How should Wikipedia editors edit the article about Jeffrey Epstein when it looks like other editors are whitewashing that article? This is not a theoretical question. Recent material released by the US DOJ and Congress shows that Epstein recruited firms to whitewash the article, who then planned, executed, and even gave progress reports on their whitewashing. Despite the well paid forces aligned against them, a 2020 article in The Signpost shows how multiple editors handled this matter fairly well from 2006-2015. There was one undeniable fact - that Epstein was first indicted, then pleaded guilty to and was convicted of soliciting prostitution from a minor. Editors kept on adding and re-adding this fact into the articles about Epstein no matter how often it was removed, distorted, or simply pushed to the bottom of the article.

Epstein wasn't the only convicted sex abuser who appears to have paid for whitewashing the article about themselves. Peter Nygard, who was the subject of a 2021 Signpost article, appears to have paid several editors to whitewash the article about himself, or to attack his neighbor in the Bahamas. The neighbor won a lawsuit in the UK and the court ordered the WMF to disclose the identity of the purported paid editors. The WMF in their normal course of business would not have had that information and a US court would not enforce the UK court order. Nevertheless, the WMF appears to have asked volunteer administrators or OTRS volunteers to keep an eye on the affected articles. These volunteers took several actions against the purported Nygard-paid editors over several years.

All told, over one hundred women in the US, Canada, and the Bahamas have accused Nygard in criminal or civil actions of sexual abuse. In 2023 after the first trial, he was convicted on four charges of rape. At least three more criminal trials could be held even though he'll be about 90 years old when his current sentence is served.

This article describes the experience of Wikipedia editor No Swan So Fine (NSSF) who rewrote the biography of Mohamed Al-Fayed in 2011, adding well-sourced information about Al-Fayed's sex abuse of young women and underage girls.

Al-Fayed, was a billionaire who died in 2023. He was well known as the owner of two luxury businesses Harrods department store in London and the Hôtel Ritz Paris. He was also known as the father of Dodi Fayed who died alongside Princess Diana in a 1997 automobile crash. "Lady Di" was divorced at the time from the then-Prince of Wales, the current King Charles III. Al-Fayed soon accused members of the royal family of plotting Dodi's and Diana's murder.

Since Al-Fayed's death, he has become best known for his sexual abuse of hundreds of young women and underage girls over the course of decades. He has been compared to Jimmy Savile, Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein [1][2].

The Times reports several fairly indirect connections between Epstein and Al-Fayed. It also includes a direct connection stated by a woman who was trafficked by Epstein in 1997 to Al-Fayed when she was 17 years old. She states she was taken to meet Al-Fayed on his yacht in Saint Tropez where he sexually assaulted her.

NSSF was attacked on Wikipedia talk pages and their revisions of the Al-Fayed article were reverted. NSSF restricted their editing following the attacks, including a [3] six year hiatus from editing the Al-Fayed article. They declined comment on this story but left behind a record of Wikipedia edits that, in effect, are a publicly published diary of their experience challenging editors who censored their work.

NSSF told the Signpost: "I decline to comment on this story as our focus should remain on content and not on individual editors. I wish to say that I still endorse my comments from over a decade ago and have largely sought to avoid community interaction on the matter since."

Al-Fayed died in 2023 and he was never convicted of sexual abuse during his lifetime and cannot be so convicted now. Nevertheless, by 2024, over 400 women accused Al-Fayed of serial rape, rape or other sexual abuse with many saying that they had been underage at the time of the abuse. See also this video Many of the accusers came forward after a BBC documentary film (easily accessible only in the UK) and article "Mohamed Al Fayed accused of multiple rapes by staff " (archive) in September 2024.

Wikipedia editor NSSF rewrote the Al-Fayed article on July 5, 2011 based on two reliable sources, Tom Bower's 1998 book Fayed: The Unauthorized Biography and Maureen Orth's 1995 article in Vanity Fair Holy War at Harrods.

Vanity Fair's publisher, Conde Nast, survived a libel-suit challenge in the notoriously pro-plaintiff British libel courts. They "prevailed because there were so many witnesses willing to support (their) original allegations. The Vanity Fair case did not go to trial," according to Henry Porter who was the UK Vanity Fair editor at the time. Bower was not sued for libel for much the same reason. Bower wrote "Fayed never dared to issue a claim for libel against me," since he knew that Bower had documented the facts so well. (registration required)

NSSF also cited a government report that reflected badly on Al-Fayed's honesty and business practices Department of Trade and Industry report summarized in Parliament 1990. While these sources were widely available, they were not widely followed up or cited by the bludgeoned and cowed British press, according to Porter.

The article on Al-Fayed was created in 2001, before complete editing records were kept by Wikipedia. The earliest available version seemed fairly positive but even then included some controversy. The 84 word article started "Lots of details about Mohammed Al-Fayed are available on his personal website, http://www.alfayed.com/" and included "For years he has argued with the UK Government about getting a UK passport, to no avail."

While it's impossible to know what would have happened if the available material on sexual abuse from Bower's book and and Orth's article had been included in the early versions of the Wikipedia article, it might have served as a warning to some of Al-Fayed's future victims and that warning would only have rung out louder as Wikipedia's readership and credibility grew rapidly over the next few years.

