Talk:Ariel Fernandez/Archive 3

JosiahWilard = Spinrade (= Arifer)
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 6 January 2016
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.

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)
 * 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)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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 Sockpuppet investigations/Arifer. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - 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)
 * 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)
 * - 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.   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)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2016
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, Nature  and PLoS Genetics  have been flagged with expressions of concern, and publication of an article in Annual Reviews of Genetics was withheld. In 2006, a Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences article was retracted as an apparent duplicate publication.


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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)


 * 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)


 * - 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 Sockpuppet_investigations/Arifer/Archive and the current case about the IP address' postings 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
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)
 * 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:
 * 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. 186.138.183.140 (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * To top it all, the Center for Scientific Intergity did not even exist at the time when Marcus and Oransky wrote their posts in RW against AF quoted by Wikipedia.186.138.183.140 (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair play at Wikipedia
If the last paragraph in Career section is retained in some form, then for the sake of fairness I suggest that my own view on the matter is also included. I propose that the following sentence be added at the end of the paragraph:

On one occasion Fernandez voiced publicly his view on the matter.

Thanks for your attention. Ariel Fernandez 181.10.76.232 (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ - A wordpress blog is likely not going to be usable as a reliable source. Will see what other editors have to say. --allthefoxes (Talk) 13:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please also keep in mind that Wikipedia has no intention of being fair. Your view, if it is not neutral or appropriate, is not welcome. There is only one point of view on Wikipedia, and that is the neutral one. --allthefoxes (Talk) 13:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * OOOh. Then I rest my case! Retraction Watch is a wordpress blog and as you have just said: "A wordpress blog is likely not going to be usable as a reliable source." So, please remove the paragraph that uses the blog Retraction Watch as a source. Ariel Fernandez.181.10.76.232 (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that's rather harsh and misrepresents what most editors think. A good reason to adopt a neutral point of view is very much to be fair.  A blog isn't a good source, but there's no reason to doubt that what it contains is the view of Ariel Fernandez.  I'd be inclined to adopt the proposed sentence -- especially if we could get a commitment from Ariel Fernandez that he will cease pretending to be the "Argentine Natl. Research Council" in his posts at Wikipedia....  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The blog where I made my pronouncement is a wordpress blog, just like Retraction Watch!!!, so if the blog is not admissible (as per editor allthefoxes), then neither is Retraction Watch. I would much appreciate if my statement is incorporated for fairness. I always represent myself, unlike the commenters at Retraction Watch that cowardly hide behind pseudonyms. Ariel Fernandez.181.10.76.232 (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Unacceptable. You can't reward his bad behavior. Strike everything he writes from the page, as he is under a revert ban. In addition, it is pretty widely thought that Weishi Meng (the supposed blog-owner) is just another one of his sock-puppets. Therefore, the source is not reliable even as a depiction of his own views. Bueller 007 (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Long-term block-evading abusive socks do not have any say in anything, and have no permission to edit, propose edits, or edit via proxy. You have long ago worn out your welcome on this site, and multiply violated its policies. As to the subtance, your equal-handed claims regarding "just a blog" are a bunch of repeatedly-disproven nonsense...nobody's buying it except you and your sock army. Time to give up...first law of holes and all that. DMacks (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Note that per WP:SELFPUB: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves," So there is no reason this could not be included, and its inclusion should not be based on any alleged behavior by the subject of the article on this page.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And any editor in good standing is welcome to made such an edit using his/her own account. DMacks (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, Fernandez contacted OTRS and asked for the addition of the above text. I agreed I'd relay the edit request without knowing that it had already been proposed here. No opinion on the content, though I agree with Gamaliel's comments. Huon (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there any way this IP could be blocked? He has to being AF, which is a clear violation of AF's block.  Ete ethan  (talk)  20:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is block evasion, if someone points me to the original account or block or block discussion, I will investigate. In the meantime, let's consider the validity of the content and the relevant policies.  Personalizing this dispute does no one any good.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Gamaliel: The sockpuppet investigation is open, but no one has acted (though Palimaerts has been banned): . Here are his numerous past sockpuppet investigations: . The banned master account is here: . He has also been sockpuppeting on the Spanish Wikipedia. Bueller 007 (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Not sure whether I've not seen that blog before or just forgotten about it. I think we should use it, per natural justice. I don't think we should use the text above. Maybe on the end of that paragraph:
 * Fernandez characterised some of Retraction Watch's coverage of him as  'silly'  and said  'the only thing worth focusing on is the failure of the peer review system.' 
 * If we don't include it in the text, we should include an 'external links' section of similar. Thoughts?


