Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Please read Wikipedia:Autopatrolled before requesting or nominating another user for this right. Applicants are unlikely to be granted this right if they have created fewer than 25 new articles, excluding redirects and disambiguation pages. Note that this right will not help you create or patrol articles.
Broichmore has been around since 2009 and has produced 30 good quality and non-contentious articles, mostly about ships and historical figures. While not a high number of creations, the pace has increased this year. They are clearly aware of the notability requirements and I think are suitable for the autopatrolled right. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not done I'm not comfortable granting this flag at this time. Broichmore is doing some good work, but when they had finished with their latest creation, it looked like this, and required substantial work from a new page patroller, including an orange refimprove tag. Vanamonde (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but it looks from the edit history like someone else took it on before Broichmore could finish it. Isn't this permission mainly about the notability of the creations? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Philafrenzy: I wouldn't say so. NPP's primary function is to screen wholly unsuitable articles, but patrollers are also expected to review the content (see Wikipedia:New pages patrol). As such, if an editor is going to bypass it, we want them to be consistently creating articles that require no attention at all.
Also, 30 articles over nearly a decade isn't a creation rate that will have any appreciable impact on NPP, so I'd say that Broichmore has no demonstrated need for the right. – Joe (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps some explanation is required here. I was at a Wiki event and this article was created to showcase Chrome, its apps, especially Google translate, along with how to give attribution to the original foreign wiki editor from whose article this was translated etc. That's why the article is non-sequitur to my usual modus operandi, and uncharacteristic / unrepresentative of my work. The intention was to go home and sort out any outpoints, as it was inappropriate to follow through at the time. No one thought, that within 40 minutes someone would jump in and make the necessary changes to it, rather than flagged for speedy delete. By the time I got home there was nothing to do. I regret this exercise now. If your going to judge me I would have been happier if my work over several previous articles had been examined, rather than one. Also I have created 23 articles in less than two years. Does this plea make for any mitigation? Regards. Broichmore (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not done I'm not comfortable granting this flag at this time. Broichmore is doing some good work, but when they had finished with their latest creation, it looked like this, and required substantial work from a new page patroller, including an orange refimprove tag. Vanamonde (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Done Nice work! Schwede66 08:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)