700461175&oldid=694589588

This highly controversial information had already been deemed inappropriate for a BLP and rejected on numerous occassions (see Ariel Fernandez talk page). The edits were ferociously spearheaded by editor Molevol1234 who has written more than 70 contributions to Wikipedia, all directed at destroying the subject and also revaling a serious COI (see Talk page). Molevol1234 is a person already identified and obsessed with destroying the reputation of the subject, as per latest discussions in Talk page. Furthermore, THIS EDIT PROPOSAL HAS ALREADY BEEN REJECTED SEVERAL TIMES, as shown in the Talk page and its archives. Yet, this time around it has been incorporated WITHOUT EVEN REACHING ANY CONSENSUS. Not only this action is strictly forbidden by Wikipedia policies and bylaws on BLPs, but the content of the addition is completely non notable, referring to three papers challenged years ago, while in fact no paper by the subject has ever been rejected based on proven wrongdoing or invalid data. No source to justify notability was ever provided. Adding the Wikipedia imprimatur to such nonsense by publishing this material constitutes defamation as it suggests wrogdoing on behalf of the subject or a serious issue that has never been proven or established. This addition is also ilegal as per the rules and policies of Wikipedia BLP:SPS, since the secondary source for the accusations is the self published blog Retraction Watch. The blog is published by A Marcus and I Oransky who also contribute to the blog and allow any contributor to say whatever they want. It is well known that such self published sources are strictly forbidden in BLPs, as per BLP:SPS policy. [redacted]

190.195.2.239 (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If you continue to violate WP:NLT, you will likely find that this talk page is limited to established editors who do not make legal threats (and engage in sock-puppetry). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2016

@Nomoskedasticity: I am unable to edit the biography, as it is semi-protected. I believe the version below will address your request in relation to the references. Please let me know if there is anything else you'd like from me, but hopefully we are done with this page. I continue to have concerns about the edits of various Arifer socks to biophysics subjects and to his Spanish language biography, but I am getting quite weary of this nonsense. I thank you and the other wiki editors for working toward a consensus that is fair. Molevol1234 (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please change the last paragraph of the career section to the following, which has more complete information on the primary and secondary sources. Several of Fernandez's scientific papers have been questioned by journals that had earlier accepted them. Publications in BMC Genomics<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Kowalczuk | first1 = M | last2 = Nanda | first2 = S | last3 = Moylan | first3 = E | title = Expression of concern: Subfunctionalization reduces the fitness cost of gene duplication in humans by buffering dosage imbalances | journal = BMC Genomics | volume = 14 | page = 260 | doi = 10.1186/1471-2164-14-260 | date = Apr 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title = &#39;Conflicting investigations&#39; prompt expression of concern in BMC Genomics | url =http://retractionwatch.com/2013/04/19/conflicting-investigations-prompt-expression-of-concern-in-bmc-genomics/}}</ref>, Nature<ref>{{cite journal | last1=Fernandez | first1=A | last2=Lynch | first2=M | date = Dec 2014 | title = Editorial Expression of Concern: Non-adaptive origins of interactome complexity | url= http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v516/n7531/full/nature13141.html | journal = Nature | volume =516 | page=440 | doi= 10.1038/nature13141}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title = Nature issues Expression of Concern for paper by author who threatened to sue Retraction Watch | url = http://retractionwatch.com/2014/12/01/nature-issues-expression-of-concern-for-paper-by-author-who-threatened-to-sue-retraction-watch/}}</ref> and PLoS Genetics <ref>{{cite journal | last1 = The PLoS Genetics Editors | title = Expression of Concern: Protein Under-Wrapping Causes Dosage Sensitivity and Decreases Gene Duplicability | date = Sep 2015 | url = http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1005499 | doi = 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005499}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title = PLOS Genetics updates flagged paper with expression of concern | url = http://retractionwatch.com/2015/09/24/plos-genetics-updates-flagged-paper-with-expression-of-concern/}}</ref> have been flagged with expressions of concern, and publication of an article in Annual Reviews of Genetics was withheld<ref>{{cite web | title = Editorial Note on &#39;Supramolecular Evolution of Protein Organization&#39; by Ariel Fernández | url = http://www.annualreviews.org/page/genet/111212-133310}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title = Fernández genetics paper in limbo over data concerns | url = http://retractionwatch.com/2013/10/24/fernandez-genetics-paper-in-limbo-over-data-concerns/}}</ref>. In 2006, a Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences article was retracted as an apparent duplicate publication<ref>Cozzarelli, N (Feb 2006). "Retraction for Fernández et al., Packing defects as selectivity switches for drug-based protein inhibitors". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 103 (11): 4329. doi:10.1073/pnas.0601034103.</ref>.

