*:::Yeah seconded afd !votes are not crucial for closing and other tasks which they may perform as admin. <span style=”background-color: Black; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;”>[[User:GothicGolem29|<span style=”color: Aqua”>GothicGolem29</span>]] [[User talk:GothicGolem29|<span style=”color: Lime”>(Talk)</span>]]</span> 13:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
*:::Yeah seconded afd !votes are not crucial for closing and other tasks which they may perform as admin. <span style=”background-color: Black; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;”>[[User:GothicGolem29|<span style=”color: Aqua”>GothicGolem29</span>]] [[User talk:GothicGolem29|<span style=”color: Lime”>(Talk)</span>]]</span> 13:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
*:::: In the past low participation at AfD has been a major reason for oppose !votes in RfAs. Lets see how it pans out in elections. —usernamekiran [[User talk:usernamekiran|(talk)]] 13:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
*:::: In the past low participation at AfD has been a major reason for oppose !votes in RfAs. Lets see how it pans out in elections. —usernamekiran [[User talk:usernamekiran|(talk)]] 13:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
*:::A lack of understanding surrounding the AfD process (which one could argue is seen in the above diffs) is fairly critical. Especially an apparent lack of understanding re: [[WP:NEVENT]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2025_Davao_City_local_elections]). [[User:Aesurias|aesurias]] ([[User talk:Aesurias|talk]]) 13:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
<noinclude>[[Category:Wikipedia administrator elections December 2025 candidates|Bunnypranav]]</noinclude>
<noinclude>[[Category:Wikipedia administrator elections December 2025 candidates|Bunnypranav]]</noinclude>
Bunnypranav (talk · contribs) – Hi folks, it is my pleasure to nominate Bunnypranav for adminship in this AELECT cycle. Bunny’s contributions exemplify the spirit of a true wikignome; they quietly perform the essential, behind-the-scenes work that keeps the encyclopedia and the broader Wikimedia ecosystem running smoothly. My first interaction with them was as part of implementing technical changes to the PageTriage extension, where they contributed fixes to common issues encountered during page tagging (for example, adding the ability to tag a page as G15). Since then, I’ve seen them take on changes as part of the site requests process on Phabricator, which often requires folks to stay up at odd hours at night to deploy changes on production wikis, in addition to knowledge of the technical configurations used on Wikimedia and a good eye for consensus. They’ve also contributed fixes to MediaWiki core to a variety of annoying bugs related to the Watchlist expiry feature (like the inability to select an expiry when moving a page) and helped make messages easier for non-technical editors to parse. All through this, my impression of them as a capable technical editor has only grown.
On the English Wikipedia side of things, I have seen them grow, starting with AFC and NPP work, running bots and even recently promoting 2 DYKs and a GA, 
I am thrilled to recommend Bunny for the mop. In his jam-packed time on the project, Bunny has come to be an indispensable part of the team working on taming the Sisyphean backlog at categories for discussion. Regularly closing dozens of discussions a day, he is currently the primary closer at that venue and has accumulated a large portfolio of clueful, complex non-admin closures. The CFD team really needs all the help we can get, and with a mop Bunny can directly implement his own closures (and help with implementing non-admin closures!). Beyond CFD, and in addition to the excellent work Sohom mentions above, Bunny is a volunteer newcomer mentor, helping answer questions and calmly guiding people through the challenge that is contributing to Wikipedia for the first time. He does similar work at the volunteer response team with the same exemplary thought and care that he demonstrates in his on-wiki interactions. In my interactions with Bunny, he is unfailingly polite and able to carefully articulate his viewpoint. He is not afraid to change his mind; he is also not afraid to stick to his guns when the situation calls for it. All of these are excellent qualities to have in an administrator, and Bunny has my enthusiastic endorsement in this election 🙂 HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with sincere thanks to Sohom and HouseBlaster. 🙂 ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Please disclose whether you have ever edited Wikipedia for pay: I have never edited for pay. My only other accounts are BunnypranavClone (talk · contribs) and BunnysBot (talk · contribs) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
[edit]
