Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-02-17/Disinformation report - Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-02-17/Disinformation report - Wikipedia
Jump to content
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost
2026-02-17
Epstein's obsessions: The sex offender's attempts to whitewash Wikipedia run deeper than we first thought.
← Back to Contents
View Latest Issue
17 February 2026
File:U.S. Virgin Islands, Department of Justice, Sexual Offender Registry Photograph 1.png
Virgin Islands DOJ
public domain
25
50
400
Disinformation report
Epstein's obsessions
Contribute
PDF download
E-mail
Mastodon
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Reddit
By
Smallbones
Feb 1, 2011 8:29 PM
<>
to Story Cowles
Did you check out what this guy does on the wikipedia site?
DOJ release via Jmail
The above email was sent from a redacted account, likely
Jeffrey Epstein
's, to Epstein's male assistant, Story Cowles. What would Epstein, a convicted
sex offender
, want to know about what "this guy" did on Wikipedia? It might be that Epstein just wanted information on a university professor and his activities, since he was known to use academics to
help cleanse his own reputation by sponsoring their research
. Or perhaps, he was interested in the
reputation management
skills of "this guy" and his ability to
whitewash
the article about Epstein himself. Maybe, he just wanted to mark the article for further reading, like he did with over a hundred other articles. We don't know the answer, but we do have a large amount of data that could help answer this question.
It took an
act of Congress
, but the
DOJ
finally released the
Epstein files
on January 30. The DOJ calls the data dump the
"Epstein Library"
Jmail
offers a slightly more accessible copy that is available at
Jmail.world
. The public may now see 3.5 million computer files that the federal government collected for the Jeffrey Epstein sex abuse cases, whereas another million or more files have not been released, yet.
The release and its handling were botched, with some
media observers
calling it
a "disaster"
. The reaction of some members of Congress was
even more hostile
, as experienced by
US Attorney General
Pam Bondi
The release includes government documents, photos, and most intriguingly, at least 1.3 million emails to or from Epstein.
Jmail
lists 1347 files that include the word "Wikipedia", far too many for
this reporter
to read in any reasonable time period.
It is important to remember that the inclusion of a person's name in these emails does not, by itself, indicate any wrongdoing. Wikipedia editors should understand that the files should not be used directly as
reliable sources
for reasons such as missing or botched redactions of the names, places or dates associated with the files.
News stories from reliable sources began to sort out the files almost as soon as they were released and have avalanched over the last week. Some of the best of them so far have concentrated on the smaller stories that can be most easily checked, such as those about
Norway's Crown Princess
Mette-Marit
or
lawyer
Brad Karp
. Broader stories focusing on the big picture and multiple names are included in
Associated Press
and
Wall Street Journal
(paywalled)
articles. Some of these articles are also discussed in this issue's
In the media column
The Signpost
has reported on Jeffrey Epstein and his whitewashing of Wikipedia twice before. In 2020,
we reported
on how editors who were apparently related to Epstein had conducted a campaign to remove information in the article about the financier's conviction for
soliciting a minor for prostitution
and how this may have prevented
MIT
from turning down donations from Epstein which were intended to cleanse his reputation. In a
second article from last December
, we used material from a Congressional release of Epstein emails to show how he recruited
SEO
and
reputation management
companies which planned, executed, and gave progress reports on their whitewashing of the article. This investigation shows that the DOJ release confirms and strengthens the conclusions of the two prior
Signpost
articles. Epstein's emails also show his obsession with Wikipedia: for example, he often sent out one-line emails to his contacts – or to himself – consisting entirely of a Wikipedia article's
URL
An overview of the emails
Reading the content of the DOJ release may be disturbing to readers and even to journalists who report the content.
Amelia Gentleman
wrote in an opinion
published
in
The Guardian
that she found Epstein's e-mails to be crude and misogynist. Most readers will feel the same.
The Economist
reports
(limited free access)
on the 1.3 million emails that it was able to extract and process with AI to classify them into categories. 442,470 of these emails came from "Emails from top 500 Epstein correspondents, excluding staff". Under the finance category,
Ariane de Rothschild
sent or responded to 5,532 emails, followed by
Jes Staley
with 4,566 emails. The academia category included, among others,
Boris Nikolić
(15,503 emails),
Lawrence Krauss
(7,593) and
Martin Nowak
(5,698). Girlfriends/exes included
Karyna Shuliak
– who was Epstein's girlfriend in 2019 – (41,091) and
Ghislaine Maxwell
(10,186). Media/entertainment included
Peggy Siegal
(6,437) and
Michael Wolff
(4,831). Tech included
Joi Ito
(8,400). Business included
Sultan bin Sulayem
(5,194) and
Tom Pritzker
(5,029). Politics included
Peter Mandelson
(4,597) and
Ehud Barak
(4,248). Law included
Kathryn Ruemmler
(11,265). Real Estate included David Mitchell (7,554). Other included
Deepak Chopra
(5,348).
