This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

A series of DRVs have been speedy-closed recently ( 1 2 & 3 4 5 6) which were listed by editors editing whilst not logged in. The closure was generally expressed as being because the non-logged in editor was in fact registered but choosing to hide his/her identity.

Mentioning main closers User:Spartaz User:RoySmith User:Sandstein (Yes, I'm self-reporting as well.)

Is this a de-facto policy that users must use a registered account to list at DRV? Stifle ( talk) 10:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

In the one case in which I speedily closed the DRV that was because I considered that the request was likely in violation of our sockpuppet policy. No opinion about the other cases, although it appears that the requests were mainly considered disruptive for reasons other than having been made by an IP. In principle, as far as I know, IPs editing in good faith are allowed to make deletion review requests.  Sandstein  11:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• The one I closed yesterday wa s aclear case (on the balance of probability) of being a registered user or otherwise experienced user using an IP to avoid scrutiny. The only two edits were related to longevity situations (DRV and AE case). In good faith we should know who we are dealing with. That said, good faith IP editors with a bit of history are more than welcome. One of the most sensible reviewers at DRV is an IP and I consider their view as valid as anyone elses. The difference being that they have a history and are not using DRV as a platform to pursue a wider grudge. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• On 2nd January I speedy-closed one where the nominator only registered his account that morning. The subject was Donald Trump and fascism, and AGF isn't a suicide pact. I think the true situation is that anyone including an IP editor is welcome to raise a deletion review but nominations about highly controversial subjects, when made by IP editors or brand new accounts, are subject to speedy closure.— S Marshall T/ C 12:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• I certainly wouldn't want a blanket policy which says IPs are forbidden to use DRV. On the other hand, my bullshit meter has a very low threshold. I have absolutely no problem with speedy-closing a DRV if it looks like the poster is trying to game the system. That includes pretending to be a newbie (either IP or new account) when their actions demonstrate that they in fact have been around for a while. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Echoing the above, there shouldn't be any general rule against IPs starting DRVs, but requests which are disruptive, trolling or made by obvious sockpuppets can be speedily closed. That seems to be the reason for closing the linked requests, not just the fact that they were made by IPs. Hut 8.5 23:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yes unregistered users are entitled to bring DRVs. There is no reason that they shouldn't be subject to speedy closure if they have clearly failed to understand what DRV is - specifically that it is not "requests for undeletion" (which we probably should have, despite the obvious problems).

All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 00:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC).

• Absolutely yes, and this applies to all forums, not just DRV. If an invalid or disruptive DRV is opened, it should be closed, no matter who opened it. If it is not invalid or disruptive, then the sole fact of the nominator being an IP editor or a new account is not a valid reason to close it. Conversely, if the closer is certain the DRV has been opened by a sockpuppet, then it should be closed. But merely being an IP account or newly registered user doesn't mean they're a sockpuppet.-- Aervanath ( talk) 10:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Pretty much agree it's a case-by-case situation but as a general principle, I'd prefer we set a higher bar for nuking IP DRVs. At least of those (which I commented on) I felt was in good faith. Hobit ( talk) 03:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• @ Stifle: Except for #6, all the other examples you list are from the same IP editor (166- and 107-), who is banned. 103.6.159.89 ( talk) 13:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)