Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Yanksox

Premature supports
I have been bold and deleted two supports that have appeared. I distincly recall criticism in the past for RfAs appearing already stacked up with supports. It was considered bulldozing, as no chance had been made available for any evolving debate about the candidate. I feel very confident about this RfA and think it will be very successful, but it is right to let the wider community have a chance to participate in that decision, not present them with a fait accompli. I realise the supports are being placed in good faith out of enthusiasm for the candidate, but I don't want to see it marred over all the wrong reasons. If I am wrong about this, or protocols have changed without my knowledge, then feel free to revert the deletions. I should say that I do not think for a moment that these slightly over-eager endorsements have been solicited by Yanksox. He's just not that sort of guy. Tyrenius 13:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As one of the "early voters" I apologize for jumping the gun. My endorsement was not solicited at all - I had the redlink of this RfA watchlisted because I felt Yanksox would make a good admin when/if he was nominated and wanted to make sure I didn't miss the RfA. Until reading the above I wasn't aware of any issues with early voting. Again, my apologies. --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Relax. No harm done. --Lord Deskana (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL Tensions! - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, same here. I voted "early", as well.  I apologise for jumping the gun, so to speak.  My endorsement was not at all solicited either.  I co-nominated him and figured I might as well vote for him too.  I wasn't aware of the controversy surrounding early voting either.  I'll make sure to wait until the RfA is a bit more visible when I cast my vote... again   hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 15:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No one here should be sorry, I am deeply flattered that people did this on their own will. I do believe that Tyrenius acted correctly since stocking support votes does not allow for a smooth debate that can mature. It is not fair to other users. I would recommend, if you still wish to leave your opinion in my RfA, to just watchlist this page and WP:RfA, as this should be done soon. I am sorry for being so late, RL has become really busy last couple of days, and it will ease back soon for me. Thanks to each and every one of you for even noticing this page. Yank  sox  05:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Rest assured, guys, you will all get to vote your supports in due time.=D Alphachimp  talk  05:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, he can count on mine, at least ;) To my watchlist it goes!  Phaedriel   ♥  The Wiki Soundtrack! ♪  - 12:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been checking this daily; I'm anxious for it to get off. I know, I know, people will probably think I have an extraordinary bias (25 months of being madly in love with this guy) - but it's exactly the other way around. If he was opposed and ultimately the RfA failed (which has NO chance of happening), maybe he'd get discouraged and, well, I'd benefit, but he's too good, too talented and too dedicated for anyone to vote oppose. Besides, I'm very proud of his work here, and he's getting good at separating RL and Wiki-time. :) So hurry up - I've already got my vote (SUPPORT!!!) & reasoning prepared. Just kidding, I know it takes time. I have very little patience. :P Srose (talk)  15:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * lol. Alphachimp  talk  15:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * ''It appears Alphachimp inadvertently deleted a lot of the prior commentary when leaving the last comment, so I have put it back in. Agent 86 15:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * wow. I have no idea how something like that could've happened. Sorry guys. (I'm surprised I didn't get warned by Tawkerbot2) Alphachimp  talk  17:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Accidents happen! It's obvious you weren't being malicious. Agent 86 17:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)