Note: I do not ever plan on ever running for adminship ever. I just wanted to define my stance on the RfA stuffs, so that I a) keep it all in one place and b) should anyone ever wonder why I voted as I did, I can send them here instead of (probably) repeating myself. Cool beans?

• I dont mind if someone uses anti-vandal tools alot. If it makes their life easier while simultaneously helping the greater good, then more power to them
• I dont mind if someone is not a "balanced" wikipedian. I do a little bit of everything, mostly because I get bored easily, but if someone is very good at either gnoming or vandal work, then so be it. I, for one, wouldnt want someone dabblin g in something that they dont like to do. Might cause an issue.
• I dont mind admin coaching. If you have it in your mind that you want to be an admin, I'd much rather you learn the ropees before someone hands you the extra buttons than the other way around.

Note: None of these things, individually, are automatic dealbreakers

• I mind excessive edits within a few minute period... I'm mostly referring to the case of folks who dont like the preview button, and sometimes do that kinda thing for the sole purpose of running up their edit count. While this is by no means a deal breaker, it does get on my last nerve. Yeah, that one right there. Dont touch it.
• I mind radical deletionists/inclusionists. By all means, you are free to have your own wikiosophy, but people who are very polar tend to make me nervous.
• I mind your age. Sorry. If you're under the age of around 17ish, in the US, you are probably not going to be held accountable for your actions should any legality come up. You can be as mature as you want to be, and most people do surprise me with their level of clarity and poise, but I'm really not comfortable with that kind of power being handed over to someone who cant legally vote.
• I mind over zealous folks who aspire to be admins. The ones who have the, "I want to be an admin someday" UBX... those are the folks that keep it as a goal, a "next level to be attained" mentality. Thats not to say that I mind admin coaching... I already said that I dont mind that. I'm talking about the ones who treat it as a golden god... those are the folks who will most likely be the ones with the power trips.
• I mind repeated acts of incivility. Once or twice, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But after that, we have some issues that go hand in hand with having the power to block.
• I mind it when the candidate badgers the opposes. Not a very good sign for the future.
• I mind the drama.
• I mind treating the wiki like a myspace/facebook/IRC channel/water cooler. Sure, you make friends on here, and converse, but lets try to keep it all wiki related, shall we? Dont post on someone's talk page about your new updated blog post, your horrible date, your lack of hair, or anything else that doesn't, at least tangentially, deal with the wiki. I dont want to see an entire one on one conversation with your bff on your talk page. Thats what a phone is for.
• I mind excessive userspace contributions. You either add to the wiki, or work on upkeep. You don't need tools if you're just going to make your userpage pretty.
• I mind outer wiki conversation. If you have to take it to IRC or through email, then it shouldnt be said. Nothing should be kept private except your identity, should you choose to do so. If it deals with the wiki, all should be able to see it, as it deals with all of us either directly or indirectly.
• If you're ratio between # of RfAs and # of months passed since last one are in the +.25 range, you're asking for an oppose from me, unless its your first RfA. (Example: 4 RfAs in 8 months is a ratio of .5 while 2 RfAs in 8 months is a ratio of .25)
• Wont commit to CAT:AOR. If you wont trust the community to desysop you... why should you trust it to give you the bit in the first place? Doesnt exactly evoke a sense of trust or trustworthiness. Makes me nervous. This is a deal breaker

I tend to !vote if I have seen the person around, had personal interaction with the person, or if the RfA is particularly dramatic. If there is an overwhelming sense that the candidate is going to pass, there is generally no need for me to !vote on it. But if I see something is in the red zone, I'll take a look and give the person the benefit of the doubt.

I, like many, view the RfA process as a delicate balance between a popularity contenst, the LSATs, a lynch mod, and being able to gently fly under the radar. It has giant holes which need to be fixed, but dont have the slightest clue on how that should/could be fixed. I just know it should be. I wish there was a way in which we could give an apptitude test in order to weed out unqualified candidates (noobs), but I dont imagine that would even begin to account for the crazed lynch mob mentality that seems to permiate from particularly dramatic RfAs. Alas, we are stuck... and as such, must make do with what we have.