Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Candidates/Curbon7

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful administrator election candidacy. Please do not modify it.

Final (293/161/87) (S/A/O); See official results (non-admin closure) – DreamRimmer ■ 12:20, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Nomination

Curbon7 (talk · contribs · he/him) – Hello, I'm Curbon7. I have been an editor since 2018, but began actively editing starting August 2020. I have been editing fairly consistently since then, though I took a break for a few months last year while I was completing graduate school.

I am primarily a content-focused editor and have written 200 articles, with 6 of my 8 GAs being for articles I started. While I am no longer as active in NPP and AfC as I used to be – as my interests turned elsewhere – being a reviewer in both as well as a frequent participant at AfD has helped me develop a deep understanding of our core policies and guidelines, particularly with those related to notability and sourcing. I am running to help in these areas I am deeply familiar with, whether that be AfD and PROD, the Recent Deaths section of WP:ITN, and others.

Note: In January 2021, my account was compromised and blocked before a single edit could be made. I regained control of my account a few days later thanks to steward NahidSultan, and I now use a very strong password and have the global 2FA tester right ([1]). Curbon7 (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Please disclose whether you have ever edited Wikipedia for pay: I have never edited for pay and never will. My COIs and disclosures are listed at my disclosure page here. I have one alternate account, User:Curbon8, which I use as my public account and for WP:AWB maintenance edits.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

A: One of my primary interests in administrator work would be the deletion processes, specifically AfD and PROD. I am a regular participant in both, not just as a !voter or nominator but also in reviewing nominations for potential alternatives to deletion, searching for sources or pointing towards where sources may exist, and even a few WP:HEYs (1 2). I also review the PROD log around once a day. Another area I would admin in is the Recent Deaths section of WP:In the News; RD frequently gets backlogged as there are only a small handful of admins who work the area. I would also like to help in reducing other backlogs where I have had previous experience, such as CSD and RFPP.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: By far, I am most proud of my content creation here. As I mentioned in my nomination statement, I recently reached 200 articles created – almost all of which are biographies – and 6 of my 8 GAs are for articles I started, with two more at GAN awaiting review. Of my GAs, my favorite is probably Roy Earl Parrish; as historians, we're fundamentally storytellers, and that is just such a tremendous story I'm glad I was able to tell. However, I am proud of all of the articles I've written, not just the ones marked with a topicon. Morris Alexander, Sarah Jim Mayo, John S. Westcott, and William D. Mullins are some others I would consider among my best. I would also like to mention my work with Women in Red. Countering systemic bias in history is something that I am very passionate about both in my off-Wiki career and with my contributions to Wikipedia, and I am exceptionally proud of my work with that project. Around half of the articles I've created are as part of Women in Red.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: The first time I received a personal attack was when I was still a pretty new editor. I got called a pretty nasty name and it left me feeling like crap. I took it really hard. Since then, I've matured and have grown a thicker skin. For example, when when an editor hounded me over a minor dispute some time ago, I simply denied them attention and wrote up an ANI report, and they were blocked. Like everyone, I do make mistakes and I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong (for example, here a couple years ago). I will always seek to keep my errors minimal, rectify and apologize when they do occur, and ensure I do not repeat them. This question uses the word conflict, but I quite dislike that word: it brings to mind an image of two opposing armies clashing. Rather, I prefer the term dispute or disagreement, because other voices always add value to discussions. I enjoy having my positions challenged because it forces me to think introspectively about them. I try to understand the other editor's opinion and mull it over before replying; by understanding the opposing argument, I can better understand my own position on the topic (or I can even find myself convinced by the other argument). Mulling the discussion over before replying lets me think really hard about it and helps me draft my best possible response. In particularly difficult discussions, especially if it is getting heated, I always try to send the other editor a personal message letting them know I value them and their opinion. Just being kind goes a long way.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions. Make sure to use level 4 section headers, not bold face. (4 equal signs)

Optional question from Ganesha811

4. Are there any areas of adminship you do not plan to participate in, due to unfamiliarity or lack of technical knowledge? If you later decided you wanted to help in these areas, what would be your plan to become an effective admin in those areas?

