Talk:ICF International

Removed criticism
An anonymous editor removed this without any comments:

"Currently, ICF is under scrutiny for its administration of the Louisiana Recovery Authority's 'Road Home' program. According to several state and national media reports, including CNN and ABC News, more than a year after Hurricane Katrina, ICF has sent out less than 100 checks out of tens of thousands of applicants. ICF meanwhile has distributed $2.7 million in one-time bonuses to 30 of its top managers. Ms. Anita Rechler is an ICF manager in charge of Road Home activities, which has not accounted program travel expenses which comprise $19 million — or 2% percent — of its $756 million contract as reported by the State of Louisiana. According to a press release by Business Wire, in a resolution passed by the State Legislature on December 15, 2006, Louisiana lawmakers have called the contractor 'ineffective' and are pressing the state to stop paying the contractor until more homeowners get aid. According to the Washington Post on January 29, 2007, the company's performance has been criticized by Donald Powell, federal coordinator of Gulf Coast rebuilding, and the State House and Senate sent the governor's office similar, unanimous resolutions, directing her staff to fire ICF."

Perhaps it should be restored. --24.184.131.16 02:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps--though it's more of a current event. I think the article, as a stub, would be unfavorably weighted in the direction of current news if it were to be restored.  I think it should be kept on the side until the article is lengthened. Corsulian (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the "scrutiny" seems purposely ambiguous. The company is not under investigation, has not been found liable for any wrongdoing.  This line, "ICF meanwhile has distributed $2.7 million in one-time bonuses to 30 of its top managers" is absolutely out of place as it implies some connection with the Road Home program.  It's a fast growing consulting company in northern Virginia--those numbers are to be expected. Corsulian (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

ICF and nccic.org...?
This blog post of mine probably won't pass WP:A, but I thought it might be of interest to some. --Bi (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for Page name Change
ICF International is no longer the company's market-facing name

Now simply branded as ICF, the company revealed its new brand in conjunction with the celebration of its 10th anniversary as a publicly-traded company.

With a rich history of growth over the past decade—bolstered by acquisitions that have strengthened the company’s capabilities in areas ranging from technology to research to digital strategy and communications—ICF has become one of the most trusted and admired consulting brands in the sectors it serves. Today, ICF celebrates the diversity of both its business model and the deep expertise of its more than 5,000 researchers, policy specialists, technologists, social scientists, digital strategists and creatives through its new brand.

Catbird fox (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , we name our articles based on the name which is most commonly used in English. In this case, it seems that more or less everyone calls it ICF International – compare this search with this one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
At least one major contributor to this article appears to have a close personal or professional connection to the topic, and thus to have a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting request edit (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request, or by clicking the link on the lowest yellow notice above. Requests that are not supported by independent reliable sources are unlikely to be accepted.

Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 18 April 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. There has been no response adequate response rebutting the PRIMARYTOPIC concerns at this article and a consensus exists against moving it to a page without a disambiguator. There is not a consensus for or against moving to a page with parenthetical disambiguation. As such, the page is not moved from the current title. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

ICF International → ICF – ICF is a client of mine at Distilled, and their name is being incorrectly populated in Google search results as "ICF International"--please move this page to become "ICF" Zhjones (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * As noted above, ICF is not available as there are plenty of other uses of this term. ICF (company) is possible. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Queried move request. ICF is a disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Queried move request. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. As mentioned above, it seems that more or less everyone calls it ICF International – compare this search with this one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No evidence of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the search term/keyword "ICF". Needs to be either ICF (company) or remain at ICF International. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I previously made this request, and got an email saying that this was a point of bias. ICF have officially updated their name from "ICF International" to ICF. While they note their history and changed names on ICF.com (https://www.icf.com/who-we-are/about/our-history), they've been unable to update their Wikipedia profile to reflect the same. Wikipedia should show ICF's former name (ICF International), but make its default "ICF" since that is their name. I saw the feedback for not updating their name also included search terms around ICF being "ICFI," which is their investment acronym. Google is also AUTOMATICALLY appending "ICF International" to their titles in search, so this is not by choice of ICF (see the titles in this SERP reflected as " Zhjones (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * ICF is currently a long disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20081222084425/http://www.icfi.com:80/About_Us/history.asp. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed expansion of this article
Hello, all. As anyone watching this page likely knows, removed most of the content from this article in May, citing potential copyright issues by other editors. This occurred about the same time I began working on a new draft for the article. I also found major issues with the previous version: not only did this entry rely heavily on primary sources, its content was choppy, fragmented and outdated. I've finished a new proposed draft of this article—ICF International (new proposed draft)— and it is ready for review. An important disclosure: I am working on behalf of ICF through my work with Beutler Ink. Therefore, I will not edit this article directly and am seeking other editors' input and assistance in updating this article.

