I was recently asked what my criteria for RfA is, and as I've become more involved with the process, I want to give some idea about why I would support, oppose or go neutral. Naturally, some admin candidates express no interest in certain areas -- some content builders will only need the tools for the odd G6 deletion, and the odd block after final warning. These non-typical admins should not be excluded; whether or not people believe it, it is not a big deal when you know how to use them. However, as this is now one of the most popular websites in the world, these tools can have a dramatic effect on what millions of users see every day. In that regard, it is a big deal. Here is a breakdown of my thoughts on what I'd like to see in a potential admin.
Evidence of clear, civil communication with other editors (yes, even vandals). It's important to keep a cool head. If your head has been bitten off by a user because you tagged their article for speedy deletion, and you respond with the same vigour, you will only exacerbate the situation. As an admin working in CSD, new-user fury will come at a faster pace when actually deleting articles. Therefore, if you communicate kindly and understandingly with new users, even when they are not, you will likely have my support. If the candidate fails to show evidence of consistent communication (low talk page edits, for example; or a history of negative communication), I will not support.
Communication through userboxes and userpages is also something I take into account. Userboxes with statements of candidate beliefs and values do not bother me. However, when they directly or indirectly attack the counter-view or opinion, I will oppose. Say if a user needed help and wanted to come to the candidate. Then they saw a userbox that attacked their opinions. Would they want to come to you? No.
It is important. If the candidate wishes to take on more admin work, experience is shown through successful application of the policies above. I will oppose if I don't think the candidate has enough experience. "Learning as you go" is fine, but silly mistakes can be avoided when more experience is developed. As a non-admin, there is an administrator to decline a block, or a speedy, if the report is made in error. As an admin, you're effectively on your own.
Trust is a necessity. If I don't trust the candidate for a reason valid at RfA, I will oppose, and provide a full reason for it. This will almost certainly never be personal, but maturity is an important part of being an admin. If the candidate is not mature as a user of an editor, I will oppose. Age doesn't matter. An editor can be 11 and be more mature than an editor of 33. As long as the job is done, and done well, I will support an admin candidate even if they openly declare their age. Be aware, though, that some older users, especially new users, will find it uneasy communicating with someone so young, but that's not a reason to oppose.
Gah, I know we all hate that phrase. I will oppose RfAs in which the only purpose is to step up the ladder. These RfAs happen rarely, so it's not really a fundamental concern. However, I will oppose candidates who show a clear misunderstanding about what adminship is all about. This includes a higher power above others; those who feel admin powers would give them a stronger voice during content disputes; or those who see adminship as a status symbol. It's a user group, not a cabal. Those who think that they will be invited into some secret order after their bid for adminship are in for a disappointing surprise.
Self-nominations don't bother me one bit. So what? I don't think a candidate deserves to be opposed purely because there is no nominator to sing their praises.
Candidates who wish to work in a certain area will likely receive my support. Developers need access to the protected MediaWiki namespace, and other fully-protected pages. Those who work at DYK will want access to the protected T:DYK. I will support if the candidate has had a good, solid history with that area.
I will abstain by !voting neutral if the candidate has shown good application of the criteria above, but fails certain aspects. I will explain why at the time (good, solid interaction, but not enough experience, for example), but my feelings about it won't be strong enough to oppose. Essentially, a neutral is a vote of confidence; if the RfA passes, it will not worry me too much, but I would advise caution for that area. However, the concerns would be valid enough not to throw my full support behind the candidate.
If I have not had personal interactions with the user, or seen them around, I will check a full selection of recent contributions (500-1000). If I have not done that, I will not contribute. It is not because I don't care about the outcome, it's because I haven't had time to fully check.
The summary is summed up by User:Pedro. Is the candidate equipped with admin tools a net positive for the project? If yes, then it's a support. If no, then it's an oppose. If they will be soon, with a bit more work in certain areas to address valid concerns, then it's a neutral. Here are the details spelled out, in case anyone is interested in what I look for in a candidate.