The Economist
also notes that most of these emails (588,517 of the 653,550 tracked) were everyday matters, scoring 1 on their "disturbing scale", with only 1,474 scoring 10 ("very disturbing"). Of interest to Wikipedians, they report that "a quarter of his top non-staff contacts have a Wikipedia page. He traded emails with at least 18 current or former billionaires."
In order to get through even a portion of these emails, you should remember that Epstein had many email addresses starting with "jee", with "jeevacation" and "jeeproject" probably being the most common ones. Ghislaine Maxwell's emails are generally given as "GMAX", "G Maxwell", or "G Max".
Epstein's executive assistant,
Lesley Groff
, probably sent him more emails than anyone else. Many of these are of the form "Bob telephoned. Pls return his call". Groff and other staff members, including
Darren Indyke
(personal lawyer),
Richard Kahn
(accountant), and Christina Galbraith (publicist), are identified in several reliable sources.
Epstein's penchant for Wikipedia
Epstein's obsession with sex is already well-known. He also seemed to be obsessed with the media in general and in telling his own story in his own way, to the point that
Steve Bannon
offered him
"media training"
. But few people likely knew of his enamoration with Wikipedia. Both he and his contacts often linked to a Wikipedia article seemingly for various reasons, but often with no explanation at all, just a linked URL in both the subject line and the body of the text. There are likely well over 100 total article links in the released emails.
We can only guess the reason for some of these links. For example,
coitus reservatus
, and
female sexual arousal disorder
may have been motivated by his sexual obsessions.
Credit default swap
special drawing rights
, and
Grab Holdings
may be related to his business interests.
Religious views of Abraham Lincoln
and
World Day of the Sick
may reflect his moral aspirations.
Hilbert's problems
and
Huffman coding
likely relate to his academic pretensions. But others just appear random.
Basilica Cistern
[1]
CNO cycle
[2]
Coitus reservatus
[3]
Credit default swap
[4]
Cultural algorithm
[5]
Fecal bacteriotherapy
[6]
Female sexual arousal disorder
[7]
First Wall Street Capital (
Deleted
[8]
Grab Holdings
[9]
Hilbert's problems
[10]
Huffman coding
[11]
Kintsugi
[12]
Old person smell
[13]
Purr
[14]
Religious views of Abraham Lincoln
[15]
Skene's gland
[16]
Special drawing rights
[17]
Spider angioma
[18]
Triple-alpha process
[19]
Vagus nerve
[20]
World Day of the Sick
[21]
Yannick Nézet-Séguin
[22]
Yannick Nézet-Séguin is almost certainly a special case: it is likely that Epstein's then-girl-friend just wanted to go to a classical music concert. But the links to biographies present a special problem on Wikipedia, due to our strong policy on presenting information on
living people
. For example, one email appears to be a simple draft list of people Epstein wanted to invite to a seminar: it has over 30 names, most of them from academia, and 24 of those are identified with links to the Wikipedia article about them. In another case, Epstein simply asked,
"Did you check out what this guy does on the wikipedia site?"
Epstein tried to recruit many people in academia, or even people he'd never met, to help whitewash his reputation, so we will omit naming or linking to many biographies.
Editing Wikipedia
Back in 2020
The Signpost
tracked how three editors – who went under the usernames
Stgeorge12
Turvill
and
Ottotiv
– attempted to whitewash the articles about
Jeffrey Epstein
and the
Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation
. The starting point for that investigation was from an article in the
New York Times
that
stated
(paywalled)
that an editor named Turville (with an "e") was named in Epstein's required annual sex offender registration statement. The Epstein Library has finally shown that
document
, where Turville is listed twice near the very bottom of the very long lists (6th and 7th from the end) under "Wikipedia".
Similarly, many of the emails in the new release should not surprise anybody. They may have different senders, but the messages are similar: for example, how they intended to whitewash Wikipedia, what the plan was, how long it would take, and how much it would cost.
In an early case, an email sender with a common name and a childish sense of humor wrote:
I see your wikipedia profile is changed. Hooray! Me is happy.
