Talk:Robert A. Mandell

Proposed rewrite for this article

Hello, all. I've been working on a new proposed draft of this article, which expands on Robert Mandell's life, career and ambassadorship while cleaning up some existing content. That draft is now ready for review. First a disclosure: I am working on behalf of Mr. Mandell as part of my work with Beutler Ink. I will not edit this article directly and am seeking other editors' input and assistance in making the changes if they are reasonable.

With my new draft, I give structure to the article, bring it up-to-date and improve sourcing. Being that the existing article is short and largely unstructured, I am proposing my full draft in its entirety. However, I am happy to go over it with editors section-by-section if that's preferable. I've placed the full draft in my user space—Robert A. Mandell (new proposed draft). This diff shows how it differs from the current article.

Here's what you'll see in my draft:

• The current version of the article consists of a single Biography section. My draft creates sections for Education, Career, Ambassadorship and Personal life.
• My draft expands detail on Mr. Mandell's education and his career in the private and public sector.
• It also moves the photo to a new Ambassadorship section and includes a new caption to better identify those in the picture.

There are two other specifics that are worth noting on this discussion page.

• My draft deletes detail on the resignation of the previous ambassador, Cynthia Stroum, as this article is about Mr. Mandell and should focus on him.
• Also, the current version mentions "some controversy" over Mr. Mandell's appointment because he was a fundraiser for President Barack Obama and says that "some criticized" the appointment because of Mr. Mandell's lack of diplomatic experience. This is an overstatement. Some media mentioned Mr. Mandell's fundraising and his lack of prior diplomatic experience, so my draft presents the issue that way. It seems to me to be a mischaracterization to say this was a "controversy" when the Senate approved the nomination in a voice vote.

As I said before, I'm willing to go through this with editors section-by-section or as a whole. I'm open to any feedback or suggestions. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

WWB_Too I am dissatisfied with your proposed draft. The present article developed by the community is pretty much par for the course for a controversial businessman of moderate notability who purchased an ambassadorship. Merely because the BLP subject is paying you (how much is the amount ?) does not entitle him to a longer puffed up article vis-a-vis those who don't pay and would be unfair. Inlinetext (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Inlinetext. Thanks for taking a look and responding. To be very clear, my intention is most certainly not to create a "puffed up" article, but to provide additional detail on Mr. Mandell that meets Wikipedia's content rules on verifiability and neutral point of view, among others. I'm curious: Are there specific issues you saw with it that I can address?

Besides the new material, my draft improves on the existing entry in a few ways. For instance:

• I have updated the infobox, which currently says Mr. Mandell still lives in Luxembourg in an official capacity, which is incorrect.
• I've moved the image from the left of the page to the right as per the Manual of Style, and rewrote the caption so readers can easily identify the people pictured.
• The current version says Mr. Mandell worked for Greater Construction and later became its president, but it never says when.

As regards "controversial"—have you seen any particular sources that point to business controversies that should be mentioned in the article? I have researched the topic and not found any. Same question about his his appointment as ambassador—the limited coverage of his confirmation hearings, such as this story from the Orlando Sentinel, does not mention debate over the nomination. While the story notes Mr. Mandell's fundraising efforts for Barack Obama and a lack of previous diplomatic experience, it does not describe these as particularly controversial.

Thanks for your consideration. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi 'WWB' (BTW, I read your blog :-) regularly).

I am more concerned with the ghost writing aspects of paid / undisclosed promotional editing which are not easily discernible to the average Wikipedia reader.

Specific issues ? Sure:

• In the United States, for example, "Unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce are unlawful."
• "In 2012 the Munich Oberlandesgericht court ruled that if a company or its agents edit Wikipedia with the aim of influencing customers, the edits constitute covert advertising, and as such are a violation of European fair-trading law. The ruling stated that readers cannot be expected to seek out user and talk pages to find editors' disclosures about their corporate affiliation"
• I am especially concerned that I am being harassed (among other things) for policy based objections connected to your initiated COIRESPONSES here. Cheers, Inlinetext (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Inlinetext. I fear we are getting off-topic. I'd like to concentrate discussion on the current and proposed content of this entry, and so I was asking if you had specific concerns with the language in my draft. However, it appears your issues are with COI editing altogether. I'd just like to point out that I have openly disclosed my COI, posted a {{Connected contributor}} template, and have pledged not to edit the article directly, an approach endorsed by Jimmy Wales. All of my actions are in line with Wikipedia's Terms of Use and the established guidelines for COI editors seeking edits. I also wish to note that I had nothing to do with the discussion at AN/I, but since you have linked the two, I will leave a note there as well. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Editor User:Inlinetext has been blocked from editing, so I have collapsed the unproductive discussion above and currently seek another editor—or editors—to review my proposed draft and implement accordingly. My purpose for collapsing the discussion above is not an attempt to hide concerns regarding paid editing on Wikipedia, but rather to isolate the tangential conversation so editors can focus on this particular edit request specifically. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a good draft. No glaring issues of WP:NPOV or WP:PROMO. Sticks to facts about where he's worked and for how long, etc., with various sources. All in all, looks fine by me. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@GabeIglesia: Many thanks for reviewing the draft. Since my updates look good to you, would you be willing to make the changes to the live article? As mentioned above, I won't edit the article directly because of my WP:COI. If you have further questions, let me know. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@WWB Too: Done. With a few minor modifications (I added the specific dates of his tenure as Ambassador, plus a few other formatting things such as Wikilinks). Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@GabeIglesia: Thanks, everything looks great. I appreciate the additional cleanup as well. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Request to add new photo

Hello again, I am back to request the addition of a more recent photo for the infobox. I have uploaded this photo to Commons. The filename is Robert-A-Mandell-110.jpg. I believe reviewing editors will find it is of a higher quality than the photo currently on the page. As I stated in my edit request above: I am working on behalf of Mr. Mandell as part of my work with Beutler Ink. I will not edit this article directly and am seeking other editors' input and assistance in posting the new photo. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Y. Hello, WWB Too, done with pleasure. Wishing you all the best. Resetting as answered. Fylbecatulous talk 22:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Fylbecatulous, I appreciate it! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Use of undeclared paid editors by WWB Too

Editors should be cautious about using or restoring material suggested by WWB Too in this article. 101.63.145.16 (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

To this IP editor whose second edit to Wikipedia is the comment above: I've just become aware of the recent changes to this page. On absolutely no account did I use an undeclared paid editor on this article, nor any others. I have no control over which editors respond to my requests, and I take it on good faith that helpful editors are doing the right thing. This page should be restored to this version from May 16; it's the best version to date, as explained in threads above. I hope another editor will do so soon. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It is improbable that a professional paid editor does not monitor his client's pages. What is probable is that you arranged another undisclosed paid editor to restore your content independently. If you are so concerned with rules and proprieties, kindly see to it that GabeIglesias is sanctioned for his edits here. 101.62.181.169 (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Additions, deletions, and edits I've made to this article are mine alone. Someone may have asked for my assistance, but I verified the factual accuracy of what I wrote, and I added verifiable references. No one told me what to write, or offered me any consideration. I do what I do on Wikipedia as a volunteer only because I'm interested in history and current events. Anyone who suggests otherwise is mistaken.

Billmckern (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Your statements are false, because you have been spoonfed by a paid editor. there is very little originality in your work or edits.101.62.181.169 (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Well said, and thanks very much Billmckern. Would you also mind restoring the newer photograph that was in the May 16 version? It's available here: File:Robert-A-Mandell-110.jpg. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

WWB_Too becoz you are a self-declared paid editor, I am not required to AGF anything you say. It is crystal clear that GabeIglesia is also a paid editor who has neglected to disclose his paid editing on Wikipedia. Similarly whatever Billmckern states for this article cannot be taken as face value. This is presently not a case of an organically developed article where volunteer (unpaid) editors collaborate, this is a paid editor WWB_Too imposing his client's wishes through shills and deleting unfavourable references which portray his client in unflattering ways. False in one is false in all. WWB_Too you were caught out once before with GabeIglesia (see the Reddit thread), now leave this article alone and practice your trade somewhere else. PS: see WP:IPHUMAN regarding IP editors. 16:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

