Closing comment. I've received a couple of requests to post a closing rationale. Whilst I don't think this RfA was a borderline call, I'm happy to add one. In closing this RfA, I applied the consensus reached in the December 2015 RfC that the range within which bureaucrat discretion would lie in closing RfAs would be 65-75%, in place of 70-80%. This RfA therefore lay numerically at the uppermost end of the discretionary range; indeed only a fraction of 1% within it.
The opposition to Oshwah's RFA was firm and uniform, it certainly was not the sort of opposition that ought to be disregarded. Nevertheless, it was not so weighty in my opinion to mean that there was no consensus to promote when taken in the context of the RfA discussion as a whole. In particular, I considered carefully the central part of the opposition, which related to NAC closes of unblock requests. This practice was rightly identified as problematic. However, as noted in the discussion, Oshwah had not previously been asked to refrain from such closes and agreed to do so once the problem was identified. Of those raising this issue, only a few criticised the closes themselves as opposed to the fact that they were done by a non-admin - others appeared to agree with the outcome of the unblock request reviews. WJBscribe (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)