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: I wish to assist in reducing the chronic backlogs in a couple of specific areas. Most of my admin work would be in closing and listing discussions at categories for discussion, which has very few admins active there. Having the tools is particularly helpful at CfD because a number of routine post-close steps are significantly more efficient for admins. Non-admins have to route everything through WT:CFDW, which adds extra coordination and slows the processing of even straightforward unanimous discussions by several days. With the bit, I directly edit WP:CFDW, helping keep the workflow moving without bottlenecks. It also allows me to implement cases which require a mix of bot assisted actions and manual admin action, like speedy deletion and moving a category page before the bot shifts around pages, as well as handling the associated cleanup work, such as checking incoming links and removing completed entries from WP:CFDW. I do not plan to do any other XfD closes.Beyond CfD, I would love to be able to assist in the more technical areas of adminship, like fully protected edit requests in the MediaWiki namespace. I have made a fair share of MediaWiki namespace edit requests, and I am also interested in working on adminbots to help automate what are often repetitive maintenance tasks for admins. One such task is removing completed listings from the working page of CfD after checking for backlinks which is a routine chore that currently places a recurring burden on only a handful of administrators. Another chronic admin backlog is permissions requests. Continuing my work on the backend maintenance areas of Wikipedia, I would like to help out other users who wish to do the same, by granting them extended permissions like page mover, AWB, and AfC. I have no intentions to grant permission in areas I am not well-versed with, like autopatrolled.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I have been involved in Wikipedia’s maintenance work, more or less, since I started editing. I am currently one of the primary closers of CfDs. This includes everything from straightforward, unanimous discussions to complex bundled nominations requiring manual implementation Some of them require a mix of bot assisted actions and manual admin action, like speedy deletion and moving a category page before the bot shifts around pages; these are the times where non-admin closures become tougher to implement.As part of other maintenance work, I regularly fulfill edit-requests, close RMs, and action on WP:RM/TR requests. I run a bot (User:BunnysBot) that helps fix CW Error #61 (reference before punctuation) and CW Error #03: (missing reference list), in addition to other non-cosmetic CW errors. It has also done several runs on WikiProject tagging for pages a couple times. Content-wise, I have helped promote
- A: I have been involved in Wikipedia’s maintenance work, more or less, since I started editing. I am currently one of the primary closers of CfDs. This includes everything from straightforward, unanimous discussions to complex bundled nominations requiring manual implementation Some of them require a mix of bot assisted actions and manual admin action, like speedy deletion and moving a category page before the bot shifts around pages; these are the times where non-admin closures become tougher to implement.As part of other maintenance work, I regularly fulfill edit-requests, close RMs, and action on WP:RM/TR requests. I run a bot (User:BunnysBot) that helps fix CW Error #61 (reference before punctuation) and CW Error #03: (missing reference list), in addition to other non-cosmetic CW errors. It has also done several runs on WikiProject tagging for pages a couple times. Content-wise, I have helped promote
- 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: My first step in any type of conflict is to assume good faith and try to resolve the issue through clear, civil discussion on the respective talk pages. I always stop reverting and start discussing with the people involved. I always try my best to follow WP:1RR in all of my actions, even if that restriction is not placed on the page. An example of a content dispute that comes to mind is Talk:Gilgit-Baltistan § India WikiLink in lead section, where I disagreed with another editor on how MOS:OVERLINK applies to country names in a politically sensitive context. When the disagreement persisted, we asked for a Third Opinion, which supported adding the link for consistency. That resolved the issue without further conflict.When any objection is raised regarding my CfD closures, I try my best to respond promptly, explaining my closure until a point of mutual understanding (which sometimes includes modifying my close). Sometimes I just clarify my close, occasionally our discussion results in a follow-up nomination, and other times I am persuaded to modify my closure.
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-four section headers, not boldface.
- 4. Could you point me to a closure or two that shows how you evaluate consensus in unclear cases? (Intentionally leaving that open-ended, but maybe a closure where you reached a surprising outcome, went against the numbers, and/or had to give a detailed explanation of how you weighed the !votes.)
- A:
- 5. Why did you choose to go through Admin elections instead of RfA?
- A: I find the admin elections less stressful, especially due to the presence of other candidates running with me. Instead of feeling like a high-stakes individual examination, this is a part of a broader community discussion about several prospective admins, which is a far better way to seek the tools.
- 6. Which admin action do you feel is the most sensitive and why?