IP, the article prior to my involvement was very poor—and yet I see you have reverted to the previous version again. My draft sought to improve the quality of information, including reducing UNDUE negative material which I explained in detail above (see here). I first reached out to multiple wikiprojects first to find help (see here and here), and finally reached out to editors who had been helpful on similar subjects—included among them was GabeIglesia (see here). I had not seen the evidence of this alleged Upwork account until today; we don't even know for sure that it is not an impersonation, which has been a real problem on Wikipedia. Your allegation that I am using shills is false; the better version should be restored, and if you have specific problems, raise them afterward. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Using IP to refer to me is a personal attack. Clearly you have been utilising the services of GabeIglesias on more than one paid assignment. Your use of the term we for the alleged impersonation is disingenious. It is not for us to claim impersonation on Upwork but for GabeIglesias to do so. Your excessive use of links from americanambassadors.org arouses suspicion that you are paid by that lobbying organisation too. So stop trying to convert this encyclopedia into a tawdry marketing catalogue for your vrious clients. This is an international encyclopedia with international contributors and readers and subject to possible multiple legal jurisdictions for undisclosed paid editing which the WMF Terms of Use require you to comply with. Since Mr. Mandell is a real estate developer Unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce are unlawful. If there is any impersonation/deception it seems to involve your clients. I dispute that your version is better. I am prepared to discuss and revdevelop it if we begin from the last uncorrupted version by Drimies. 101.57.254.37 (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Removal of criticism -"Obama names another bundler to be ambassador to Luxembourg"

Why has this citation been removed ?

Obama names another bundler to be ambassador to Luxembourg

excerpts

The White House has nominated Florida real estate developer Robert A. Mandell to take her place. Like Stroum, Mandell is an Obama bundler, one of an elite corps of fundraisers who collect from $50,000 to more than $500,000 from friends and business associates. Mandell raised more than $200,000 for the 2008 Obama campaign, records show.

A recent investigation by iWatch News found that Obama has appointed two dozen of his 2008 bundlers as ambassadors, despite a campaign promise to curtail the influence of big donors and other special interests in Washington. In all, nearly 200 Obama bundlers have landed government jobs and advisory posts, won federal contracts worth millions for dollars for their business interests or attended numerous elite White House meetings and social events, the investigation found.

This report by a double Pulitzer prize winning organization clearly shows that Mandell is habituated to pay and bribe his way. 101.62.181.169 (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It shows no such thing; like it or not, presidents tend to appoint bundlers to ambassadorships. The passage you quote does show that Mandell is hardly unique in this regard, and its inclusion on this page must be evaluated accordingly. I did not delete the criticism; I put it in context (see here). I'm not opposed to CPI being included, but the content from my draft should be restored—and the details about the previous ambassador have no place in Amb. Mandell's biography. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:PAID is not a replacement for Terms of Use on paid editing

WP:PAID is a supplement to WMF's Terms of Use and not a replacement (alternative policy) or dilution of it. 101.62.181.169 (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

EU law also applicable

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is a member of the EU. Accordingly relevant EU laws and directives will also apply for this article. As an EU resident and contributor to this article, I require prominent paid editing disclosure on the article page itself and not hidden away on the talk page whenever this page is displayed within EU. 101.57.254.37 (talk) 01:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Where are you getting this BS about paid edits to this article, and why? As I've made clear, I wrote most of the content in this article, and provided the references, and no one paid me, offered to pay me, asked me if I wanted compensation, or anything along those lines. I write and edit as a volunteer because I have interests in history and current events. That's it.

Billmckern (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Where I am getting it is from your user page, and your confirmation that your present primary employer is The Analysis Corporation which is deeply linked to the State Department. You are not the first such "volunteer" with links to the State Dept used by WWB_Too to insert his drafts into articles like this and Colleen Bell who is another Obama bundler who employs WWB_Too. Since GabeIglesias is exposed as an undisclosed paid editor, the same suspicion devolves upon you. See this 101.60.253.221 (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

You are falsely presuming cause and effect. I work for a company, and I write on Wikipedia, and therefore my work must have something to do with my writing. There is no cause and effect. For one thing, I was writing on Wikipedia for several years before I began working for my present employer. For another, if I was going to commit some kind of conflict of interest trickery here, why would I use my own name as my screen name, and let readers know how to contact me? Think this through -- your accusations are not only false, they're nonsensical. You need to stop questioning my integrity, because I haven't done anything wrong.

Billmckern (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

You are not thinking this through logically. You did edits for WWB_Too in the past (Dec 2015 on Colleen Bell). In May 2017 not finding anyone else he approached you again for these edits. You did not effect WWB_Too's edits, which were effected through GabeIglesias an editor now exposed as a SEO freelancer employable at US$5. These were reverted by another IP (possibly the Reddit objector). You then come along with some cock-n-bull story about cleaning your talk page and persist in edit warring to retain WWB_Too's ghost written promotional content. Any reasonable person would conclude that you are being paid by WWB_Too contingent upon this content sticking. You are ignoring all the conduct rules for disputes between 2 editors (WWB_Too doesn't count). I have repeatedly said that I am prepared to assist in cooperatively rewriting this article from a stable and neutral base version. The last such version was by Drmies (an arb). 101.56.56.69 (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)