User:Sue Rangell/RfA standards

This page shows the criteria that can influence me to support or oppose editors RFAs.

NOTE: There are exceptions where I might not vote according to these standards.

Things that will influence me to oppose.	Things that will influence me to vote neutral, or help me oppose/support.	Things that will influence me to support.
The editor has less than 7000 edits.	The editor has few edits to the Wikipedia space.	The editor has 15000 or more edits.
The majority of the editor's edits are automated.	The editor's User page is unsightly or unfriendly to new editors.	5000+ edits to the Mainspace.
The editor almost never uses edit summaries.	The editor uses edit summaries reasonably.	The editor uses edit summaries almost 100% of the time.
The editor tags articles incorrectly for CSD.	The editor isn't interested in CSD work.	The editor tags articles for CSD per policy.
The editor has been actively editing for less than 3 months.	The editor has been actively editing for 3-6 months.	The editor has been actively editing for more than 6 months.
The editor was blocked less than a year ago or has more than one block.	The editor was blocked more than a year ago and only has one block.	The editor has never been blocked.
The editor has a track record of being uncivil.	The editor is usually civil but can break when under pressure.	The editor is able to work well under pressure, and reacts civilly during disputes.
The editor answers questions uncivilly and interprets policy incorrectly. Or They just plain blatantly lie.	The editor answers questions in a way that shows that they don't fully understand the policy. Or They answer using "cut and paste" policy.	The editor answers questions politely and according to policy, but also tells how to interpret the policies and how they would use them.
The editor responds to opposes in an attacking manner and/or responds to almost every oppose.	The editor responds to serious opposes in a civil manner.	The editor has a history of being civil when attacked, not just at RfA
The editor views clearly adminship as power, or a status symbol.	The editor views adminship as a tool for maintenance.	The editor has turned down a nomination in the past.
The editor helps out with only a few topics or WikiProjects.	The editor helps out in various areas of the Wikipedia space, but usually sticks to one topic, or WikiProject.	The editor helps out in a wide range of topics and in various parts of Wikipedia.
The editor has closed XFDs inappropriately, and doesn't seem to have improved.	The editor has good knowledge of how to close XFDs and has closed them correctly.	The editor is bold in closing controversial XFDs and closes them correctly.
The editor does not think that it is necessary to make sure that BLPs are 100% correct and verified, and has possibly closed BLP AFDs as such, preferring to Delete rather than risk incorrect info in a BLP.	The editor appears to hold no opinion on the way BLPs are treated.	The editor views BLPs as needing to be 100% correct and verified, and their edits concur with these views. the editor views BLP AFDs as default to delete when there no consensus.