Ranking Update has over 9,000 edits with nearly 70% of them in the article namespace, and has created 100 articles as of the time of writing. The user also has one GA credit on the English Wikipedia and two other GAs and three FAs on other Wikipedias. While some of the articles created on islands may not include proper referencing, they are fitting stubs that certainly do not meet any criteria for deletion. Other articles created seem well-sourced and finely constructed. I very much believe user can be trusted to not submit inappropriate material. — MusikAnimaltalk17:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for bringing that up, as I was unaware of it. My reasoning for recommending the autopatrolled right was purely to reduce the massive workload of patrollers. I didn't go through them all, but the one-sentenced stubs I saw were about geographic locations and included informative infoboxes, which should easily be verifiable (though the candidate should know to always add references). As such, I don't see how any of the articles meet a WP:DEL-REASON, so to a patroller we'd merely tag the article for maintenance if need be and move on. Perhaps I'm wrong in thinking that warrants the autopatrolled right, and if so I'll learn from this mistake. Cheers — MusikAnimaltalk19:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'l leave this for another admin (other admin, do as you see fit; don't worry about stepping on my toes), but my thoughts are that autopatrolled is for editors whose creations need no intervention from NPP. Unsourced articles don't meet that description. I think most admins would take a similar view, but I'll defer to the judgement of whoever decides this. Armbrust: thanks for being the institutional memory. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Same reason as before, if you continue to make reliably sourced non-stub articles please feel free to request the right, until then NPPers still need to review articles you create. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. Short articles that do not take up much patrollers' time to review. Based on one specific topic they do not demonstrate that the creator is fully conversant will policies and guidelines and one article (BLP) is tagged as requiring attention. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have been around on Wikipedia for a while now and has made a lot of edits. Only one new article created (a bit low I know, but I have create some templates as well) but I am planing on creating article for notable football players. I am active in WP:FOOTY and aware of all the criteria for the articles and know to source everything well and what is notable or not. Discuss this with other editors almost on a dayly basis. As I said I have not made more than one new article so far but this could ease the workload for new page patrollers in the coming months. QED237(talk)21:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done We need to see that you can create articles which are within policy before we give you this userright. Once you've written around 50 non-stub articles which comply with Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines you are welcome to reapply. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Same reason as before, if you continue to make reliably sourced non-stub articles please feel free to request the right, until then NPPers still need to review articles you create. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)