This is my general RFA criteria, which has been the basis for most of my RFA !votes. I don't usually participate in RFA's where the outcome is obvious (<50% or >95%), unless I have something I need to say; so if you see me in your RFA, then you probably knew you'd be getting opposition from someone. Whether that includes me depends on what follows here.

Things I care about, in no particular order.

1. Regular editing over a consistent period of time. I want active admins, not on again, off again admins.
2. Knowing the fundamentals of the policy areas you intend on being most admin-y in. I need to be able to trust you with the button you plan on using the most.
3. Some experience, and an overall good record in admin-y areas. This is why you want to be an admin, right?
4. Civility. This is a very subjective criteria and others at RFA are better at finding examples of incivility than I am, but users who have EVER been blocked or banned will face tough scrutiny on this measure from me.

I generally default towards a support !vote if you do well on these and have no major failings, but a big failure in one can lead to a neutral !vote, and failing in 2 or more will probably lead to a neutral !vote if you strongly pass the other 2, otherwise it will be an oppose !vote.

Things I don't care about, in no particular order.

1. Number of edits. RFA isn't about who has the better set of numbers, it's about giving you access to extra buttons and whether you can be trusted with those buttons.
2. Content creation. I don't care about FAs, GAs, DYKs, or number of articles created. If this is your biggest strength, focus on making more great content for the encyclopedia please.
3. Who you're nominated by. I'm !voting on YOU, not your friends and colleagues. I also don't care if you self-nominate.
4. That one mistake you made a few months ago. We all make mitsakes, and we all make edits that go against policy every now and then.