In its current state, this Wikipedia entry is essentially a stub, consisting only of a four-sentence introduction and a one-sentence section on ICF and the Road Home program. With my new draft, I have developed an article that fits in line with other Wikipedia articles about companies. Here's what you'll see in my draft:


 * My draft updates the infobox and creates sections for History, Operations and services, Major acquisitions, and Rankings and recognition.


 * My draft cites mostly neutral, third-party journalistic sources. For some very basic facts and figures, I have cited ICF regulatory filings, but nothing involving any interpretation, consistent with WP:PRIMARY.

I am willing to go through this draft with editors section-by-section or as a whole, depending on what others think is best. I'm also open to any feedback about article content or my process here. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ by . --WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 21:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure that this was a good idea. We appear to have over-written the previous (very short) article with a company handout, and incidentally to have removed the principal reason that people are likely to heard of it – the Road Home fiasco. The first of our edit request instructions is "". Would that not have been the right approach here? May I propose that we revert your edit and add a  parameter to the request edit template to stimulate some discussion on this page? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Most ot the earlier versions of the article have been removed from the history, so I have no idea how it used to look. The only mention of the "Road Home fiasco" (your words) was "The company received widespread criticism of its management of the Road Home program in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina". If this statement is to be kept it needs clarification of the exact nature of the criticism and just how widespread it was. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Are there any specific issues or details you think should be discussed or reconsidered? I'm happy to discuss and work together on any specifics you see. As for ICF's work with Road Home, I want to point out that my draft and the current article contain the following: The company received criticism of its management of the Road Home program in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In an article in The Washington Post, the company said it had addressed problems raised in those criticisms, and that state and federal fraud-prevention rules were in flux and made the grants administration process more time-consuming. The only difference in the first sentence vs. the sentence about Road Home from the previous article version is the deletion of the word "widespread". My draft then added the second sentence, as it only seemed fair to include the company's response if we're going to include the criticism.


 * Also, to be clear, I did try to gain feedback and discussion of the draft: I originally posted this edit request on July 20, which included pinging Justlettersandnumbers for having recently edited the page. I posted a message to WikiProject Companies on July 24; WikiProject Business on July 27; WikiProject Virginia on August 1; and WikiProject District of Columbia on August 4. None of those messages generated a response from Wikipedians, so I left a message for on August 9 (20 days after my posting this edit request) because he had edited the ICF article previously to "tone down promotional material" and I figured he'd be a good person to review the draft carefully and make sure it is NPOV.


 * Again, if anyone has specific details they would like to discuss, I'm happy to do so. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 15:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 14 August 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved/withdrawn. Below (the nominator) mentioned that they withdraw this request (Special:Diff/797666107), so am closing now. Even if it were not withdrawn, it is clear that the consensus is that this move would be premature at best and is ultimately against the move. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

ICF International → ICF (company) – Since 2016, ICF no longer goes by the name ICF International, so I propose we move this article to ICF (company). As evidence, here are two articles from this summer in the nearest major paper to the company's HQ, The Washington Post, referring to the company as "ICF": .) I am aware that a previous move request in April was declined, however, that request was to move the page to ICF. Since ICF is a disambiguation page, it's completely understandable that this article can't be renamed simply to "ICF". With that said, it looked like some editors were in favor of ICF (company) and I'd like to see if that would be considered an appropriate move. An important disclosure: I am working on behalf of ICF through my work with Beutler Ink. Therefore, I will not edit this article directly (nor will I unilaterally move it) and am seeking other editors' input and assistance. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.   Dr Strauss   talk   18:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: per I would advise against a bold move from nom