In an even earlier email, a sender wrote about the Wikipedia article about Epstein:
not good news. they've got your wiki page under "lockdown" essentially, any changes can only be approved by one editor and he's not on your side and will scrutinize things vigorously. The only way to get good stuff added to what's there, and to eventually start cleaning up what is already there, is to have some positive things in the mainstream press that we can refer to with citations. Can't really advise you about what, or how, to get stuff in mainstream press, but if you can do this step, then there's a shot with wikipedia...otherwise, all you can really do is ride out this latest storm and when things have been calm for awhile we can attempt some limited cleanup.
In neither of these cases were the apparent whitewashing attempts successful.
On November 12, 2010, Epstein emailed
Al Seckel
, a reputation manager who was the brother-in-law of Ghislaine Maxwell. The financier wanted to be sure that material in a series of articles written by
Daily Beast
author
Conchita Sarnoff
had been used in the Wikipedia article about him. At about this time, Epstein was threatening legal, and possibly other, action against Sarnoff and her editor
Tina Brown
, according to a
new article published by the same website
. While these threats to a journalist may not have had a direct impact on the Wikipedia article, they could be expected to have an indirect effect on future edits.
From: Jeffrey Epstein
To: Al seckel
Sent: Fri, November 12, 2010 7:11:23 AM
it is important , that I can be certain that the Wikipedia stuff has Conchita Sarnoffs input . how certain are we?
from the DOJ's Epstein Library
The process of Epstein searching for a reputation management company and taking bids is shown by a series of emails – starting on February 7, 2012 – with IntegrityDefenders.com (currently an expired domain). The results of their services would reportedly "take 6 months to a year. Cost is $2,449." Epstein questioned if that was the monthly cost.
Feb 7, 2012 1:47 PM
Hi a,
In reference to your client's online reputation management plan, we have a process we execute for all of our clients that entails creating volumes of numerous sites, back linking and good content that will rank highly in results, eventually displacing the negative content. The process for you client will take well into 6 months to a year because of the high profile nature of his links. We will need access to the wwwjeffreyepstein.orgin order to move it up the ranks as well. We will recycle information found on his foundation website and also focus on other individuals with the same name in order to diffuse the monopoly of information there is about him.
You can usually see our input within the first few weeks. Please ask him or anyone else not to click on any of the negative links EVER again as that can keep them lingering on the first page. If you have any other questions, feel free to email me.
...
A staffer, or possibly an editor hired by Epstein, sent an email to him in 2013. Again, the long-term effect on the article seemed minimal, but Wikipedia editors must have been tiring from the long siege.
Mar 22, 2013 7:13 AM
Hi Jeffrey,
am almost done with the new wikipedia article. My first draft was accepted by them. I have to put in a list of press references to back it. will send to you when approved.
am also working on: ...
How long could these Wikibullying attempts go on? Surprisingly, something similar seems to have happened last September, according to
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism
(TBIJ), in
Epstein details scrubbed from Mandelson's Wikipedia page by shady paid editor
. TBIJ has an impressive record of reporting on paid editing on Wikipedia, having broken stories on
Portland Communications
and
Bell Pottinger
. They recently reported that the Wikipedia article on
Peter Mandelson
, the now former
UK ambassador to the US
and Epstein's self described "best pal", was edited contentiously by an editor later banned for undeclared paid editing,
BeansS77
. A second editor was similarly banned.
Of course, there's no indication that Epstein's old network is still at work whitewashing, or even that The Lord Mandelson had any connection with BeansS77's effort. What is of concern is that Wikipedia is still open to interference from well-connected paid editors.
Even without the mishandling of the Epstein files by the DOJ or the current political brouhaha in the United States, the Epstein story would continue to drag on. The huge number of released files, and likely a few trials, will make new information available, perhaps over several years. Our readers may have their own takes or do their own investigations into the matter. Feel free to add your take in the comments section below, but please be careful to follow Wikipedia's rules about
biographies of living people
and
outing
. Or you may contact this reporter
through the Wikipedia email system
Previous
"Disinformation report"
Next
"Disinformation report" →
In this issue
17 February 2026
all comments
In the media
News and notes
Serendipity
Disinformation report
Technology report
Traffic report
Opinion
Crossword
Comix
+ Add a comment
Discuss this story
These comments are automatically
transcluded
from this article's
talk page
. To follow comments,
add the page to your watchlist
If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
purging the cache
Comment:
I wish to applaud the admins of 2012 to 2019 who were years ahead of the rest of the world in catching the meatpuppets who performed UPE on behalf of Epstein, in particular
Carrite
, who I've long respected.
Bearian
talk
11:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
"Epstein didn't indef himself!"
Randy Kryn
talk
13:32, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
This article says that in order to "whitewash [Epstein's] reputation", many of the biographical links are omitted. Can we please not whitewash pages regarding such horrible people?
