This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community.

Shortcuts WP:NETPOSITIVEWP:NETPOSITIVE WP:NETPOSWP:NETPOS

This page in a nutshell: If granting admin tools to a user is going to produce more help than harm to Wikipedia then the user should be supported in that request.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship is a process to determine if the community believes that a given editor is capable of dealing with the tools that come with adminship, and the implication of the outcome of application of those tools.

Whilst there are a number of extra functions granted to admins, blocking, deleting and protecting are the most "visible".

• It is probable, and desirable, that a new administrator will start using the Block, Protect and Delete tools in an area they have expressed interest in.
• It is probable, although not certain, that a new administrator will make mistakes.
• It is possible, although much less certain, that any given new administrator will make severe mistakes.
• It is possible, although unlikely, that any given new administrator will use their tools for things found either undesirable or simply against policy (e.g. pushing a particular point of view).

Given that mistakes may happen, a secondary consideration should be whether (accidental or otherwise) misuse of the tools outweighs positive and proper use of the tools.

Of course "more help than harm" in terms of administrative actions is explicitly not numerical; 51 good deletions v. 49 bad ones is not "more help than harm".

If you are commenting at RFA and find that a given candidate's ability to use the tools correctly (i.e. within policy, guideline and consensus) is likely to provide a greater benefit to the project than the consequences of their abuse or misuse of the tools, then a net positive applies and the candidate should be supported in their request.

• Wikipedia:Disruptive sanctions