Andrew.robbins

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia invites everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, but one of your recent edits to the page Talk:Elissa Slotkin suggests that you have been recruited to make that edit by someone else, whether it be a friend, family member, coworker, or public figure. Please understand that Wikipedia does not condone such activity; users should act in their individual capacity, rather than editing under the direction or influence of others. Additionally, please ensure that any articles you create abide by the notability guidelines and that you do not make edits to topics in which you have a conflict of interest. Thank you. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I did an entire round of grammar edits of the page before the dispute in question occurred. I appreciate the concern, but this is unfounded. andrew.robbins (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Courcelles (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Starting a thread to complain about the close of an RFC, but then taking a break and not taking part in any subsequent discussion, is not useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

would have appreciated a ping prior to assuming that i'm trolling-i didn't know you replied until just now. andrew.robbins (talk) 05:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

in fact, if you revert that closure in the next hour or so I'll write a response up right now andrew.robbins (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Andrew: Please clarify your conflicts of interest editing Elissa Slotkin as a volunteer for Hill Harper. Are your edits on Wikipedia being influenced by Harper's campaign? Do you have further relationships with the campaign, including any personal or professional contact with the candidate or staff? 216.71.14.161 (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I submitted a single circulation sheet with 3 signatures (Myself, my then partner, and a friend) to a campaign volunteer back in January, but I haven't had any contact with them since. andrew.robbins (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your support for Harper's campaign seems to extend to your Wikipedia edits and having a volunteer for an opponent actively involved in writing a Wikipedia page is clearly a problematic conflict of interest. I suggest addressing this as biased editing violates Wikipedia's policies and engaging in this behavior reflects poorly on the campaign you're supporting. 64.33.112.154 (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am not volunteering for the campaign and I don't think giving the campaign a single petition sheet with 3 signatures of close relations six months ago counts as volunteering in any meaningful capacity either.

As for my political biases? Yeah. I'll cop to that. That's allowed.

Assuming you're the same person that posted the first message, I'd greatly appreciate if you could either stick to one IP or log in for the sake of consistency. andrew.robbins (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply