This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Single-purpose account page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Wikipedia essays Mid‑impact This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages Mid This page has been rated as Mid-impact on the project's impact scale. The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

This page was nominated for deletion on November 1, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This page was nominated for deletion on 1 October 2011. The result of the discussion was withdrawn.

Archives

2006-2007 early 2008

This topic could benefit from a concise summary. What exactly is the purpose of this piece of information? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page in a nutshell: This tag is used to label new accounts 'pov pusher' or 'sockpuppet' by editor's who would like to seem like they are not violating WP:CIVIL because they are not outright calling the new acount a pov pusher or sock puppet.

I came across the SPA tag for the first time today and I feel insulted by it. I don't think it's a good idea at all. It comes across as an accusation, an insult and an attempt to reduce the effects of my voice. I've no idea if that's the intent (well, to be frank, I think I DO know) but that's how it comes across to me. I won't be contributing anything else to this encyclopaedia as a result of it. NO great loss on Wikipedia's part I'm sure. As I walk out the door though, I'd like to make a couple of points

1. I read further up the page that the tag is used because articles for deletion have become a vote, even though they shouldn't be because that's contrary to policy. If that's the case then this tag is a blatant attempt to remove or reduce one of the "votes" i.e. mine, because I haven't contributed enough. It occurs to me that when you have a policy that isn't working, it's a bad idea to try and "shore it up" by making additional punitive side rules. You're better off just addressing the shortfall of the policy, whatever that is, and either fixing the policy, or implementing it correctly. By using this "SPA" tag I think you're avoiding the real problem.
2. At what point does an "SPA" become a non "SPA"? Is it after 10 contributions, 20, 50, 100? Exactly how many articles do they need to contribute to before they're no longer an "SPA". Is it 2, 3 4, 100? At what point does this dirty little badge get removed, so the contributor can rest easy at night knowing that they've been "promoted" up the ranks of Wikipedia. When do they go from being labelled a potential "Wikipedia criminal" to a normal citizen? Numsor (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not important number of edits but what user is editing. If he is making 100 edits about Manchester United (example) this is SPA account. On other side if user is making 5 edits about Manchester United and 5 edits about London then this is not SPA account. --Rjecina (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is still a ridiculously insulting tag. AfD decisions are SUPPOSED to be made on the merits of whether or not the article meets the Wikipedia guidelines- not the number of votes nor the 'popularity' of the commenting editor. And whether the convincing arguement comes as the first submission by an editor, by an editor that has made ten thousand edits across hundreds of articles or from an editor that has made 5 edits to the article under question should make no difference. The truth is that this tag is solely weilded as an insult and a way to discount the opinions of an editor; and as such is in violation of WP:AGFTheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree wholly with the typical usage of the tag, but its proponents have a point in arguing that it is intended solely to provide more information on the nature of the editor in question, not as a means to insult or discredit them. If, for instance, a flood of meat puppets comes due to a notice posted on some forum, it is usually nice to know which editors are part of that swarm and which are not. One is not supposed to immediately discount the opinions of SPAs as there are several varieties of them, and someone who only edits one article is likely to be more knowledgeable about it than someone who has never even seen it before. That said, they also commonly have COI and POV problems. Thus it is useful to identify them solely to provide background on the editor. In the case of the person who started this topic, the fact that a person set up an account and voiced an opinion in an AFD as his first edit looks somewhat suspicious, and the tagging was wholly justifiable. It provides information to the closing admin that is used in making his determination. It is not a violation of AFG because someone with a POV or COI problem likely doesn't realize it, and they are not necessarily acting in bad faith. Regardless, the tag states a simple fact: The editor in question has not edited widely outside the article or AFD. And that's all it is intended to mean. What incorrect conclusions some editors seem to draw from it are on their own heads, not that of the tag's.--Dycedarg ж 23:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If editors come in with COI and NPOV, you can tell that from their comments, you dont need a tag. I have yet to see an instance that the tag did anything useful that could not be better accomplished in a more civil manner. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of the major points regarding SPAs is that they simply should not be allowed to get involved in AfDs. If SPAs suddenly showed up one day in order to "keep" or "delete" an article, I would be very suspicious, especially if they had absolutely no edit history whatsoever. Who wouldn't be suspicious? We're all rational here. The problem is that determining whether SPAs fall into the meatpuppet or sockpuppet categories is time consuming. It's far more efficient to just disallow SPAs in the AfD process from the start. But these are subjects that are best discussed at the Village Pump or at the AfD policy discussion page, not here. J Readings (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the number of meat puppets or sock puppets showing up and voicing irrelevent opinions in an AfD shouldnt matter because the decision is NOT supposed to be a vote - it is supposed to be based on application of relevant WP policy and signalling out an account as SPA does absolutely nothing to impact whether or not that account has made a valid arguement based on WP policies. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a prime example of the exact kind of editor that causes my dislike of the tag and this page. It says right next the the description of the tag "In communal decision-making, single purpose accounts suspected of astroturfing or vote stacking will sometimes have a tag added below their name, as an aid to those discussing or closing the debate. Please do not take this as an attack on your editing, some users just find it easier to discuss issues when it is clear who the new editors are." It is meant to indicate which accounts are new and may be suspect, not indicate which comments should be ignored as probable sock/meat puppets. SPA accounts should not be discounted as meat puppets or sock puppets out of hand, and people doing that is exactly why I don't like the tag. Sure, they could be, but you can't know that. If a person sees an AFD tag on an article about which they are knowledgeable they have as much right to start an account and participate as they do to edit any other page in Wikipedia.--Dycedarg ж 03:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I expressed a personal opinion about the AfD process and how to resolve potential problems (not opinions about SPAs in general), which frankly shouldn't be used as an opportunity to make sweeping characterizations about the SPA information page in an attempt to remove it. If anyone has a problem with the AfD structure, it should be taken up at either the Village Pump or the AfD policy page. Best, J Readings (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used your comment because it was an example of the type of attitude regarding SPAs that I don't like. I wasn't making sweeping judgments about the SPA page, just about how people use it. If something is commonly misused, I tend to like it less; I don't want to remove the page but I would like to see a difference in how it is used. And I don't have a problem with the AfD structure, just the way people act during them sometimes.--Dycedarg ж 07:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I have not seen anyone articulate any definition of SPA as tool, that even when used properly it would be a tool that supports WP policies and guidelines. And there is ample evidence that SPA is frequently misused. I have not stated that the AfD process is broken, I think that might be your view, J Readings, and perhaps you see SPA as a tool to 'fix' the broken AfD - but I fail to see that as a tool it actually works for that function either. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline says "Decision-making tags. In communal decision-making, single purpose accounts suspected of astroturfing or vote stacking will sometimes have a tag added below their name". So, really, adding a single purpose account tag to someone's comment or edit is identical to saying "this person is astroturfing or vote stacking" or, if one were to be kinder "I believe this person is astroturfing or vote stacking". Note that when I say "identical" I really do mean identical. The tag itself does not have any meaning, it's just three letters. It's meaning can only be obtained by reading the guideline that it links to and the guideline it links to states in black and white that the reason you have an SPA tag next to your name is because you are suspected of vote stacking or astro turfing. You wouldn't be able to get away with going to a page and adding "this person is astroturfing or vote stacking" after each comment made by someone that hasn't contributed to another article and yet that is exactly what is being done Numsor (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you all hate the page so much, I have two suggestions for you: First, start a discussion about how it could be edited to be less insulting or demeaning. If that fails, or if you believe it to be beyond all hope of salvation already, start an MFD. Sitting here complaining on the talk page about how horrible it is accomplishes virtually nothing.--Dycedarg ж 21:06, 12 Februar{Insert footnote text here}y 2008 (UTC)