 * If the link goes in, I request that it should be the original "interview" instead of the current sanitized version. Since the questions and answers in interviews don't change, I think we should make sure that what is on the current blog of "Weishi Meng" reflects the original questions posed to Dr. Fernandez and his original answers. The original version is available here. 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) 20:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The guy consistently uses sockpuppets here and elsewhere on the Internet. Wikipedia should not dignify his apparent sockpuppet blog by linking to it or quoting it.  This is rewarding bad behaviour. If he wants Wikipedia to include a quote, tell him to place a statement under one of the many websites that he runs under his own name, not a disingenuous source where he seems be interviewing himself under a pseudonym. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is totally up to you and the other editors. I merely ask that you include the original version, since some of the interview has been changed from the original glorious masterpiece. The entire blog is really a work of art. Also, be advised that I believe "Weishi Meng" is able to monitor traffic to "her" website, so you may be revealing your IP if you visit it. That should not be the case for the web archives. Molevol1234 (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If others choose to include a link to "Weishi Meng"'s blog (and they shouldn't), then I agree. The original is at least good for a chuckle. Bueller 007 (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not link to even more Weishi Meng blog posts? The comments are so great, especially "Toby" from the first link below and and "Liping Xie" from the second link.
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20150424231740/https://scienceretractions.wordpress.com/2014/12/06/the-research-of-ariel-fernandez-in-the-republic-of-china/
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20150923201220/https://scienceretractions.wordpress.com/2015/03/14/ariel-fernandez-at-the-center-of-transformative-biotechnology/
 * Molevol1234 (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * In my view, including this ridiculously softball interview (actual question: "WM: Why do you think Oransky hates you? (Because you are good looking?)") from an SPS, is not what we do here. We can use SPS in a BLP for noncontroversial facts but not to allow the subject to promote himself.   If some legit independent source published his responses to the notes the journals put on his papers (not to Oranasky - that is just a side show), I could see including them, but we don't have any source like that.   If anyone here really wants to include this, I suggest they take this question to the community at WP:RSN. I was thinking about doing it just to get the community to weigh and completely de-personalize the question of whether to include it, but the source is so bad that I can't bring myself to do it.   Jytdog (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

