Arabella Advisors’ Wikipedia Disaster:A Lesson in How Not to Handle Reputation

Arabella Advisors tried once again to influence its Wikipedia page – and failed, again. The plan was to post transparently on the Talk page, point out supposed factual errors, and request structural changes. They thought a more open approach would succeed where stealth tactics failed.

The result? The 2020 PR failure – when Arabella paid someone to quietly sanitize its Wikipedia entry – was brought back into focus and added directly into the article’s lead. That incident, once barely noticed, is now permanently cited as proof of the firm’s past attempts to manipulate their Wikipedia page:

In June 2020, Arabella came under scrutiny for hiring a paid editor to request edits to their Wikipedia page.

They tried again. Got denied again. And made things worse again.

What Happened in 2020

In 2020, Arabella made its first mistake. They hired a PR contractor, Mary Gaulke, to edit their Wikipedia article. The goal was to soften criticism, reframe language, and cut anything that reflected poorly on the firm.

It backfired immediately.

Gaulke didn’t properly disclose her relationship with Arabella. She pushed edits that removed critical coverage from sources like the Free Beacon and InfluenceWatch. Editors flagged it. The edits were reversed. The connection was exposed.

The attempt made headlines across the political spectrum – covered by The Daily Beast on the left and the Washington Free Beacon on the right. And instead of being buried, the incident was added directly to the article:

In June 2020, Arabella came under scrutiny for hiring a paid editor to request edits to their Wikipedia page.

What was supposed to be a silent PR job became part of the permanent record. The page got locked down. Editors started watching it. And Arabella got tagged as a company trying to manipulate the platform.

Once that happens in Wikipedia, you don’t get a second shot. Even good edits get blocked. You’ve lost trust and you don’t get it back.

Lesson Not Learned

By mid-2025, Arabella still hadn’t figured it out. Julia Sze, representing the firm, posted on the article’s Talk page and submitted a long list of proposed changes. She argued that parts of the article relied on low-quality sources, were potentially AI-generated, and that the structure misrepresented the company’s scope.

She followed the rules on paper – disclosed her affiliation, quoted Wikipedia policies, linked sources.

None of the edits were accepted.

Editors pushed back. Some responded directly. Others ignored her entirely. Every suggestion was rejected. Her arguments didn’t hold. Her sources weren’t neutral. Her requests looked like PR.

Then came the hit.

Editors pointed to Arabella’s past. The 2020 PR stunt was resurfaced and used as justification to keep the page locked. The line added then unmissable, right at the lead section still stands:

In June 2020, Arabella came under scrutiny for hiring a paid editor to request edits to their Wikipedia page.

Instead of moving the article forward, Sze’s posts dragged everything backward. She reminded Wikipedia exactly why the page gets extra scrutiny. And the company walked into the same wall they hit five years earlier.

How Wikipedia Actually Works

Arabella’s double failure shows what happens when companies treat Wikipedia like a PR channel. It isn’t. It’s not a blog, a corporate bio, or a fact-checking service for brand managers.

Wikipedia’s editor community doesn’t care how big your budget is. They care about neutrality, verifiability, and conflict-of-interest transparency. You can’t spin your way out of a bad article. You can’t send an intern, a comms director, or a freelancer to do clean-up and expect it to stick. And if you try, you’ll likely make things worse.

Wikipedia Doesn’t Forget – and Doesn’t Bend

Arabella’s second failure wasn’t about tone or transparency. It was about not understanding the platform.

Wikipedia runs on verifiability, not messaging. Every claim needs a source. Every edit needs to follow policy. Conflict of interest isn’t a technicality – it’s a barrier. Once a page is flagged, editors don’t forget. They remember the names. They check the history. They don’t trust twice.

Arabella showed up asking for major changes. The response was simple: no. Not because the page is untouchable but because they burned that trust already.

They thought showing up openly would solve the problem. It didn’t. It made it worse. They brought attention back to the thing they wanted removed. They reminded the community why the page is locked in the first place.

This isn’t a PR platform. It’s not a negotiation. It’s Wikipedia. And once you’re on the wrong side of the rules, you stay there.

Why This Matters

Search “Arabella Advisors” on Google, and Wikipedia is one of the top results. For journalists, funders, critics, and researchers, it’s the first stop. Whatever’s on that page becomes part of your brand identity. In Arabella’s case, that now includes two failed attempts to manipulate public perception – both documented, both permanent.

They didn’t fix the narrative. They reinforced it.

That’s the cost of trying to manage Wikipedia without understanding how it works.

The Real Fix

There are people who know how to navigate Wikipedia the right way. Not freelancers off Upwork. Not internal comms teams. Actual professionals who understand the rules, the community, and the difference between PR and policy.

They don’t chase edits. They build cases. They work through the Talk page, cite solid sources, and don’t get flagged. Their edits don’t just stick, they don’t trigger blowback.

Arabella didn’t hire those people. Not in 2020. Not in 2025. They gambled twice and lost twice. Now both failures live at the top of their search results, with receipts.Arabella tried to erase a problem. Now the problem is part of their legacy.

If you can’t do it right, don’t touch it.

If you’re dealing with a similar situation, don’t repeat Arabella’s mistakes. Reputn’s Wikipedia experts help organizations handle Wikipedia the right way – ethically, strategically, and without triggering backlash. Get in touch before a small issue becomes a permanent record.