A: I do not intend on participating in technical areas, I simply don't have much technical knowledge or interest to work in an area like WP:EF or WP:BRFA. I've noticed most areas have subpages or sections for admin instructions (for example, Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Procedure for administrators and WP:ITN/A); I would read these instructions as well as any associated policy pages thoroughly before I begin taking admin actions in an area, even ones I am familiar with. Additionally, before doing any admin action in an area I am currently unfamiliar with, such as WP:CFD, I would first participate in the process for some time to gain that familiarity; I think an effective admin should know how an area works first before taking any admin action in it. Curbon7 (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Optional question from Fade258

5. Since you're a content creator, You have done a substantial work in content creation, which is a good part of building an encyclopedia. Can you please elaborate on how would you plan to balance your experience as a content creator considering the neutrality and enforcement abilities of an admin?

A: As someone who has written a lot of articles, I am certainly WP:INVOLVED in a lot of topic areas I care little about. For example, I've written over a dozen articles on German politicians; I am not German, have no ties to the country, nor do I care about their internal politics, but I recognize that I am nonetheless involved in that topic area. I suppose the list of articles I've created doubles as a (non-exhaustive) list of topics I am involved in, and thus topic areas I would not take administrative action in. It is of the upmost important to keep these boundaries, and many Arbcom cases have been about admins who skirted INVOLVED for a reason. Curbon7 (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Optional questions from BusterD

6. Thank you for putting yourself forward as an administrator candidate. In what situations, if any, do you believe an administrator should invoke ignore all rules when justifying the use of advanced permissions?

A: In my opinion, IAR should practically never be invoked in an administrative capacity outside of a couple exceptions, namely invocations of WP:NOTBURO (such as WP:SNOW closures, and early closure of community ban discussions after a minimum of 24 hours instead of the typical 72 hours) and in cases where IAR is needed as a stopgap measure because something in the process went wrong (conflicting policies, an urgent block such as for a malfunctioning bot, etc.). Otherwise, I think it is essential for admin actions to be rooted in policies and guidelines, the most important of which is consensus. Curbon7 (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

7. Since the last admin election, the community has authorized and established a recall process. How has the addition of the recall petition affected your choices when choosing to run for the mop?

A: It did not affect my decision. I am glad there is a formal recall process, though in my opinion it needs some improvements. Curbon7 (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Optional question from ChildrenWillListen

8. How do you, as an administrator, plan to tackle the growing problem of editors inserting AI-generated content into articles?

A: AI-generated content is one of those things I think we just can't move an inch on, because its inclusion is an existential threat to the credibility of Wikipedia. For this question, I ran an experiment with Claude AI and asked it to create a Wikipedia-style article for the company a friend's father works for and to include citations. Some but not all references were hallucinated, but importantly for us many paragraphs were detected as "not AI" by GPTZero. A little worrisome, but we are still in the infancy period as evidenced by this NPR article I read last week. My view on AI-generated content in mainspace is very similar to WP:Large language models#Handling suspected LLM-generated content: it should almost always be removed (always in the case of BLPs), though an option for new articles is draftification citing WP:DRAFTREASON#2. Good-faith editors adding LLM-generated content who are "just trying to help" should be informed of our AI policies (for example, through the {{Uw-ai1}} series or a personal message), and if they still don't get it then they may just not have the competency required. Otherwise, our existing processes related to promotional editing and hoaxes, for example, are also applicable to bad-faith AI use. Curbon7 (talk) 04:40, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Optional question from CosXZ