adding articles
I've just added a bunch of articles, the seven most highly cited papers of his, as far as I'm concerned there's no longer and balance issues with the current state of the article, if indeed there ever were. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I notice that USer:Bueller 007 has removed some of these, but conveniently left in one contentious one. Is there are rationale for this? If anything, the presence of a contentious article is a reason to including more, not less articles. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This was explained in the edit summary. I removed all the articles that did not have Fernandez as first author or senior author (i.e., in the last position) since coauthorships don't mean much. If you want to remove the "contentious one" in addition, that's perfectly fine with me, but if it is kept, then I think the note is appropriate to be fair to Mike Lynch, since he has explicitly said he does not want to be associated with that paper, and he has removed it from his CV. Also, don't accuse me of "conveniently" anything. The changes I made to the article are pretty damn even-handed.  Bueller 007 (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The source of the articles for inclusion was google scholar, which doesn't differentiate between first / senior and the rest. I'm not sure that it's up to us to introduce that. Your others points are well made. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Page move
I suggest moving this page (and the delightful associated talk page, of course) to Ariel Fernández (with the accent). He has consistently used the accent in his publications, so there's really no reason for English Wikipedia to omit it in the page title or in the body of the article. (Also, note that recently he has gone back to using "Ariel Fernández Stigliano", perhaps because the Google results are not as negative.) Bueller 007 (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * fine with me to move to a page with accent. Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * we should move to the accent, with redirects, naturally. The 'Stigliano' thing is part of a culture I'm not really familiar with I think. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Concerns with recent edits
I have concerns about the accuracy and sourcing of the recent edits by Bueller_007. For example, the current version states: "Fernandez held the Karl F. Hasselmann Professorship of Bioengineering at Rice University until his retirement in 2011." Fernandez held that position until 2010 and left Rice in 2011. He is not listed as being retired from the Bioengineering department; such persons would be listed as "emeritus," which he is not (http://bioengineering.rice.edu/faculty.aspx.) As has been subject to a long, long discussion, information that cannot be reliably sourced cannot be a part of the biography, and the example above is one such item. Since both the dates and the circumstances of his leaving Rice cannot be sourced independently, I suggest that these details be removed. Similarly, any information that was obtained directly from Fernandez's CV but cannot be reliably sourced independently of him should be removed. Molevol1234 (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to see it from his own sourcing, here is a webarchive version of his CV, which gives different dates than the one he has posted now (https://web.archive.org/web/20120314235255/http://afinnovation.com/CV.pdf). Since Fernandez himself reports conflicting dates for his employment and honors there, I suggest that unless an independent source can be found and/or that someone contacts the Rice Bioengineering department directly, that these details be removed. It can be reliably sourced that he held that professorship, but some of the other details are inaccurate. Molevol1234 (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The appointment of the honorary title professor emeritus differs from institution to institution. There is no one universal process, so whatever conjecture we have regarding Rice's processes is insufficient to cast doubt on his CV and does not justify removing this information from the article.  The conflicting dates could be simply a typo.  Because he had some papers retracted and we dislike his behavior here is not reason to assume that every word of his is fraudulent.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 14:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There were some other versions of his CV that listed his employment to 2011, the professorship to 2010, and a mysterious "Rice Research Professor" during 2011. If I find such an example, will you remove this statement? Regarding emeritus, when departments have distinguished faculty retire, they pretty much always list them on their web pages. Since the department does list emeritus faculty but omtis Ariel Fernandez, and no independent sourcing can be provided, I suggest this part of the biography be removed. Most departments also list retirements in their annual newsletters, but you won't find an announcement for this. Molevol1234 (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The absence of certain pieces of information on a web page is not evidence that they are fraudulent. A possible typo or conflicting professorial title is not evidence that these jobs never existed.  Unless there is evidence beyond conjecture that his CV is inaccurate, there is no justification for removing this information.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 14:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps send the sentence to the current Chair of Bioengineering at Rice and ask that it be checked for factual accuracy. In any case, since Fernandez has shown himself to be repeatedly dishonest here over the course of numerous sockpuppet investigations and has vandalized biophysics pages trying to insert his research into them, I am very surprised that you consider his CV to be a reliable source for anything. At some point, one of his sockpuppets listed him as a former student on the wiki page for Manfred Eigen, which is simply not true. Any of these details alone seems minor, but collectively they are not. I believe there is some wikipedia tag/nomenclature for this phenomenon, but I am afraid I do not recall what it is. Molevol1234 (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia policy, self-published sources by the subject of the article are considered reliable sources of information about the subject of an article. Without reliable information to contradict anything in his CV, it is still considered such by this policy.  A personal feeling that he is inaccurate in general or the fact that he was allegedly inaccurate about unrelated matters is not considered contradictory evidence.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. Molevol1234 (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The CV is a primary source. There has been significant discussion here as to whether to include items where the only reference is a primary source.  In fact I see Gamaliel has just removed a sentence on grounds that the only reference was a primary source.  I think that was a good decision...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a secondary source regarding the retraction for self-plagiarism if you would like one. Since this source has been used as a secondary source for other papers, I think the sentence should be reinstated. http://retractionwatch.com/2015/01/09/plos-genetics-investigating-paper-ariel-fernandez/Molevol1234 (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are acceptable for non-controversial, standard information such as employment.  Primary sources should not be relied on for potentially controversial information or for the sole source of information where inclusion may potentially be in dispute, such as notability or undue weight.  Every biography of an academic will contain information about where they have been employed at a university, so citing a webpage or a CV for this is fine.   If the question is "is this scientific discovery important?" or "is this retraction important enough to be mentioned?" then the matter should not be cited to solely primary sources.  To cite only primary sources for the former is self-promotion, to cite only primary sources for the latter unduly inflates the incident.    Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No-one has ever been known to overplay an academic affiliation or accomplishment on their cv... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that. I'm saying we can't assume that he is doing so in the absence of evidence.  Our gut feeling or conjecture is insufficient.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Disclaimer from Fernandez
In this dif added a "disclaimer" from Ariel Fernandez about the articles that have been questioned.