For the record and to avoid having my actions or points misrepresented, I don't hate the page. My concern is with the SPA tag and how it's used. I feel like you've said you do, that I don't wholly agree with it's typical usage - except that I just don't agree with it's usage at all. Also (and again, so my actions aren't misrepresented) I'm not sitting here complaining. I'm engaging in a discussion, which I think is a good idea before running off deleting or changing things that others might have an opinion on or some input about. Numsor (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"First, start a discussion about how it could be edited to be less insulting or demeaning." I kind of thought we were. I have been waiting for someone to either provide some kind of a valid basis for the existance/usage to be able to know where editing might begin on the page - what target those who use the page want it for. But perhaps jumping right into WP:BRD process would be the best way to determine where/how users of the tag stand. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to imply that you weren't trying to be constructive. I just meant that all you were doing was pointing out what's wrong with the page. That's all well and good, up to a point. But after a while it just looks like you're standing around complaining. At some point discussion has to turn to what can be done to improve the page, not just point out what's wrong with it, and that is what I intended to encourage.--Dycedarg ж 04:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the case at all. It doesn't look like I (or anyone else) is standing around complaining, except in the two instances where you have written or implied that someone is standing around complaining. That's a distortion of what's going on and I don't think you need to present that distortion as what I'm doing (obviously you're at liberty to do what you wish, I just don't feel that you need to. It doesn't seem helpful or useful, to me). If other people have an opinion or some views, let them state them and develop them until they emerge (or don't) into something that everyone agrees with. You don't need to beat them down, have an argument with them, or summarize their views for them (or indeed do anything). Here's an example - you don't need to summarize my views as "all you were doing was pointing out what's wrong with the page". I'm not. My first comment has a few components - one of which is to express a view that the tag is wrong (not the page), another of which is to point out that using the tag is a way of avoiding a problem that should be addressed (the problem being that deletion discussions are votes rather than based on policy). Both of those views are completely different to "all you were doing was pointing out what's wrong with the page", so you don't need to summarize them as that (obviously you can it you want, but I don't feel it's an accurate summary). For clarity, I'll state my own opinion clearly. The SPA tag should be deleted. After reading the previous deletion discussions I'm not sure that's an option that people are open to, however, I do think it's helpful to know that other people do or don't like the way the tag is being used and what the current views and arguments for and against it are - hence the discussion. Numsor (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TheRedPenOfDoom and Numsor: Let me make a suggestion that echoes what User talk:Dycedarg sensibly asked. It would be useful for other editors to know exactly what the problem is with the current project page wording. If you listed below the specific sentences or clauses in that page that you feel are either not factually correct for an information page (which this is, of course) or could be worded a little differently that would make sense. And incidentally, I foolishly expressed a personal opinion about AfDs and new users (not necessarily SPAs) on this talk page, when I should have just stated it someday at the Village Pump or the AfD talk page. My apologies. I sincerely hope and would appreciate to learn that my comment did not provoke some kind of potential and unnecessary edit warring or other disruptions to the information page. That was never my intention. In good faith, J Readings (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The specific current language is not really my issue. As explained above - it appears to me that the 'single purpose account' is either