 * Since no one has responded to this request to move ICF International to ICF (company) yet, I am pinging editors who weighed in on the previous move request. Might any of you have time to consider if this is an appropriate move? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 16:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * As the previous closer I have no opinion, but I think it would be inappropriate to execute a move without a positive consensus to do so given the previous move request failed fairly recently. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: What we need at the very least is evidence that recent secondary sources have adopted the new name... that is, commonly drop the International. I thought of relisting to try to find this, but even then, given the company history ICF International is an acceptable natural disambiguation and might still be preferred. From the point of view of reader experience it seems (subjectively) far more recognisable to me. The current official name should be given in the article lead of course, but so far as Google rankings go, I'm afraid we can't help the corporate image engineers. Andrewa (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * —as pointed out in my move request, the Washington Post refers to it as "ICF" in the most recent coverage. This certainly counts as recent, secondary sources, and as WP:NAMECHANGES states, "we give extra weight to sources written after the name change is announced". Since you didn't mention the Post in your reply, I'm curious what you make of this. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 04:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I linked above to WP:NAMECHANGES to point out that recent sources do have extra weight. But so far as the Washington Post is concerned, what I make of this is well covered below... One swallow does not make a summer. I will add that these mentions may be primary sources if they are merely repeating a press release, as seems possible. That's another unaddressed issue here. Andrewa (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. What is the current official name? The official trade name may now be just ICF, but the copyright at the bottom of the website still reads, "Copyright 1992-2017 ICF International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.". More importantly, I noticed that there are currently four entries on ICF, so why (and what evidence) should this article get moved to ICF (company) over, for example, the Integral Coach Factory article? Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * —the key difference, I believe, is that this ICF uses only ICF as its name, whereas the Integral Coach Factory uses ICF only on second reference. Therefore, it doesn't stake a primary claim to the initialism. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 04:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That still does not really address common usage. You cited two recent Washington Post articles, but that it only ONE source. For example, many of the sites displaying the current stock prices for the company, like finance.yahoo, Forbes, Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, marketwatch.com, Buinesss Insider, NASDAQ, Google Finance Barrons still use "ICF International". WP:NAMECHANGES says "sources" -- plural. The convention used by a single news source should not be a deciding factor. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, even if it doesn't stake a primary claim to the initialism, that's quite irrelevant here. See WP:primary redirect for the principles we use in such cases. Andrewa (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. Yet another issue that has not been addressed. Andrewa (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the considered replies, and . I am now persuaded that such a move would be, at best, premature. I withdraw my request, at least in spirit; looking at WP:RMCI it seems best that I not formally close it. However, I won't object to anyone closing it now, and I will convey this information back to ICF so they understand what their coverage needs to look like before this can be considered again. Best, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 14:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Andrewa has said it more cogently than I could have. A move request needs to be accompanied by convincing evidence that the move is necessary for compliance with our article title policy, and I see none here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. There is no primary topic for the 3-letter acronym so we must disambiguate the title in some way. Naming conventions (companies) supports either disambiguation with a parenthetical (company) or natural disambiguation using the official name, or the common portion of that, which is how the title is currently disambiguated. While I generally personally favor natural disambiguation when possible, the agent making this request has clearly indicated that the company prefers the parenthetical. As reliable sources generally honor companies' wishes in this regard, I think we should fall in line with the Washington Post usage, which for Wikipedia means using the parenthical. wbm1058 (talk) 10:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because the Washington Post -- just ONE source -- is doing it does not automatically mean that it is now the common name. What other sources are using just "ICF" instead of "ICF International"? Wikipedia's guidelines are to prevent such a consensus like, "Well, we'll just look at what the Washington Post is currently doing, and call it a day, never mind waiting to see what other reliable sources will do." Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit request (infobox)
Hi! "Key people" and "revenue" are outdated in the infobox. As an employee of ICF with a conflict of interest, I hope disinterested editors can update the titles for John Wasson and Sudhakar Kesavan, and update ICF's revenue with 2018 financials.


 * 1) John Wasson is "President and chief executive officer"
 * 2) Sudhakar Kesavan is "Executive Chairman"
 * 3) Revenue: $1.34 billion (2018)

Thank you for your consideration. RG at ICF (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌ Please disregard this request; the posting editor is no longer ICF's representative on Wikipedia. I will post a new request for these updates below. Thank you. ICF Will (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

New edit request (infobox)
Hi! I am posting a new edit request to update "key people" and "revenue" in the infobox. As an employee of ICF with a conflict of interest, I hope disinterested editors can update the titles for John Wasson and Sudhakar Kesavan, and update ICF's revenue with 2018 financials.


 * 1) John Wasson is "President and chief executive officer"
 * 2) Sudhakar Kesavan is "Executive Chairman"
 * 3) Revenue: $1.34 billion (2018)

Thank you for your consideration. My former colleague RG at ICF is no longer ICF's representative on Wikipedia, so I cancelled their request for the same updates above, and started my own request in an attempt to keep things clean. Following the site's conflict of interest standards, I will request edits on discussion pages instead of edit article text. ICF Will (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Reply 3-JAN-2020

 * The requested infobox parameters and article prose regarding the executives have all been updated along with the revenue.