That arose from discussions between Fernandez and Bueller on Bueller's Talk page, in this exchange.

I am marginally OK with this. WP:BLPSELFPUB says:

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:
 * 1) it is not unduly self-serving;
 * 2) it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * 3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * 4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * 5) the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Someone could easily argue that this violates #1 (one could argue the "unduly" ad infinitum) but it at least doesn't make claims about other people. I would not have added this, but I will not delete it. I will not challenge it if someone else deletes it, though. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC) (modifying per below Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC))


 * This seems like a completely reasonable and responsible edit. We should be careful not to keep out relevant info because we worry it is too favorable, or we think the position of the subject of the article is inaccurate, or we have a negative opinion of the behavior of the subject of the article.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry I thought about this more. It makes claims about third parties.  The "disclaimer" says " No evidence of invalid data has been reported." but, for example:
 * The BMJ note of concern says: "it was brought to the Editors’ attention that the data generated by the first author, Ariel Fernandez, seemed anomalous. One of the author’s institutions found that the data were not reproducible from the described methods,' but an investigation by the author’s other institution did not find the data or their interpretation suspicious. Given the conflicting conclusions of these investigations, the Editors advise the readers to interpret the data with due caution. We apologize to all affected parties."   There is a very clear report of invalid data there.   Now Fernandez may be making some kind of technical delineation between "evidence being reported" (as in the details being published in an article) but in the plain English world of an encyclopedia, there has definitely been a report of invalid data - one of the institutions could not reproduce the data.
 * Likewise the Nature notice of concern says: "Dr Michael Lynch has indicated that he no longer has confidence in the original data presented in this Letter, and would like to have his name removed as a co-author." Again in plain English that is a report of invalid data.


 * It also not accurate. Three of his actually-published papers received notice of concern; one was not published (withheld from publication) due to challenges. One was retracted due to duplicate publishing.