• misapplied (from frequently misapplied to almost always misapplied depending on what your definition of SPA is) or
• even when applied correctly it does not enhance wikipedia's puposes.

Either an account is putting forward valid reasons in an AfD or they are not putting forth valid reasons for an AfD. Either way, the fact that the account has worked on few or no other accounts has no bearing on whether or not their arguements in the AfD are supported by/are not supported by WP policies.

So labeling an account SPA serves no valid purpose as far as I can see. Is there something in Wikipedia policies that I am missing - that only certain people are allowed a voice on certain topics? If the new account is being disruptive, it should be dealt with for being disruptive, not for only working on a few articles. If an account is pushing a POV, it should be dealt with for pushing a POV, not because the editor only worked on a selected article or two instead of 20. If an account is a suspected sockpuppet, it should be dealt with straight forwardly under the guidelines of suspected sockpuppetry instead of the weasle tag of "i think your a sock puppet, but I cant prove it -so I will not put myself in the position that i could be accused of violating WP:Civil by outright calling you a sockpuppet, but I will just imply it by labeling you a SPA."

Where in any of this is there value of SPA? I just don't see it.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no value in the term SPA, the article should be deleted. If there is value in the term SPA it should be able to be stated by a nutshell summary. If a summary of objectives is not attempted than this discussion is doomed to degenerate.