GrinningIodize
talk
14:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
You've misquoted the article, which says "Since Epstein tried to recruit many people in academia, or even people he'd never met, to help whitewash his reputation, we will omit naming or linking to many biographies."
There are 2 problems that
The Signpost
has to deal with in writing this type of article, 1)
WP:BLP
and 2)
WP:Outing
Regarding BLP. It's amazing how many editors think that BLP says that you just can't write anything negative about a person. That's just nonsense, but we have to deal with it. But there is much sense to being very careful with BLPs and have all the documentation carefully vetted. If I don't have that I'm not going to expose a person to accusations that they worked with, or were friends with, a notorious sex offender. So I'm not going to name them in the article *and* editors are prohibited from linking to a source that makes that accusation.
Re:outing. If I were to say "Person X is editor Y" I could be banned immediately by any admin. No discussion on-wiki required. I'd just be "disappeared." So if I were writing an article in the Signpost, essentially I could mention "Person X" or "editor Y", but not both. Actually some people seem to think that even that is against the rules ((added) Please see
my 2021 article A "billionaire battle" on Wikipedia: Sex, lies, and video
and especially the accusations of doxing in the comments. BTW IMHO, the legal accusations against Nygaard are at least as serious as those against Epstein.
Finally I have to say that if I thought you were really accusing me of whitewashing anybody, especially Epstein, I would be very offended (and not politely addressing you here!) Please read my 2020 article
"I have been asked by Jeffrey Epstein …"
. Was that whitewashing?
Smallbones
smalltalk
16:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Sorry about that. I misinterpreted the article as I was still waking up at the time. I interpreted the sentence as saying "Since Epstein tried to recruit many people in academia, or even people he'd never met, [the editor has opted to] help whitewash his reputation", but that doesn't seem correct in hindsight.
GrinningIodize
talk
20:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Fixed with a minor copy edit. –
Jonesey95
talk
21:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Thanks
GrinningIodize
I'm probably a bit oversensitive to things like this, but getting attacked after writing an article on paid editing is fairly common. I hope we can have more pleasant editing experiences together in the future!
Smallbones
smalltalk
21:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Minor copyediting suggestion: "The huge number of the released files" --> "The huge number of released files"? --
Hispalois
talk
17:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
The user Walter Ego linked me to this news article. Now that it's becoming well known how Epstein tried to manipulate Wikipedia to whitewash his coverage, has anyone checked to make sure there are no lingering changes made by his puppets that still remain in articles here?
— Preceding
unsigned
comment added by
Itsnotgoodenough
talk
contribs
22:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Short answer to your question. Look
here
It shows that after 2018 the article ballooned in size by almost 7 times, but then was cut back so it's only about 4 times the 2018 size. It would be hard for much of the 2018 article to survive that. I read the first half of the current article in some detail and didn't see anything odd, but just skimmed the last half which is all about the sex abuse and related, so it seems unlikely that would remain pro-Epstein.
Now a serious question - you have 4 edits, but seem to know a lot about how Wikipedia operates, 2 of those edits have been asking me serious, time-consuming questions. I figure that you have or can find my email. Use it.
Smallbones
smalltalk
14:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Actually I don't know how to find your email, as there's no email address listed on your user profile. But you've answered my question about the Epstein article, and I think I figured out the answer to the other one I asked in your user talk. Thanks for checking to make sure the pro-Epstein edits have been removed.
Itsnotgoodenough
talk
16:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
See
Smallbones
smalltalk
19:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Here's another one "
I improved your Wikipedia text. Not perfect but much better
". Date does not tie in closely with an edit. Wonder who the sender was? (Flags are decodable, but not very interesting.) All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough
18:27, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Rich Farmbrough
Your link above is July 16, 2012.
User:Turvill
was very active
[23]
on July 14, 2012, edited once on the 18th, and twice in August.
Al Seckel
IIRC was a couple months earlier. It looks like Turvill (who was likely
User talk:Stgeorge12
's sock or meat puppet). Epstein's publicist (who mostly wrote press releases) I believe started about this time also.
Smallbones
smalltalk
02:35, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
"I have been asked by Jeffrey Epstein to describe his biography in a professional and accurate way..."
(Stgeorge12, 14 December 2011). Sure. ☆
Bri
talk
02:43, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
I think it likely refers to [ this] edit, which was 3 days before. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough
13:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Want the latest
Signpost
delivered to your talk page
each month?
About
Archives
Newsroom
Suggestions
Retrieved from "
Category
Wikipedia Signpost archives 2026-02
Wikipedia
Wikipedia Signpost/2026-02-17/Disinformation report
Add topic