By late 2005, more controversial material was posted in the article, and included a short paragraph on Bower's 1998 biography but there were no in-line citations yet. The reference to Bower was removed, then reinserted in January 2006.

By October 3, 2006 User:Alfayed.com made two consecutive edits, their only edits, completely rewriting the article into PR-style text and removing the reference to Bower's biography. This whitewashing was reverted about four hours later. While User:Alfayed.com may have been a supporter or employee of Al-Fayed, this should not be assumed. Some editors may try to embarrass the subject of an article by impersonating a supporter, a tactic known as a Joe job.

On October 23, 2008 a sexual assault complaint involving fondling and kissing a 15 year old girl was added to the article. The source was only given as The Independent in the edit summary. The Guardian reported a similar story the day before. Al-Fayed had been questioned by police but ultimately was not charged. This section was removed without comment on March 2009 by an anonymous account that was geolocated in Saudi Arabia.

NSSF has been the article's leading editor with 79 edits [64 thru 2018, then none until their last 15 edits on September 2024] [4] See also

NSSF rewrote the article on July 15, 2011 increasing the article size by almost 4 times, and increasing the number of inline citations from 10 to 160.

Starting on October 30, 2011 a well-known Wikipedia editor, User:Collect, attributed non-neutrality to the title of the book Fayed: The Unauthorized Biography and stated "There is no way that sources so titled can be considered by any outside observer to be neutral in presentation". This view contradicts the standard view stated at Unauthorized biography, "Unauthorized biographies may be considered more objective but less detailed than other biographies".

A nearly 4,000 word Biographies of living people noticeboard discussion begun by Latika1976 on the same day lasted for three days (plus one short edit two weeks later). Latika1976 asked for removal of all material from Bower. Latika1976 might be considered a single purpose account They edited from October 10, 2011 through 2013 with 33 of their 42 edits related to Al-Fayed. Their second edit removed half of a section in the Al-Fayed article and two references. Despite not adding a reference, the edit summary claimed an "inserted reference"and was marked "minor".

User:Off2riorob asked NSSF on October 31 if he had "some Jewish attack Arab conflict of interest point of view here?", apparently suggesting that NSSF had an ethnic or religious bias against Arabs. NSSF stated that he is not Jewish and has no prejudice against Arabs. Off2riorob never apologized.

Off2riorob also claimed that our biographies of living people policy demands that a criminal charge and a conviction are required before any such material is published on Wikipedia. It does not. If it did, Wikipedia would still not be able to publish any of the accusations against Al-Fayed.

NSSF responded by quoting WP:BLP "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it... Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source."

Off2riorob continued "As I said, rich people are magnets for law suits, and civil claims and all sorts of allegations - I am [a]ware that this living subject had a period of vilification in the press but we are requested not to continue such reporting."

On November 10, 2011 User:Latika1976 extended Collect's reasoning to argue that anything written by Bower could not be a reliable source

Three times in May 2012 Latika1976 argued that the previous discussion at the WP:BLPN had effectively ruled that Bower was an unreliable source. It had not. They also argued that the level of detail in the article was inappropriate. They also argued that Bower was "notoriously hostile".

All mention of Tom Bower or his book were removed from the article by Latika1976 on May 24, 2012.

On April 6, 2013 Latika1976 argued that a reference to The Times, the UK's newspaper of record should be removed because it was paywalled.

In short, the request to remove an "attack page" against Al-Fayed had turned into an actual attack against NSSF.

Wikipedia had a chance as early as 2001 to warn future Al-Fayed sex abuse victims based on reliable sources. As early as 2006 minor references to Bower's book were included, but were removed several times by editors such as User:Alfayed.com. When in 2011 NSSF rewrote the article to clearly state that Al-Fayed was a serial sex abuser, the chance to warn most future victims may have passed, but the truth would have come out to a wide public and the victims' process of healing could have begun much sooner. Instead NSSF was hounded by other editors for almost six years until NSSF was silenced for another six years.

So how have Wikipedia editors edited an article about an accused criminal when it looks like other editors are whitewashing that article?

NSSF's effort was not as successful as Wikipedians' efforts to expose Jeffrey Epstein's extensive campaign to whitewash Epstein's sex abuse conviction, even though at times Epstein managed to confuse the matter. Multiple editors of the Epstein article simply grabbed onto one simple undeniable fact - that Epstein had been indicted then pleaded guilty to and was convicted of abusing an underage girl. No matter how many times that fact was removed, distorted, or pushed to the bottom of the article, editors reinserted it. NSSF had to deal with a more complicated case: two reliable sources had accused Al-Fayed of multiple sexual abuse cases. While NSSF's edits were very well documented, they did not get much help from other editors.

NSSF's effort might not even have been as successful as administrators' handling of Peter Nygard's less organized whitewashing. Admins in that case had the power of their credentials and at least the indirect support of the community and the WMF behind them, but it still took several years to stop the last whitewasher. NSSF did not get much help from admins.

NSSF not only had reliable sources on their side, they also had persistence, the main trait any editor who wants to make a difference in one of these cases will need. Perhaps we can only conclude that an editor in their position needs to do their homework and should be ready to persist. They did their work as well as any editor could have done without much community support. Having the help of an administrator, or better yet the help of multiple editors would have made the effort more effective.