 * Because this "disclaimer" is not accurate and makes claims about third parties and because it can be said to self-serving, I have removed it.   I want to note that if said something like the following, it would be OK in my view:  "In the last few years, three of my published papers have been challenged, one has been withheld from publication due to a challenge, and one was retracted for duplicate publication.  With regard to the four papers that have been challenged, I stand by my work."   That is still self serving but at least is accurate and doesn't make claims about third parties. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * redacted per WP:REVERTBAN.> Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * One might think it's not necessary to explain this to a scientist, but here we go: replication is a core component of the scientific method. If a result can't be replicated, it is then in doubt.  One doesn't need to establish (definitively) that the result is invalid; it's enough that it wasn't replicated.  "Enough" in the sense that it merits mention by the journal -- that's what they've done.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No "reports" of invalid data might not be the best phrasing, since this has indeed been reported. However, anyone can "report" anything, and the reports of invalid data have not been confirmed by the journals.  (Innocent until proven guilty and all that.)  I don't have a problem with the statement as is.  (Also, with specific respect to Mike Lynch on the Nature paper, he told Retraction Watch that it was not a matter of confidence in the data.)  Finally, to me the most important part is that I think that  the actual truthfulness of A.F.'s statement is not important.  As it is in the article now, Wikipedia is just truthfully reporting a claim that A.F. has made.  For example, Wikipedia might justifiably report Mumia claiming that there is no valid evidence against him in his murder trial.  The actual facts of the matter don't bear that out, but I don't see why Wikipedia couldn't report the subject's thoughts on the matter as long as it is presented as his/her thoughts rather than as an objective fact in the article.  I can't see how this one sentence is "unduly self-serving" material. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) In my view we cannot use a SPS that makes claims about third parties, even if it is the passive voice like this. 2) This is an encyclopedia article and as far as I am concerned we are not going to quote a disclaimer that would mislead someone who lacks a technical understanding of the words used in the disclaimer.  I stated what I would accept above.  I do appreciate you trying to lay this matter to rest, Bueller.  The idea of a Wikipedia-compliant statement on his website is a good one.  We just have to get it right.  Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 *  Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problem with keeping the statement, even if you believe it to be a blatant lie. Not to draw comparisons with Bill Cosby, but there's a whole article regarding the allegations against him. And the article has a rather large section about Cosby's responses to the claims, including a statement taken directly from his website. Anyone keeping it real knows that Cosby's response is probably untrue, but that's not a reason to exclude it from Wikipedia. Also, I'm not sure what third parties you're talking about. There was one mentioned in the proposed statement he put on my talk page, but that was cut from the statement that was used in the article. Bueller 007 (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Bueller you now have brought up two examples from highly charged articles about crimes. This is about science.  There are published expressions of concern in the scientific literature; the publishers posted them because they received challenges that they considered serious enough that they felt it necessary to provide notice to scientists reading the papers, so that they would read the papers with extra care.    I fully understand what AF wrote on his website and in a very very narrow technical reading, what he says about "No evidence of invalid data has been reported." is accurate (the "four publications" is not accurate).   But I am opposed to quoting something narrowly, technically accurate that can easily mislead the public to believe that no serious concerns about the validity of the data have been publicly raised.  The third parties are the publishers, and the people who raised concerns, including Michael Lynch. (and regardless of what he said in retraction watch, please do look at the actual notice provided by the publisher,  here)  Again I appreciate you trying to work this out, but I do not accept this exact disclaimer being quoted in WP Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if it's science or a reality show. He's making a claim in his defense and we're just passing it on.  If he had a mental break and claimed, "Yeah, the data is fraudulent but the Illuminati did it and I was unaware" in his defense, then it would be worth including that statement, even though it's obvious crackpottery. Bueller 007 (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but nothing you are saying is compelling to me and you are not responding to the concerns I am raising about communicating to the public. We can take this to WP:RS if you like but because it is arguably self-serving and makes claims about what third parties have done or not done, it violates WP:BLPSELFPUB; also because we are only discussing this because of the ongoing efforts of someone who has been banned from WP for violating SOCK in order to promote himself I believe the community will have little sympathy to include it.  Again I do understand and appreciate your effort to appease him so that things can settle down.  But this exact disclaimer is not it. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well obviously I don't find what you're saying compelling either. Believe me, at this point there are few people in the world who are more familiar with A.F.'s publication record than me, so you don't need to refresh my memory about the Nature EoC. The fact is that Mike Lynch was summarized (and therefore perhaps misquoted) in the EoC, whereas Retraction Watch directly quoted him as saying that it was not a matter of confidence in the data. The fact is that we are not doing science here. This is Wikipedia; not a science journal.  So your argument that this is science and not politics makes no sense.  The same standard applies to Bill Cosby, Mumia, or someone less politicized like A.F.. In particular, your argument about third parties is preposterous.  You're clearly reaching just to justify a reason to not include the statement.  The intent of that regulation is clearly to make sure that Wikipedia is not guilty of libel based on re-quoting unsubstantiated self-published sources. There's no libel in the statement that was included since there's no one named and no controversial or potentially damaging claims were made. In any case, you're the one in the minority here.  Three people have weighed in: you, me, and Gamaliel. And two of us are okay with the statement being included. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry to cut in here. I don't think you should read too much into Lynch's statement without checking with him directly. One could also imagine that he put "confidence in the data" in quotes as a way of saying that he wasn't happy with the wording taken by the editors. Read the sentence directly above the quote by Lynch in which it says: "Such Expressions of Concern are often posted when there are questions about whether the data exist at all." Lynch's statement is consistent with that possibility. Molevol1234 (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * One more comment: please consider not listing past institutions in the info box, as many could interpret these as current. One or more of these places may have been the ones needing to conduct investigations of him. His only current affiliation is with CONICET in Argentina. He is not considered emeritus faculty at Rice University according to the information on his former department's website, so any statement to the effect that he retired from Rice is not supported by the publicly available information. Molevol1234 (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It is important that Wikipedia be accurate, but it's also important that all relevant points of view be represented (with consideration for undue, etc.). There's no reason we can't report his own opinion about the incident while stating it as an opinion and not as a fact.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's appropriate to quote it, though. Perhaps we can consider a paraphrase that relays what his view is, making clear that it's his view.  But I'm also not happy that we're not succeeding in preventing long-term socking.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are two different issues, and I am very concerned that editors here are letting the latter cloud their judgement about the former.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 14:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

