For those unfamiliar Adam Riess (T-H-L) is a physics professor at Johns Hopkins University, who was one of the joint winners of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2011 for his work on the accelerating expansion of the Universe.
In December 2019, an anonymous IP user whos address resolves to Copenhagen, Denmark added a "Controversy" section to Adam Riess's article diff, the text read as follows:
(Citations removed for clarity)Serious discrepancies have been pointed out regarding data disseminated by Riess and collaborators and it has been suggested that anisotropies of the local Universe have been deliberately misrepresented as dark energy. As of December 2019 these discrepancies remain unexplained. Questions have also been raised about the statistical methodology of the team.
All this physics jargon might be confusing, so I'll explain what is being added here: Essentially, these papers are from a minor group of physicists dubbed the "dark energy deniers", who oppose the consensus view in mainstream theoretical physics that a poorly understood form of energy called "dark energy" is responsible for the expansion of the universe. The IP user is accusing Riess and colleagues of deliberately misrepresenting their data, which is libellous in my view.
Two of the citations included the author Subir Sarkar, a Professor of Physics at Oxford University, and, until 2019 of the Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhangen. More on them later.
This segment was then revised the next day by another user to remove all but the last sentence.
On 23 March 2020, the brand new user BattleOrc (T-C-L) expanded the controversy section again, readding the sentence originally added by the IP user that Riess and co had "deliberately misrepresented". diff On 21 April, BattleOrc added the same claims to the article of Riess collaborator Saul Perlmutter (T-H-L) diff.
On the 23 April, BattleOrc added an accusation to the controversy section of Riess's article that Riess and colleagues had doctored their data, cited to a youtube interview with Sakar linked in a blogpost. diff The allegations of doctoring were removed by another user, citing that they were not a reliable sources, but BattleOrc added them back. diff,
The whole controversy section was removed by an IP on the 25 April, who stated that "Riess was awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of an apparent acceleration of the expansion of the Universe, not for the discovery of Dark Energy. So any challenges to Dark Energy do not pertain to the 2011 Nobel Prize", this was swiftly reverted without explanation by veteran vandal fighter Materialscientist (T-C-L), using Huggle.
On the 28th of April, a Baltimore, Maryland IP (Note: This is where Johns Hopkins University is located) 130.167.171.156 (T-C-L) removed the whole section again with the edit summary:
diffDeleted section "Controversy". Group led by Subhir Sakar and his students cited here and identified by Physics Work in 2016 as "Dark Energy Deniers" see https://physicsworld.com/a/the-dark-energy-deniers/ claim there is no dark energy. They are free to their opinion but the biography of Dr. Riess is not the place for this. Sarkar kicked out of Niels Bohr Institute for harassment such as this. Statement of doctored data is libelous, based only on linked interview claim by Dr. Sarkar himself
On the 6 of May, BattleOrc readded the controversy section, with the edit summary "Restoring the controversy section as there is sufficient information in the public domain to verify it" diff The Baltimore IP then removed the section again later that day stating:
diffRemoved section on controversy as its inappropriate to be placed here. BattleOrc please place citation to your own work in a more relevant place such as one of the areas in Cosmology, not under Riess's bio
This deletion was swiftly reverted by (now permanently blocked) Galendalia (T-C-L), citing disruptive editing:diff
The Baltimore IP then reverted again, with the summary "Please stop vandalizing Dr. Riess's bio. A letter has been sent to info-en-q@wikimedia.org" diff This was, yet again, reverted by MaterialScientist with no valid reason. diff, it was again removed by the IP diff, before being re-added by ThadeusOfNazereth (T-C-L), citing "non constructive editing" diff The material was removed again, this time by brand new user Nriess (T-C-L) diff before being added back, yet again, by Materialscientist diff. The Ip removed it again, before being added back by C.Fred (T-C-L) who claimed that the edits were "not vandalism - you need to discuss this at the talk page and convince us why the material doesn't comply with policy and should be removed". diff
It should be noted, when these users were restoring this material, they were also restoring the portion where Weiss was accused of doctoring his data cited to the Youtube interview, a clear violation of BLPSPS.
That section was at last removed my Morbidthoughts (T-C-L), who amongst all of the people restoring the material, was the only one to realise that it was a clear BLP vio. diff
The page was then protected by DeepfriedOkra, citing "disruptive editing" diff
The IP user added the following to the talkpage of ThadeusofNazareth, I can't directly link to the diffs because they have been oversighted, but I can confirm that other than the single redaction it is unaltered:
version after redactionDear Wikipedia
My name is Adam Riess and I am an American Astrophysicist and winner of the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of the accelerating Universe and Dark Energy.
I recently noticed that there have been two efforts to “vandalize” my wikipedia entry
1). A user name BattleOrc (who I understand to be (Redacted)) has been putting in a section called “Controversy” about his teams work denying the existence of dark Energy. They are free to have their own opinion, but they are fringe and my bio entry is not an appropriate place to air their grievances and dispute with the Nobel Prize.
I have removed this section and explained why in the comments but BattleOrc keeps restoring it.
2) A section on the Calan/Tololo Survey seeking credit for the Nobel work. The Calan/Tololo Project has its own wikipedia entry and that is the appropriate place to discuss it. Not my bio entry.
I have removed this section (writing as 130.167.171.156) but BattleOrc keeps restoring it.
I consider these attempts to settle scores or air grievances in my biographical entry in appropriate at best and libelous at worst. My bio entry should be simple and to the point and not have sections on other people’s diatribes, respectfully.
I kindly request that my entry is “frozen” so that it can’t be edited again by BattleOrc.
Best Adam Riess 130.167.171.156 02:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I think given the context that the IP address resolves to Baltimore, where Riess works, I think it is plausible, and indeed likely in my view, that the IP is indeed Adam Riess. It's clear from context, even though it has been oversighted, that the IP/Weiss assumes BattleOrc to be Subir Sarkar, which makes sense given that the December 2019 IP resolved to Copenhagen, where Sakar formerly worked.
This resulted in a bunch of posts to various noticeboards, including the BLPN Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive302#Adam_Riess (T-H-L), AN Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive320#Adam_Riess (T-H-L), and ANI Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1036#Issues_at_Adam_Riess (T-H-L) none of which were particulalry sympathetic to Riess, despite the "controversy" section added by BattleOrc/Sakar claiming that Riess had doctored his research.
Eventually, all of the content that had constituted the controversy section was removed by Thadeus of Nazareth on the mid-day of the 7 May, citing OR diff.
In my view, this was a colossal comedy of errors, particulalry on the part of the "vandal fighters", who continually re-added the material despite not actually bothering to read the content to understand what the IP/Reiss was trying to remove was a BLP vio and not actually supported by the cited sources.
