Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Apteva

Caution: Replication lag is high, changes newer than 19 hours, 11 minutes, 6 seconds may not be shown. Username:	Apteva User groups:	autoreviewer, rollbacker First edit:	May 29, 2008 01:58:38 Unique pages edited:	947 Average edits per page:	3.95 Live edits:	3,686 Deleted edits:	57 Total edits (including deleted):	3,743

Namespace Totals Article	2113	57.33% Talk	585	15.87% User	91	2.47% User talk	242	6.57% Wikipedia	233	6.32% Wikipedia talk	297	8.06% File	6	0.16% Template	104	2.82% Template talk	9	0.24% Category	6	0.16%

Month counts User has not yet opted in. If you want to see graphs, please create User:Apteva/EditCounterOptIn.js with any content. Alternatively, you can create meta:User:Apteva/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js to opt-in across all Wikimedia wikis. Top edited pages User has not yet opted in. If you want to see graphs, please create User:Apteva/EditCounterOptIn.js with any content. Alternatively, you can create meta:User:Apteva/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js to opt-in across all Wikimedia wikis.

I've restored the candidate's closing comments
This RfB was SNOW-closed as it clearly was not going to pass. I have no quarrel with the closure, although I had just noted that I'd posted to the candidate's talkpage urging withdrawal, and I'd have personally preferred to give him a little time to consider that option first.

The candidate has now come to the RfB, and answered a question about why he filed the RfB, in the process acknowledging that the RfB is closed and saying that he will apply again some day.

Another user has twice reverted the candidate's addition of these answers, on the ground that he should not be editing a closed RfB. While this is by-the-book correct, I think that under the circumstances, the candidate should be given the dignity of having these answers appear on the page. This is partly for the sake of closure and partly so there will be an explanation in the event it's ever necessary to look back on this RfB someday (such as if there is a future RfA or permissions request by the candidate). And after all, the candidate could have objected to the SNOW close, had the RfB reopened, and then posted that he was withdrawing. The way things worked out achieves more-or-less the same result without the (no pun intended) bureaucracy.

Accordingly, I have restored the candidate's answers, and I ask that they not be removed again. See generally, if necessary, Ignore all rules. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think what happened is I was composing responses when the RfB was closed, and do not see that it was appropriate to have had them deleted, and was not aware that they had been deleted. I then went on to answer the questions and thank everyone for their participation. Even though I knew that this was editing a close RfB, it added context, that is certainly worth keeping. But deleted twice? I missed that. That is over the top. Apteva (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)