- A: “Sensitive” can mean very different things depending on how one interprets the scope of admin work, so I can’t state a single action that sits at the top. If we’re looking at the technical abilities of administrators, blocks are certainly among the most sensitive. They can have an immediate and far-reaching impact on an editor’s ability to participate as well alter the course of a discussion the editor may have participated in or have been the subject of.Keeping aside technical abilities, closing complex and contentious discussions at venues like ANI is another good example. These closures can significantly shape community norms, resolve disputes, and set precedents, so getting them right is necessary and requires a solid understanding of consensus and existing policy.
- 7. How do you feel about editors using LLMs to generate content?
- A: WP:NEWLLM explicitly prohibits using large language models to generate new articles from scratch, and I think that prohibition is necessary. Despite being used in moderation and with human oversight, LLMs have a high tendency to to inject subtle, but not negligible, amounts of hallucinations, factual inaccuracies, and copyright violations. The burden of verifying this is on the person generating and prompting the LLM, who often fail to identify such violations. LLM is infamous for generating content that “looks good” and “sounds fluent and polished,” and therefore manages to slip through unnoticed. While I agree LLMs can be useful tools for editing and copywriting, it requires significant and consistent vigilance before publishing. At present, that is unfortunately not being done in many cases.
- 8. Do you feel that Wikipedia’s policies regarding LLM usage are adequate?
- A: Yes and no. There is a framework in place with WP:NEWLLM and WP:G15, but these are not enough to deal with the constant barrage of harmful LLM generated content. I believe that the more difficult problem is detection, not policy writing. The G15 criterion is good in theory, but the three indicators leave a lot of room for bad actors and careless editors to technically bypass the criteria, but still be completely unfit for inclusion in Wikipedia. We need to work on developing reliable and accurate tools for detecting LLM content and edits and update the policies to defend against such content, which I know is easier said than done.
- 9. What is your opinion on admin recall generally?
- A: I support the idea of community-based admin recall in principle. Administrators are entrusted with their tools by the community, and there should be a clear mechanism for that same community to review and, if required, revoke those tools outside the formal ArbCom way. That being said, I acknowledge that there is definitely a lot of room for improvement. A few suggestions I have for its reform are shortening the duration from 30 days, adding a holding period between filing a petition and when others can sign it to allow for cooling down. While we are yet to collect enough data about how many signatures are correlated with RRfA chances, an increase in the number of signatures required is definitely something to consider.
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 here. The voting phase will use SecurePoll and will occur on December 9–15 UTC. |
- Notes on AfD participation: n=82. Their only recent !vote is this brief one: [1]. Otherwise, we’re looking at 6 months back or earlier. But these raise some real WP:BEFORE concerns: [2], [3], and, most astonishingly, [4]. They do have other nominations that are brief and uncontroversial: [5], [6]. Their !votes are not substantial, even amidst substantial discussion: [7], [8]. They have only ever argued for keep once, in October 2024: [9]. — asilvering (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- I’m really sorry to say this, but this is not an encouraging record, especially not for an admin candidate coming from NPP. However, like their nominators, I can speak to their helpful work and commitment to various back-end processes. One I’m surprised that none of the three have mentioned is Bunnypranav’s current work as a co-ordinator of the ongoing December AFC drive, which has already taken a big chunk out of the backlog. — asilvering (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- AfD !votes are fortunately not critical to how they would act on closing other tasks or working in other Admin areas. Conyo14 (talk) 05:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah seconded afd !votes are not crucial for closing and other tasks which they may perform as admin. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 13:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- In the past low participation at AfD has been a major reason for oppose !votes in RfAs. Lets see how it pans out in elections. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- A lack of understanding surrounding the AfD process (which one could argue is seen in the above diffs) is fairly critical. Especially an apparent lack of understanding re: WP:NEVENT ([10]). aesurias (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah seconded afd !votes are not crucial for closing and other tasks which they may perform as admin. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 13:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- AfD !votes are fortunately not critical to how they would act on closing other tasks or working in other Admin areas. Conyo14 (talk) 05:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- I’m really sorry to say this, but this is not an encouraging record, especially not for an admin candidate coming from NPP. However, like their nominators, I can speak to their helpful work and commitment to various back-end processes. One I’m surprised that none of the three have mentioned is Bunnypranav’s current work as a co-ordinator of the ongoing December AFC drive, which has already taken a big chunk out of the backlog. — asilvering (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
