Requests for Comment/Allowing unregistered users to edit

{{ClosedRfC|{{notdone}} Given that the nominator is blocked temprarily for a month for misusing the Requests for Comments page for the purposes of making these pointless requests so it benefits them, like enabling unregistered users to edit. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 01:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)|I propose that we allow unregistered/anonymous users to edit. There is no reason why unregistered users shouldn't be allowed to edit. Many helpful edits have been made on Wikipedia and other wiki sites by unregistered users. Furthermore, it would greatly expand our userbase, because who knows how many users are just reading our site that don't have accounts.

Support

 * 1) As proposer. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Thanks to the stupid CAPTCHA update it is impossible to create an account. This is unfair to users with good intentions who want to edit but must create an account but can’t. Renovations (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a fair complaint offering technical reasoning, but I would counter to say you should make this case to the Miraheze platform itself to fix, rather than disheveling an established system in reaction of something that may be fixed if it's only pushed enough to the right people. --Raidarr (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Renovations You seem oddly new, but alas, will be assuming good-faith and assume you didn't know how it happened. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose
}}
 * 1) That might cause a ton of vandalism (Look how bad WikiFur is doing to due vandals not registering) and preventing vandalism will be a lot more difficult. TigerBlazer (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, as I said, we don't need a larger userbase right now, we are doing just fine without that. TigerBlazer (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) The way I see it is, if we allow them to edit, it can increase the chance of vandalism. So I doubt that's a good plan. Mr. Jay 641 (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) This is a horrible idea, as more people could potentially cause more vandalism. Fortdicted (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Since we will never know who a new user is when we meet them, we can never be certain if they're here with good intentions or not. Marxo Grouch  (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Qualitipedia is inherently more prone to strongly opinionated, possibly vandalistic and good-faith yet high maintenance for whatever reason edits before you even get into the rate of vandalism in spite of its smaller size. Wikipedia conducts research for its own audience. The conditions for this one are not the same, and it is false equivalence to argue such. While it is true that for Wikipedia and indeed, most places it is viable to allow IP editing, it is not so viable for QP nor is there a demonstrated loss by requiring accounts here. In so many words, no. --Raidarr (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  No, absolutely not. Not going to happen. And given that the nominator has been abusing the Requests for Comment for these, I have blocked the nominator temporarily for a month instead of indefinite, as it would be too harsh. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 09:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 6)  While yes, the new CAPTCHA update does cause problems with account creation (I tried that on another web browser, Microsoft Edge), as stated before, this is beyond our control, and you need to contact the stewards to fix this bug. Besides, there is a noticeable decrease in vandalism in the past week, so this unintentionally solved our problems. If we allow anons, it'll restore the problem, and if the CAPTCHA bug gets fixed, people will make accounts and increase vandalism by 60 or 70% SleepParalysisDemon (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)