It is a community with published rules about who may touch an article about themselves, and it is very good at spotting people who ignore them. Everything we do here is disclosed, placed on the record, and decided by editors who do not work for you. That is slower than what other firms describe, and it is the only version that does not end badly.
The Wikimedia Terms of Use require anyone paid for contributions to disclose their employer, client, and affiliation. We disclose on the account, on the user page, and in every edit summary where it applies. We do not operate undisclosed accounts, we do not run multiple accounts to create the appearance of agreement, and we decline work that is offered on the condition of secrecy.
Where a subject has a conflict of interest, the accepted route is to propose the change on the article Talk page using the conflict-of-interest edit request template, with the exact wording and the source attached, and then wait for an uninvolved editor to accept, amend, or decline it. We do not edit the article directly. A well-formed request with a solid citation is genuinely persuasive; a vague complaint is not.
The BLP policy is the strongest lever available to a subject. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced may be removed promptly and without waiting for consensus, and the policy applies across articles, talk pages, and drafts alike. Where an article carries that kind of material, the BLP noticeboard is the right venue and the argument is about sourcing, not about tone.
Articles are deleted when the community concludes the subject does not meet the notability guideline, through a discussion any editor can join. Where a marginally notable living person has asked for deletion, that preference can be weighed in the discussion. The decision belongs to a closing administrator reading consensus, which is exactly why nobody honest sells it as an outcome.
The most reliable wins are unglamorous: a date that contradicts the cited source, a job title taken from a press release that the source never supported, a claim attributed to a publication that says something else. These are correctable because the evidence settles them. A well-sourced fact you dislike is not, and we say so at the audit rather than after the invoice.
Send the article. Within 48 hours you get a clause-level read: which statements are unsupported by their own citations, which fall under the living-persons policy, which are accurate and staying, and whether the notability question is even arguable in your case.
The scope sets out each proposed correction with its replacement wording and its source, the venue for each request, and the disclosure text that will appear on the account. You approve the exact wording before it is posted, because once it is on a Talk page it is permanent and public.
Requests are filed and then left with the community, which is the part that cannot be accelerated. Each week you receive the state of every open request, what editors have said in response, and an honest note where a request has clearly been declined rather than merely ignored.
A close-out report with links to every request, every response, and every resulting edit. Where the article stays as it is, the remaining work is on the results around it rather than on the article. Our case studies describe how narrow these outcomes usually are.
We can raise a deletion discussion where there is a real argument that the subject does not meet the notability guideline, and we can present that argument properly. We cannot promise the outcome, because it is decided by volunteer editors reaching consensus and closed by an administrator. Any firm guaranteeing deletion is describing a decision it does not get to make.
No. Where there is a conflict of interest, we propose changes on the Talk page and let uninvolved editors decide. Direct editing by an interested party is against the community’s guidance, tends to be reverted quickly, and leaves a permanent public record that makes every later request harder to get accepted.
Paid contribution is permitted under the Wikimedia Terms of Use only where it is disclosed, and individual projects and communities add their own restrictions on top. Undisclosed paid editing is a Terms of Use breach and is treated as a serious matter when discovered. We work disclosed, which is both the rule and the only way a request survives scrutiny.
There is no service level, because there is no service. Requests are answered by volunteers when a volunteer chooses to answer, and a well-sourced narrow correction on a watched article moves faster than a broad rewrite on an article nobody follows. Send us the article and we will tell you which kind of request yours would be.
Send the article URL. We return a clause-by-clause read of what its own citations support, what the living-persons policy reaches, and what is simply accurate. Within 48 hours.
Coverage is what an article cites, so the sourcing question and the press question are frequently the same question.
Where an entry dominates a name search, the index and the article are addressed through entirely different channels.
Forum discussion is not a usable source, but it does rank, and it is worked through moderators instead.
Video takedowns turn on four narrow grounds decided by a legal or privacy team rather than by any community.
Personal addresses and family detail belong to broker records, and those come down through opt-out and statutory routes.
Complaint pages are permanent by policy, which makes the plan there a matter of visibility rather than editing.
The same framework we use in week-one of every engagement — how to classify your branded SERP, spot removable content, and prioritize what to fix first. Free PDF, no sales call.