Everyone's first edit to a mainspace article makes them a SPA. Most users move on to other articles, some don't, and some never make another edit. What is not covered in any other policy or guideline that makes the SPA tag worthwhile? I am serious and not just trying to push a POV. The community uses the term frequently, so there should be an answer. If that answer is a positive or negative usage (according to consensus) then that should be elucidated in the article IMO.Ward20 (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The primary problem with this whole thing is that the term SPA covers a variety of editor types. An SPA could be: A. An account whose user is only interested in a narrow band of articles or even only one article, and only edits within that band. Such an editor might have POV or COI issues depending on the motivation behind the lack of variety in his edits. or B. An account created for the sole purpose of voting in an AFD and then leaving forever, or every so often continuing on to become a normal editor. Such an account has a rather high probability of being a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, although there are editors whose first edits are to an AFD due to having been drawn into wanting to edit Wikipedia because they saw an article they liked getting deleted. And within those two broad categories there are a wide variety of motivations for the actions and the editing patterns, and those are impossible to determine. So by putting the tag next to someones name you should be simply stating that their vote may or may not have motivations other than Wikipedia policy. And that is it. Yet I've seen editors take the tag as meaning "Meat/sock puppet alert. Ignore everything they have to say and/or argue incessantly with them until they leave." multiple times. And this is what I don't like about the tag. It has implications too broad to be simply taken as an indicator of an assumption of bad faith, which is what it seems to be used for much of the time.--Dycedarg ж 09:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to say that during last few months I edit on wikipedia more like vandal police for Balkan related article of anything else. My thinking about SPA accounts is very bad, because ulmost always (in Balkan related articles) they are POV. Like extreme example I will show user:Justiceinwiki. All his POV edits have been about 1 article list of his edits. In the end he has not been banned because of that but because he has used multiple accounts to edit "his" article. For last 3 months I and another 3 - 5 users are edit warring against SPA accounts created by banned user:Velebit aka user:NovaNova aka user:Pederkovic Ante aka ... To make long story short I am against SPA accounts because in 90 % of situation they are POV accounts. In perfect world we will have 1 definition for POV SPA account and another for normal SPA account but in our world this is not possible. --Rjecina (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, vandal patrol is difficult, but I do not see that SPA tag helps prevent vandalism in any way. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing talk pages, most of what is being discussed has been brought up before. IMO the present use of the term is used more pejoratively than when first originated. The SPA information page/essay (there seems to be differences of opinion about what it is) came into existence March 2006. Due to concern the term would be abused, an unsuccessful AfD was conducted in November 2006. Reading the AfD is informative as most stated the SPA term should not be used pejoratively. I thought this passage was notable in describing a reasonable use for the page, "we should actually be using this page to talk about how SPAs can be perfectly fine, and to make it clear that being an SPA alone shouldn't have significant weight. We want to keep our eyes on trolls, but we also want to protect good faith SPAs, so probably the best thing is to use the page for both."

In April 2007 the term SPA made it into policy with this diff by User:Radiant!. I could find no discussion before this was added to the Wikipedia:Username policy, but there was some dissent after it was added. Interestingly, the introduction of SPA into the policy seemed to put a lot of weight on POV pushing and sock puppetry, and was included under the heading of Using multiple accounts where it still resides. It appears to me the SPA term was included into policy in a rather haphazard manner in an incorrect section, but that should probably go onto the Username policy talk page.

I do think this article should explain the way the term is used on WP, but needs to say that SPAs can be perfectly fine if they follow policy, better describe constructive use of the term, and strongly warn of abusive use.

As an example, the following sentence makes a statement but I don't think it has a clear purpose.

• Wikipedia:No personal attacks — many may find the accusation of being a single-purpose account as insulting.
  

Ward20 (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been significant discussion with not a lot of disagreement, I am just going to start making some small changes slowly. I will not be offended if I get reverted or someone changes something I have written. Ward20 (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your careful and thorough approach. So far so good by me! TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page in a nutshell: Some editors choose to focus their editing on a limited number of articles in which they have expertise. WP:NPOV contributions from experts are welcomed. Some new editors may not be aware of Wikipedia policies. Editors should courteously direct them to appropriate guidelines. Sometimes accounts are created for the sole purpose of pushing a POV. If you suspect such action, act with discretion and with the assumption that the editor is attempting to improve Wikipedia.

Its a very large nutshell, but I think encapsules general WP philosophy and is a place to start from. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RedPen, seems a very good starting point, a few changes I will throw out for brainstorming, but I don't think them necessarily better than what is there presently.

This page in a nutshell: A single purpose account describes various editors

• that may focus their editing on a limited number of articles in which they have expertise. WP:NPOV contributions from experts are welcomed.
• who may be new and not aware of Wikipedia policies. Please courteously direct them to the appropriate guidelines.
• whose account creation may be for the sole purpose of advancing a specific POV. If such actions are suspected, act with discretion and the assumption the editor is attempting to improve Wikipedia.

I like the premise of the second sentence in the article and have tried to extend it a little more. Proposal below for comment:

Experienced editors are expected to comply with the goals of the encyclopedia. However, a significant portion of single purpose accounts (knowingly or unknowingly) find themselves in opposition with Wikipedia's neutrality, advocacy, or conflict of interest standards, resulting in extra effort and often careful consideration by the community when working with these editors. Ward20 (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've pointed this out before, but the "information page" tag at the top of this page is homemade. There is no such thing (as far as I can tell ... please show me some precedents). This page is an essay (expressing a group of editors' opinion about SPA's) or a guideline for how to be and/or deal with such accounts.

