> he's explaining that acting responsible puts him in positions of responsibility
It could be taken that way, but the problem is that the author deliberately puts it in terms that make that ambiguous.
A much less ambiguous way to put it would have been:
1. Help out an existing admin by fixing something they care about fixing but are too busy to fix themselves.
2. Repeat step 1. enough times that there is general recognition in the organization that you can fix problems and will do so responsibly.
3. Approach the powers that be and point to your track record established in steps 1. and 2. as evidence that (a) another admin is needed to help carry the load, and (b) you are the right person for that job.
4. Get appointed as an admin.
The author's process might be essentially the same as the above, but it might not; there are various signs in his writeup of the latter, that might be valid signs or might just be his whimsical way of speaking. And if his process isn't the same as the above, then he's doing more than just acting responsible and thereby earning positions of responsibility.
Where the real divergence comes is this:
"8. Make sure to keep helping out anyone who wants to fix problems with the system. If you become a roadblocker, you will allow someone else to do step #1 and you might lose your access when that person reaches step #6."
Notice that in my steps 1. through 4. above, no existing admins get punted. So there's no need for someone who reaches my step 4. to take steps to prevent others from starting at my step 1. and working their way through the process. And someone who was genuinely concerned for the well-being of the organization would be open to the possibility that, just as the admins who were there before him weren't able to take care of all the problems, there might come a time when the admins including him might not be able to either.
It could be taken that way, but the problem is that the author deliberately puts it in terms that make that ambiguous.
A much less ambiguous way to put it would have been:
1. Help out an existing admin by fixing something they care about fixing but are too busy to fix themselves.
2. Repeat step 1. enough times that there is general recognition in the organization that you can fix problems and will do so responsibly.
3. Approach the powers that be and point to your track record established in steps 1. and 2. as evidence that (a) another admin is needed to help carry the load, and (b) you are the right person for that job.
4. Get appointed as an admin.
The author's process might be essentially the same as the above, but it might not; there are various signs in his writeup of the latter, that might be valid signs or might just be his whimsical way of speaking. And if his process isn't the same as the above, then he's doing more than just acting responsible and thereby earning positions of responsibility.
Where the real divergence comes is this:
"8. Make sure to keep helping out anyone who wants to fix problems with the system. If you become a roadblocker, you will allow someone else to do step #1 and you might lose your access when that person reaches step #6."
Notice that in my steps 1. through 4. above, no existing admins get punted. So there's no need for someone who reaches my step 4. to take steps to prevent others from starting at my step 1. and working their way through the process. And someone who was genuinely concerned for the well-being of the organization would be open to the possibility that, just as the admins who were there before him weren't able to take care of all the problems, there might come a time when the admins including him might not be able to either.