Regards, Spintendo  20:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) The acquisitions table has been replaced with a clade.
 * 2) Promotional wording and information has been omitted.
 * 3) Wikilinks to duplicate / geographical / common terms have been omitted.
 * 4) The awards section has been omitted.

Revenue, employees, and offices
Hi! I am posting a new edit request to update ICF's revenue, employees, and offices following the release of ICF's newest Form 10-K on 27 February. As an employee of ICF with a conflict of interest, I hope disinterested editors can update the following.

Infobox "Revenue" and "employees" are outdated. Please update to:
 * 1) Revenue: $1.478 billion (2019)
 * 2) Employees: 7,000 (2019)

Operations and services The second sentence is outdated. Please update to:
 * 1) As of year-end 2019, ICF employed around 7,000 workers in 75 regional offices throughout the U.S. and more than 15 offices in other countries, including Belgium, Canada, China, India and the United Kingdom.

Thank you for your consideration. Following the site's conflict of interest standards, I will request edits on discussion pages instead of edit article text. ICF Will (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Reply 19-MAR-2020
Regards, Spintendo  20:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) ✅ The infobox revenue and employee census numbers were updated.
 * 2) ❌ The information concerning "year-end 2016" in the main prose of the article was not deleted, because that information — which concerns the year 2016 — still accurately represents the year 2016's information, and would therefore not be considered outdated.

Thanks for the infobox updates above! Rather than replace the 2016 information from the first paragraph of "Operations and services", please consider adding the 2019 information to the end of the paragraph:


 * 1) By year-end 2019, ICF employed around 7,000 workers in 75 regional offices throughout the U.S. and more than 15 offices in other countries.

Additionally, I have an update for the infobox and "Operations and services", as there have been recent changes to the executive ranks. Please consider:
 * 1) In the infobox, change James Morgan's title from CFO to "chief of business operations"
 * 2) In the infobox, add "Bettina Garcia Welsh (CFO) "
 * 3) In "Operations and services", edit the last sentence of the second paragraph to: "James Morgan is chief of business operations and Bettina Welsh is chief financial officer.

Thank you for your consideration. Following the site's conflict of interest standards, I will request edits on discussion pages instead of editing article text. ICF Will (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * After 29 days: Implemented though I have made some alternative changes that should still satisfy your request. Here were the edits. &#123;&#123;replyto&#125;&#125; Can I Log In 's   (talk) page 04:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the updates! Your changes look great to me. ICF Will (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Acquisitions
Hi! I am posting a new edit request to add two acquisitions from 2018 to Major acquisitions. As an employee of ICF with a conflict of interest, I hope editors can add the following.


 * We Are Vista (2018)
 * DMS (2018)

The content of this section was previously displayed in a table. User:Spintendo converted the table to a cladogram in January. However, the cladogram is not as easy to follow, in my opinion. While I've seen cladograms used on articles showing family trees and relations between various organisms, I've seen tables used on articles outlining company acquisitions (see: List of mergers and acquisitions by Microsoft; List of mergers and acquisitions by Facebook).

Mean as custard: You assisted in updating this article in 2017. At that time, you added the acquisitions table that was proposed. Do you have an opinion on whether this article should include a table of acquisitions or a clade? If a table is preferable to others as well, I'm happy to format that wikitext.

