Statement by closing bureaucrat
I have some comments and observations to make about this RfA and my evaluation of the discussion it contains. There have been various suggestions that this RfA should be either forshortened or extended. I have rejected both courses of action. It was always important for this RfA to run at least its full course, canvassing not withstanding, to ensure that a significant proportion of the community were in a position to evaluate this request. As to an extension, the fact that this candidate had edited previously under names he did not propose to disclose was openly stated in the nomination. Requests for details of the prior block log were responded to promptly. I also note that those who have been determined to discover the identity of the prior account seem to have been able to do so. It is my conclusion that 7 days were an adequate period of time for participants to determine whether they were willing to support a candidate in the circumstances.
To address the question of whether the opinions of supporters should be given less weight because they were not necessarily in possession of the "full picture", it seems to me that they were at all times free to withhold their support or oppose if they were uncomfortable supporting this request as stated. The decision to accept assurances about the nature of the past account without needing to review it themselves is I think a valid one, and I do not think it my role to assess whether or not this was a wise decision on their part.
I am saddened by the sockpuppetry and canvassing that has surrounded this request. My thanks to Rlevse and those checkusers involved in identifying instances where multiple accounts have been abused in the course of this RfA. The number of accounts for whom this is the first RfA they have expressed an opinion on, and which have been inactive for some time prior to doing so is concerning. Though such accounts are present both among the supporters and opponents of this candidacy, they represent a disproportionate percentage of the latter compared to the former.
Ultimately, I believe there is a consensus here to promote Cirt and I do not regard this as being in any way a borderline call, despite the controversy that has surrounded the request. Ultimately this discussion turns on a single issue - whether people were willing to support this candidate despite misconduct committed in the past with an undisclosed account. Whilst the reasons for being unwilling to do so were totally reasonable - and consistent - across opposers, they formed a clear minority of opinion about this request. Each commentator was in a position to determine whether they were satisfied with the information available and to decide accordingly.
WJBscribe (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]