Here is my special little criteria I use when I judge a candidate for adminship, this is not a checklist as it is just natural to check for these things, the criteria is also not written in stone and can be given to exceptions.
RC patrol:Always a plus with me, but hey... no big deal if thats not your thing. I mean there are 48,309,412 out there, they don't all have to be vandal fighters!
Time: I'm very big on the length of time editing the site. I became an admin in only about three months of solid editing. So the more the better, but if the user clearly shows tools won't be abused... then no worries. :)
Wikispace:Must be rather high, Wikispace is vital, and must be involved in XFD's even if it is just once and a while. Admins can use the "delete" button, so they should understand the process of XFD's.
Featured?:Arjun does not judge a candidate negativly if they have no Featured material, whether it be portals, articles, lists or pics. However it is always a grand plus. In a nutshell no 1FA criteria will be judged on you.
Civility: an absolute must, the candidate should be civil at all times. Admins go through a lot of #*%! which requires a civil outlook and must be calm and not let the vandals/trolls get under their skins.
User talk: must be a good total of edits, I prefer admins who interact with other users/admins. The candidate must not be afraid to ask questions.
Email: would be a big plus if it is enabled, I would however never oppose if it isn't.
Wars: must not edit war, edit warring is counter productive and doesn't help wikipedia at all. Basically any major quarreling with other editors could be a severe red flag in my eyes.
RFA Process must handle the RFA process professionally and with respect. I'm not a huge fan of people who advertise their RFA, just doesn't seem professional. Also good answers to questions is very important.