i left a note on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC) With regard to the four papers that have been challenged, Fernández has claimed on his website that no evidence has been published in the scientific literature that the data in those papers is invalid.
 * I'll make another effort at working something out. I would accept the following:

How is that? I think it paraphrases what he said, in a way that is understandable to the general public and is not misleading. There is also nothing inaccurate about it. I have no idea if it is true and am not commenting on that. Again, what bothers me the most about his quote is that he uses "report" by which he means "published in the scientific literature" but that is not what everyday people think when they read the word "report". Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Shortened slightly (since for balance reasons the fewer words on this the better):

Relating to the four challenged papers, Fernández has claimed that no evidence has been published in the scientific literature that the data in those papers is invalid.

Thoughts?
 * works for me... Jytdog (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Per WP:CLAIM, we should substitute a neutral word like 'wrote' or 'said' or 'stated'.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 14:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Relating to the four challenged papers, Fernández whote that no evidence has been published in the scientific literature that the data in those papers is invalid.
 * Updated per User:Gamaliel:

Thoughts? Stuartyeates (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * also works for me. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for Consensus
I have reverted two good faith removals, by Bilby, of citations to Retraction Watch. Previous discussions at WP:BLPN, WP:RSN, and elsewhere have established that Retraction Watch is a reliable source, and not a SPS. In an effort to reach consensus here, please provide comment(s) about my reversion. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Any way you want to cut it, Retraction Watch is a SPS, forbidden in BLPN.UpperPeninsula (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not the view shared widely among editors who have been considering these matters for a long time. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Non-notable position
I have removed the edit by UpperPeninsula concerning the subject's position as an editor for Frontiers in Chemistry. A brief visit to that journal's web site revealed a total of 2,086 editors. The category of "Review Editor" alone has >55 editors with surname starting with the letter A, 100 editors with surname starting with the letter B...and you get the idea. That many hundreds of people are "editors" for this journal renders such positions non-notable. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep that's a valid removal. Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Same holds for OMICS-related editor position, should be removed too.73.11.240.45 (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * UpperPeninsula now blocked as a sock of connected-contributor Arifer. DMacks (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The last edit by "DeWeerth" is most likely puffery by a sock puppet of AF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.24.233 (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