Thank you for your consideration. Following the site's conflict of interest standards, I will request edits on discussion pages instead of edit article text. ICF Will (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Done. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 10:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent revert
Hi! I am confused by this revert, which turns back the article to a version that is three years old. It is my understanding that all conflict-of-interest editing to this article was done the right way, per Wikipedia's paid editing guideline. All edits suggested by editors with a conflict of interest were requested on this Talk page, vetted by volunteer editors, and the article was updated based on what those volunteers found acceptable. Where I did receive feedback on a specific request, I revised my request to meet the reviewing editor's standards. If posting requests for updates on the article Talk page is not the correct route, what is the best way for me to help assist the volunteer editing community in updating this article? ICF Will (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree., your behavior towards was completely inappropriate and to be condemned in the strongest terms. Your reversion without even saying why on the talk page, and your dramatic editorialization in the WP:ES, that all the previous WP:ER volunteer implementers are just messing about and dancing to the tune of paid editors like  is, if not WP:BITE, complete failure to WP:AGF by either him or the past implementers. Your failure to mention any past implementers like  or  in either the WP:ES or here is also bewildering. It seems you don't like the WP:PAID policy nor the WP:ER process. Fine, but biting the editors who are actually attempting to work within the system will not change the system; the system reflects community consensus about the best way to handle paid editing. If you don't think it does, time for an WP:RFC. At most, you should have added a tag and explained what the actual problem with the article was here, mentioning past implementers. I can't believe that 's gentle message on your talk page wasn't enough to get you to reconsider, instead you demanded they come to the article talk page. Well, given that his gentility failed, I see no option but to escalate. Stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point about how much you disapprove of paid editing. By the way, in future, please ping User:Justlettersandnumbers, like this:  , @, and sign on the same line with four tildes. If something this serious happens again, (reversion of three years of accepted edit requests without discussion, another WP:BITE or a borderline WP:PA), I'd honestly take it to WP:COI/N or WP:AN/I if no one answers here within a day or so. I'd even say that per WP:IAR, you were entirely justified to revert  after leaving your comment to get them to come here and discuss it. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 10:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll add on to this., you've refused to answer my question in detail, something guilty people would do; unlike me, I actually admit my guilty behavior. Contesting 3 years of accepted COI edit request for covert advertising without a detailed explanation is wrong, even though, covert means not very known. And no, COI or paid contributions is not grounds for an automatic revert. They are not banned from COI editing. We have COI edit request to filter out good and bad edits (e.g. promotional). You could patrol there instead.
 * Here is clear consensus that this is a bad revert, and it may be restored. Please respond if you contest it with good reason and in detail. The last thing I want for you is ArbCom, a place where you never want to be the subject of in a case. Thank You. 's talk page! 17:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this a pattern of behavior from ? If so, has this (within the last two years) gone to WP:AN/I yet, or another noticeboard/WP:DR process? If no to either, mentioning WP:ARBCOM is premature in my view, it is after all a last resort, although as is a sysop things can indeed accelerate in that direction faster, especially if more WP:BITEs follow this one in rapid succession. However, let's WP:AGF for everyone involved, including . Mistakes are made, and until I'm given a reason to think differently, that's what I'm going to chalk this obvious lapse in judgment up to. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 18:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A reason why I said The last thing. Their talk page is full of COI and copyright matters, and some COI might look concerning. I see no misuse of administrator tools. 's talk page! 18:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I did notice the other COI matters on their talk, and while I didn't investigate deeply, they seem to be in the right regarding all of them, as far as I can tell. Most of the COI editors they seem to have recently reverted (leading to talk page traffic) aren't making disclosures or are engaging in edit warring. Also, I'm sorry, I read your statement the last thing as a very premature threat, perhaps somewhat WP:PASSIVE/WP:SARCASM. Tone doesn't translate well in text, so that was my error. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 18:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, please see Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, please see Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I've replied there. Perhaps WP:AN/I is a more appropriate venue, but let's see what happens. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 13:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The COI noticeboard is the appropriate venue since it regards COI and its related policies and guidelines; in this case, WP:COVERT. AN/I would next up be regarding user conduct. 's talk page! 16:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

COI edit request on 16 June 2020
Hi! Thank you all for your replies, guidance, and work to update this article in a way that complies with Wikipedia's standards. There were updates to the company's leadership and acquisitions that were effectively undone in the recent editing. As an employee of ICF with a conflict of interest, I ask if editors would re-insert those updates on my behalf.

Infobox
 * 1) John Wasson is "President and chief executive officer"
 * 2) Sudhakar Kesavan is "Executive chairman"
 * 3) Bettina Garcia Welsh is "CFO"
 * 4) James Morgan is "chief of business operations"

Operations and services
 * 1) Update "Sudhakar Kesavan is chairman and chief executive officer. John Wasson is president and chief operating officer" to "Sudhakar Kesavan is executive chairman. John Wasson is president and CEO, and Bettina Garcia Welsh is CFO.

Major acquisitions
 * 1) Can editors re-insert acquisitions of We Are Vista, DMS, and Incentive Technology Group (iTG)? Those three acquisitions were included in the table in this version.

I appreciate everyone taking the time to review this article recently. Thank you.

ICF Will (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Can you review this edit request? As mentioned here, some updates to the company's leadership and acquisitions were effectively undone in the recent editing. Would you be willing to re-insert those updates on my behalf? Thank you for your consideration. ICF Will (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash;your edit request for Operations and services has been paraphrased into Sudhakar Kesavan is chief executive officer and formerly the chairman. John Wasson is president and chief operating officer. Bettina Garcia Welsh is CFO.; your edit request for Major acquisitions was removed in this edit without explanation, and restoration of that may be independent of this edit request.
 * Can I Log In (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)