9. How would you address a good faith editor who made a honest mistake?

A: A link I have had on my userpage for a long time is User:Ritchie333/How newbies see templates, and I think it really forms one of the cores of my Wikipedia philosophy. It is always important to put yourself – admin or non-admin – into the other editor's shoes, particularly with newer editors. For example, the first article I ever created had quite a few flaws ([2]), but the late great DGG sent me an encouraging message; in another early article, Cabayi gave me advice about MOS that I had not known. If they were more aggressive, I may not have continued editing. They put themselves in my shoes, understood I was a good-faith editor making some common pitfalls, they didn't patronize me or treat me like an idiot, and helped me through it. This is something that I carry through all areas of Wikipedia: is my comment helpful or is it useless?; should this article be Twinkle tagged or can I just fix the errors myself?; is this editor a UPE or not?; etc. Curbon7 (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Optional question from Ahecht

10. Since you appear to have a lot of experience at WP:ITN (1,500+ edits by my count), what are your feelings on the recent efforts to reform or even eliminate ITN?

A: I think ITN could certainly use some reform. A number of good ideas were floated in these two discussions (1 2), particularly clearer guidance on how event significance is defined. This discussion from earlier this month is a good sign that the ship has been steadying particularly in regards to civility. I would also add that the RD section – which as I mentioned in Q1 is where I am more focused on when it comes to ITN – functions quite smoothly, besides frequent backlogging. I see the value in a section like ITN as a way to highlight quality topical articles, and also note it is a way to engage new editors as mentioned here. It certainly has its flaws and things that need fixing, but is an overall net-positive. Curbon7 (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Optional question from The Squirrel Conspiracy

11. What is your perspective on Artificial Intelligence (AI) as it relates to Wikipedia?

A: As I mentioned in more detail in Q8, I think LLMs have no place in mainspace. I am not informed enough about the specifics of AI (I reckon I made a fool of myself in this VPWMF AI discussion!) to know what potential benefits we can derive from it. I think the WMF's AI summary plan and this musing by Jimbo are both quite bad ideas; I think if we were to utilize AI, it should be on the backend rather than anything involving readers/new editors and thus impacting our credibility. Now again I am not a computer whiz so I do not purport to understand how this all works, but we have algorithms like SuggestBot; maybe AI could be used to create similar – but more advanced – programs and editor tools? I am not sure, and these will certainly have to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Curbon7 (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Links for Curbon7: Curbon7 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Edit summary usage for Curbon7

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Please do not cast votes or issue any declarations of support/opposition here. This section is for neutral discussion. Voting will take place using SecurePoll from 23 July.

WP:AFD notes: n=1000+. Votes "keep" more than half of the time (given that most AfDs end in deletion, this is quite a strong preference in favour of keep). Nevertheless, not afraid to advocate for WP:TNT where necessary [3], or to use a WP:NOPAGE argument [4]. Extremely high match rate that clearly owes more to their well-argued !votes than any vote-stacking [5], [6]. Also worth pointing out this accurate not-quite-SK (SK is rarely argued correctly) [7]. A mildly yellow flag here [8], but given the context [9], well. Call it chartreuse. An excellent AfD record. -- asilvering (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
I'll add that they took one of their own creations to AFD after changing their mind about its notability. Another green flag, in my opinion—publicly changing your mind is hard, and getting past any sunk costs is harder. Likewise with listening to editors' recommendation for enabling 2FA after an account compromise. I think these indicate that Curbon7 will be excellent in responding to concerns about their admin actions. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
I'd like to mention that, in response to question 6, you mention early closures of community ban discussions as a valid use of IAR. Community bans, however, are the one thing that is unequivocally not a valid time to ignore the rules and specifically state that the discussion must be open for at least 24 hours. Otherwise, you could get a group of friends and get a bandwagon ban in on someone and close it before anybody noticed to oppose. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Hi Reaper Eternal. Let me clarify: I was citing from WP:CBAN which states For site bans, the discussion must be kept open for 72 hours except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours (emphasis mine). I view this early closure after 24 hours instead of the full 72 hours such an invocation of WP:NOTBURO. In sum, we are in agreeance that the typical minimum length is 72 hours, but they can be closed after a minimum of 24 hrs in snow cases. I have clarified this in my answer. It's not a true IAR as it is an explicit part of that policy, but I see it in the same spirit of NOTBURO. Curbon7 (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.