No relation to the subject of this biography. Where is this coming from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeWeerth (talk • contribs) 21:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Gleevac
I made this change [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ariel_Fernandez&diff=979747349&oldid=979423569] since as noted in the edit summary, the original wording made me think Fernandez et al had a role in the early design of stage of Gleevac, after a potentially negative effect was found they modified it and therefore the final variant was what they produced. Reading the journal source, this isn't the case. As I read it, after Imatinib had been approved etc, and a potential side effect discovered, they were involved in developing a new compound based on imatinib but which did not affect one of the targets (but also had another target). Most of the more recent mentions the agent WBZ_4 seem to be incidental, there was one in 2014 a little more but in any case I didn't find anything like clinical trials etc. So I assume it was abandoned as so many possible drugs are, whether because of indication it was not beneficial enough or too harmful or some other reason. (While I'm far from, an expert, I'm fairly sure that such a compound would need to go through all approvals etc with limited or no advantage gained from the approval process for imatinib, and from what I can tell even if there is some cardiac risk, it seems to be low enough given the risks from cancer, that it hasn't been a bit concern so financially it may not have made sense, depending on the possible benefits the new drug having a later patent expiry.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I probably shouldn't say this because of BLP, feel free to remove if you're not a sock and think I've crossed a line. But I get the feeling in event that WBZ_4 is ever approved as a drug or even starts the process in an real degree, we'll hear about it. Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No lines crossed. Approvals and clinical tests certainly take time but I couldn't find any information about trials/approvals either, and after this long...well, the silence speaks for itself. Just another day in the Pharmaceutical industry. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I believe this and other compounds designed by AF are covered by a patent. Probably the US 8466154. Don't have it in front of me.2606:A000:1018:4287:7D6A:368F:C91A:8D18 (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

OMICS
BLP noticeboard

Discussion link Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

About-self refutation
I see from the archives that in 2016 there was no clear consensus to exclude "Fernandez responded saying that no evidence has been published in the scientific literature that the data in those papers are invalid." I however see an issue here: it's self-serving (WP:ABOUTSELF) but more importantly, it makes claims about the reliability of the data, that the previous sentences don't discuss at all, making it undue or to appear somewhat out of context. RW seems down and I didn't check archive.org yet, but perhaps that to keep this more context from the other sources should be included... — Paleo Neonate  – 23:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * All three of the Expressions of Concern cited in this article explicitly mention problems (reproducibility of, co-author confidence in, and "concerns" with) the published data. In an effort to remove context/clarity/WP:UNDUE issues I therefore suggest that the lead sentence of that paragraph be changed to something along the lines of "Three of his research articles have received Expressions of Concern from the publishing journals, arising from apparent problems with the data." That can be followed with a brief "Fernandez has disputed those concerns (ref)", with the final sentence being removed. I will make those changes presently. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality in BLP
Per ORCID record, Fernandez authored over 400 papers. Scopus cites over 300 since 1993. BLPs require neutrality and this one focuses on 3 papers challenged by some reader(s). Probably a senior editor needs to fix the BLP.RutiWinkler (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, senior editor here. Can you tell us what needs fixing as having had a look, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong! -Roxy the dog . wooF 16:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your attention. The article dwells excessively on negative content. I tried to fix it a bit today. Most of the references in the BLP refer to 3 or 4 papers challenged. Those papers have not been retracted, so nothing serious seems to be wrong with them. Most of the career section referred to that issue. I now added a brief paragraph to put things in perspective: Fernandez has authored and published over 400 papers. Having three or four papers challenged is almost a drop in the bucket. No need to dwell on the matter, especially since the papers have not been retracted after ten years or more. RutiWinkler (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparently I am being accused of being a puppet of the subject of this BLP? [|here]. Is this a way to deflect criticism? RutiWinkler (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If that's what he's mostly known for, based on WP:SECONDARY sources, then that's how our article must be, per multiple policies and guidelines. Concepts like "equal time" or "point/counterpoint" balance are forbidden. DMacks (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am looking further into this BLP. The BLP quotes five posts from a blog that deprecates Fernandez but a published quote by a Nobel laureate on one of his books got taken out. The page needs to be balanced. RutiWinkler (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Input needed
I have an idea. This page seems very conflictive and editing it is very complicated. A blog deprecating Fernandez is quoted five times and a Nobel laureate commenting on his book is left out. I suggest contacting AF directly, so we can get his input on the talk page and get consensus on what to include, leave out, change, etc. RutiWinkler (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * If we're trying to build an encyclopedia with neutral point of view, contacting the subject is one of the worst approaches possible, because they're going to push for the best possible light. —C.Fred (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I recall reading that the subject input is important to build a BLP, and we can always veto or reject anything promotional. As it stands, this BLP seems to berate the subject and I am being censored. RutiWinkler (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Chronicle of Higher Education
I couldn't figure out why this name was ringing a bell (memory is an odd thing) until I saw this source briefly mentioned: https://www.chronicle.com/article/meet-retraction-watch-the-blog-that-points-out-the-human-stains-on-the-scientific-record/

Frenandez' activities, especially involving Retraction Watch, feature pretty prominently in that article's lead example, which is an independent third-party source. I see it has been briefly mentioned in the talk archives, but I don't see much discussion of it or inclusion in the article itself either now or in past versions I skimmed through. Does anyone know why it hasn't been included? Is there actually more discussion somewhere on using it for content somewhere? Seems like like a pretty serious WP:DUE policy violation to exclude that with the blanket reverts going on lately. KoA (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is an ongoing discussion at at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw the link, but this was a question for this talk page, not the wider BLP discussion. KoA (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Would including content found in a single source about a blog, and not an article subject, be undue? Just because information exists in a source doesn't mean it is due for inclusion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved editor, I can see browsing through the conversations and edit warring that you should be well aware that your comment is mischaracterizing the source. A primary lead-in component of the source is about Fernandez' interactions not just with RW but also his own dealings with journals. The noticeboard discussion honestly doesn't seem to be addressing pointed content issues (more of an open forum), so it doesn't look particularly helpful to this talk page where content decisions would be binding either.
 * When someone gets more than just a passing mention in a major news source (in this case within academia), that's generally considered a notable event for an academic BLP. No one would legitimately be able to call a single sentence or two undue in a case like that, which is why I opened this trying to figure out if it had just been missed or what exactly happened in discussions I maybe missed something that don't show in the archives so readily. I'm just not finding much concrete content discussion, especially for how much BLP is being invoked to blanket revert everything critical of the BLP. That is a serious WP:BLPBALANCE violation in itself, which I why I bring this source up because it at least would give us a bare minimum content to avoid the BLP issues coming up from removal. KoA (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Relevant Material Missing
As extensively documented by others, Ariel Fernandez is only known to the general scientific community through his disputes with RetractionWatch and the large number of papers that have been retracted or have expressions of concerns. If this material isn't retrained, I suggest deleting the profile on Notability guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biophysik (talk • contribs) 11:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Please see Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive334. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

As a long term observer of the activity associated with this particular BLP entry I wish to make the following observation. While it has been noted in the talk archives that the subjects egregious attempts at self-editing do not necessarily invalidate edits that may be perceived as favorable to the subjects reputation, it is undeniable that the relentless sock-puppetry had as its ultimate goal the removal of references to the subjects disputed publications. While the current, abbreviated entry is undoubtedly neutral, it is also sanitized of academically related events that most definitely bear on the career of any academic. Indeed it can fairly adjudicated that the subjects notability is largely - if not solely - related to these EOCs, plus one retraction and multiple errata and corrigenda. It is for others to judge as to whether this current entry is worthy of retention in WP, however it can fairly judged by anyone that this entry does not reflect the totality of the subjects academic career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LongTimeObserver (talk • contribs) 01:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

At the risk of being perceived as simply “piling on” I still think it relevant to note that a very recent 2021 paper by the subject has just resulted in another EOC: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acsmedchemlett.1c00525. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LongTimeObserver (talk • contribs) 03:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)