Requests for Comment/Permanently banning unconfirmed users from making pages

{{ClosedRfC|Closed as successful. This RfC was met with strong support, and is an easy task to perform. This RfC is also a reasonable one due to giving trolls less tools to vandalize, as well as many other wikis utilizing this method to prevent vandalism. While there are two opposes, neither of them provide any sort of counter-argument. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)| So in the past, page creation had been restricted to only confirmed users, and then undone a few times. This proposal is pretty straightforward with it's title, so I'll provide some reasons as to why I think we should go through with this. Most unconfirmed users tend to make lazy, poorly-written, or outright unfinished pages since they have no idea how to even make a proper page nor do they even attempt to ask or figure out how to make a proper page either. On the other hand, troll pages tend to become rampant, especially from two extremely persistent trolls on these wikis as of recent. Deleting these troll pages is tedious compared to simply reverting a troll edit because it takes more than just one click, not to mention mass deleting pages can take a little bit of time to delete all of the troll's pages. Having to delete these pages in addition to reverting their edits gives these trolls more time to vandalize other wikis while the admins clean up their mess.

I know it's only two reasons, but these two reasons start to become incredibly annoying after a while. If anyone has more reasons, whether it be in support or in opposition of this proposal, make sure to let us know.

Support

 * 1) Since I'm the proposer. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) As you explained earlier, this can save us from unacceptable pages, both from a complete novice who has no experience yet or the most ordinary trolls, with their only goal being irritating users on wikis. —A llistayrian  (💬) 18:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) This ought to stop those trolls in their tracks and ensure than new users aren't churning out rushed/unfinished pages. Marxo Grouch  (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) This can make trolls loosing a good capability of their power, and novats can avoid making fatal mistakes. King Dice (talk)
 * 5) This is a good way to prevent troll pages from being made. TigerBlazer (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Yeah, so I won't deal with many bad pages and criticism rejectors. NJPet (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) Even though moderation can help solve this problem, this idea isn't bad either. It's a good way to prevent bad/troll pages and can cuase less pressure for others. Mr. Jay 641  (📄) 19:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) It's a good moderation method. The7Guy (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 9) Same as NJPet. And it could prevent internet raiders/invaders from creating troll pages easily. TheName64 (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 10) I highly agree, since it would make Trolls easier to make. The Dunkman (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 11) Given the current political and social situlation. I think that this should've been at least gatekeeping some of the more radical users from the wiki. Thought I'm actually wanted any users to get autoconfirmed at least to be able to edit the page. (Kringe 12:30 (UTC), 18 October 2021.
 * 12) This is a pretty good way to prevent vandalism, I set this rule on my Pawn Community Wiki, as that wiki is meant to have strict quality control, I don't want anybody to unprofessionally upload image descriptions or create pages with wrong names, that's why I made this way. —AlvaroNovaes-BR (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 13)  Yes, I absolutely support this move, as a functioning leader of Qualitipedia. Also, keep an eye on any suspicious editors, and if they vote more than once, then their votes should be struck, blocked, and reported to a Qualitipedia admin, or report it to a steward and they'll investigate it. I'm saying this because yesterday, a user was caught suspiciously casting a vote to an invalid requests for comment, which I had to revert, as it was suspicious for a new editor to immediately get to voting, which I had to report it to Dmehus as soon as I could. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 14) Hope I did this correctly, I remember when Mass Effect 3 came out and there were problems with trolls even years later. It reached the point that i couldn't play the game, and it is a great game, because of how bad the rage was from fans...using the term loosely, who just could not accept that some didn't like the ending. That alone would be reason enough but gaming is more political than it's ever been. If you thought reaction to the Resident Evil 3 Remake over not being able to look up Jill's skirt was bad imagine what will happen when Dragon Age 4 comes out. Or a game that has the mention of racism. Or someone did get a game like Rape Day released and trolls descended claiming it a gift of the gods, or (worse) someone genuinely was all for a rape simulator and wanted to attack everyone who marked it crappy for the core concept. I say go for it and have only verified users allowed.
 * 15)  This at least can prevent poorly-made pages or downright propaganda. Why propaganda, you ask? Because of this page, on CGW. Even though it does give readers legit reasons why the game is bad, Y-Dev will do anything — from vandalism to creating propaganda pages — just so no one will try to criticise him and his game if one can even call it a game.Katsumi a.k.a. Upperdecker2562 (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 16)  Meh. BatmanBoi2K8 (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 17)  Per above. However, we may need to take extra measures to prevent page blanking. How about an abuse filter? SleepParalysisDemon (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 18) Unless we get a bigger team of admins and moderators monitoring new pages like other wikis, this should be a good deterrent for vandals. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) There is no reason why unconfirmed users should not be allowed to create pages. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is to ignore the comments everyone has posted so far while offering nothing to contradict them. --Raidarr (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My reasoning is simple. For the umpteenth time, NOT ALL UNCONFIRMED OR UNREGISTERED USERS ARE VANDALS!!! That is a nasty and annoying stereotype. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The response is simple. Not everyone (nor should anyone be saying) is a vandal as an IP user or new account. However, there are enough instances both made by good-faith users with low quality contributions and targeted vandalism rarely seen in other areas of Miraheze that it is practical to have something like this in place. --Raidarr (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. MarioBobFan (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Per above, do you have a reason for this? --Raidarr (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Abstain
}}
 * 1) I don't really care. I mean, I understand that vandals and trolls will be stopped, but at the same time, I get that it's kind of annoying (in fact, this is something I had a problem with) when a new user wants to make a page, but if they can still use their sandbox and/or use sandbox pages, then it should be fine. Also, as Raidarr mentioned, we can also use draft namespaces, although something I want to mention is that the last time I checked, draft namespaces do not exist on this wiki. FatBurn0000 (talk) 06:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Which sounds to me like reason to make one. --Raidarr (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This can be a good solution if we do end up going ahead with banning unconfirmed users from making pages. This gives new users who aren't here to vandalize a way to create a page, but that it just needs to be reviewed by an admin to have it published. --Atomicstar (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)