Not done for now: As I said above, please establish consensus first. With all the drama that was on this page, I don't want to make any changes right this moment. Please open this request again by changing answered=yes to no once a few editors have agreed on your wording --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 22:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I did this at the request of other editors who have been involved the entire discussion and whose specific suggestions I have followed. Please review my discussions with Nomoskedasticity (and Stuartyeates) above, which clearly demonstrate that the edit request is based on having reached consensus with those commenting here, with the only dissenters being sockpuppets of the article subject. The only difference between this edit and the current version is that Nomoskedasticity asked that I make some improvements to the references. Molevol1234 (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: would you please remove your latest addition to the BLP as per the indication above? At odds with the last rejection in the long series of rejections of the damaging edits by Molevol1234, the defamatory content has been singlehandedly added today to the Wikipedia biography of Ariel Fernandez as per

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ariel_Fernandez&diff=700461175&oldid=694589588 This controversial information is inappropriate for a BLP and was rejected on numerous occassions (see this talk page and archive 2). The editor Molevol1234 has written more than 70 contributions to Wikipedia, all directed at destroying the subject and also revaling a serious COI (see Talk page). THIS EDIT PROPOSAL HAS ALREADY BEEN REJECTED SEVERAL TIMES, as shown in the Talk page and archives. Yet, this time around it has been incorporated by Nomoskedasticity WITHOUT EVEN REACHING ANY CONSENSUS. Not only this action contravenes the recent order above but is strictly forbidden by Wikipedia policies and bylaws on BLPs. The content of the addition is completely non notable, referring to three papers challenged years ago, while in fact no paper by the subject has ever been rejected based on proven wrongdoing or invalid data. No source to justify notability of these inanities was ever provided. Adding the Wikipedia imprimatur by publishing this material constitutes defamation as it suggests wrogdoing on behalf of the subject or a serious issue that has never been proven or established. This addition also infringes the rules and policies of Wikipedia BLP:SPS, since the secondary source for the accusations is the self published blog Retraction Watch. The blog is published by A Marcus and I Oransky who also contribute to the blog and allow any contributor to say whatever they want. Science & Tech Natl Res Council.181.28.62.43 (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

If this is who I suspect it is, CONICET will surely not take well to being impersonated. Bueller 007 (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: - Hey there, as I said on your talk page, SPERs need consensus. Please wait until consensus is reached, and offer your opinion here. There is some serious disagreement on wording and usage here (And possibly some SOCKing), but consensus is still needed. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 16:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what you've done to the article; you're missing quite a lot of the history here. And it's not a matter of "possibly" some socking -- the SPI has been closed, with four different accounts blocked. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Allthefoxes, the subject of this article has a long history of SOCKing and changing this article - and many others - to promote himself and his work. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Arifer/Archive and the current case about the IP address' postings Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Arifer. I'll add here that if Ariel keeps SOCKing here I will ask for the Talk page to be protected against IP editing (the article already is protected). Ariel, you need to just stop. Jytdog (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The socking is irrelevant aside from the fact that the socks were the only ones disagreeing with the edits made by Nomoskedasticity. These updates followed a long discussion in which consensus was achieved with SPERs such Nomoskedasticity, Stuartyeates and others. They are in agreement with the changes, so I don't see why a unilateral decision was made to reverse them. If other SPERs could please weigh in as to the consensus we've reached on what information to include in the biography and what sources are allowed, this would help put the matter to rest. When the socks are the only ones protesting the inclusion of the material and the sourcing, I'm not clear what the barrier to consensus (or perceived consensus) is at this point. Molevol1234 (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of paragraph that violates Wikipedia policy

@Allthefoxes:: As you have rightly noted, the last paragraph in Career section of this BLP needs to be removed due to lack of consensus. In addition the paragraph violates Wikipedia policy for the following reasons: a) The years-old challenges to research papers (expressions of concern) is not proven to be a notable topic and there is no valid secondary source that would justify their inclusion. All papers by Ariel Fernandez remain perfectly valid unless someone proves that they contain invalid data. There has never been evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of Fernandez or his group that would invalidate any of his papers or lead to retraction. b) Inclusion of a paragraph derogatory to a subject of a BLP requires extensive consensus. This was never reached. c) The use of self published sources like the self-published blog Retraction Watch is strictly forbidden by Wikipedia policy on BLPs as per BLP:SPS. This blog is evidently self-published because it is published by A Marcus and I Oransky, who also contribute to the blog, claiming to be retraction experts. d) The person who spearheaded this deprecation has a COI with the subject as extensively discussed in the Talk page and archives. e) The proposal to include the derogatory paragraph has been rejected 4 (FOUR) times already as noted in TALK page. Thanks much for your attention. S&T Natl Res Council.201.254.123.189 (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Greetings IP editor. You have posted this and pinged me in three different places, something very un-needed. I only responded to the SPERs and have no hand in this content dispute. thank you for understanding. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 19:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Beyond this, the sock is misrepresenting the discussion. We did achieve consensus that the retracted articles and expressions of concern should be included and that Retraction Watch is a legitimate source, as it is published by the Center for Scientific Integrity and has an official Board of Directors. Molevol1234 (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

YET ANOTHER LIE BY Molevol1234 !! The blog Retraction Watch is NOT published by the Center for Scientific Intergity. As the webpage for Retraction Watch indicates, the blog is self-published, while the Center for Scientific Integrity is mentioned as a "parent" organization. The Board of Directors is not for RW but for the Center! RW publishes indiscriminately any nonsense that anyone brings to the table, and since the founders are not scientists, they cannot tell what is good or what is junk, what is gossip and what is real. Inclusing of RW as a source is ILLEGAL as per Wikipedia policy. 186.138.183.140 (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)