One reason I bring this up is that a perfectly legitimate, and very important, SPA-type account occured to me, namely, Wikipedia:School and university projects. If a teacher assigns students to editing Wikipedia, they are very likely to work (during the project) on narrowly focused themes. I'd like to add this point, but I'm not sure what kind of page other editor's view this as.

The best solution, IMO, is to propose this as a guideline and adjust it as necessary to that end.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no objections, I'm changing the tag back to essay. This will also avoid this sort thing in the future. Jehochman is right that "POV tagging an essay is disruption" but Stagalj arguably (I haven't looked into the case) did not know it was an essay (the fact that it was tagged both as an essay and an "information page" may have been confusing.)--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose it would make everyone's life easier if SPA's labelled themselves as such. As User:PalestineRemembered I'm positive that the interaction of good-faith editors with me is made easier. I can't be sure if there are other editors who feel uncomfortable about it, but if that were to happen, I suspect it would be an administrative issue and an indication of problems not of my making. What cannot be right is the arrival of new editors who spend a prolonged amount of time on one article or set of articles, but nobody can tell whether it is deliberate or not. PR^talk 16:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This tag is quite offensive and stupid. I will remove any examples I find in an AFD that I participate in. DollyD (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting us know you're planning to violate Wikipedia guidelines. The tag is intended to note a probable unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and possible connection with the subject. Any valid (consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines) arguments presented by SPAs should still be considered by the closer. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the addition of a SPA tag to an editor's comment as an insult and accusation that their comment is somehow of lesser value. The SPA tag is not an official Wikipedia policy and I hope it never becomes one. DollyD (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can increment the counter of new editors that have been turned off by Wikipedia's out of control elitism and downright insulting culture by one. I won't be contributing further, as I don't believe in helping the misguided or being part of groups that work against humanist values. Jordanee155 (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jordanee155, I am sorry you feel that way, and will not contribute further.--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DThomsen8, don't be sorry. The above account Jordanee155 has been indefinitely blocked as a sock abusing multiple accounts to influence a (different) AfD. Unsurprisingly, this account was accused of being a SPA and that's exactly what it was, and it went further engaging in sock & meat puppetry to influence an AfD, in which this account was a COI case. It also canvassed Reddit for help in voting Keep during an AfD. The anti-Wikipedia cynicism ("being part of groups that work against humanist values") is par for the course. -- GreenC 17:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information on the sockpuppet. I tend to avoid controversy. I do know that being called vile names goes with being an active editor, and I do discount such statements. Becoming a Master Editor is recognition that most of what I do is appreciated.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's pathetic. Made and used by self-important losers. Father Mucker (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like that template very much. The Single Purpose Account tag is SPAstic (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This essay has improved a lot since I last looked at it. Good work. I now notice, however, that there is an implicit assumption that an SPA is a new user account. As a long time SPA who has been topic banned from the articles I wanted to work on, in part (to my mind) because of a prejudice against SPAs as such, this is a concern to me. This sentence is also odd:

The term should be used descriptively and should not be read pejoratively unless a specific non-neutral agenda is clearly established.

This seems to say that it is okay to use "SPA" pejoratively sometimes. But it's non-neutrality (not single purpose) that is bad. Being non-neutral does not make your single-purpose worse. I think the article should advise against using SPA pejoratively.

By a similar token, I don't think it should be used as a decision-making tag. This sentence is not enough:

Please do not take this as an attack on your editing, some users just find it easier to discuss issues when it is clear who the new editors are.

Like I say, there is no logical reason to use "SPA" to identify new editors. Why not just tag participants in a discussion with a statement about the amount of edits they have, or how old their account is?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, Basboll. I was one of the editors who re-wrote and copy-edited the essay, so I take your opening comments as a compliment. Thank you. On the first cited sentence you raise for discussion, please keep in mind the conjunction unless "a specific non-neutral agenda is clearly established." As we note in the opening paragraph, "The community's main concern is that edits by single-purpose accounts often have not aligned with Wikipedia's neutrality or advocacy standards." I think that's a fair statement of fact. There is a concern there. I agree with you that it is wrong to shoot first and ask questions later, that's why we have clear caveats, but I also see nothing wrong with being vigilant and describing some of the issues in play. J Readings (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the descriptive parts of this essay that explain the difficulties of being an SPA are fine. I guess I'm just not sure that we need another label for non-neutral editors, especially one that associates their work with the work of perfectly neutral and often very helpful, but narrowly-focused, editors. The sentence seems to say that if an editor is found to have a non-neutral agenda then it is okay to use the term "SPA" pejoratively. My point is not so much that we shouldn't "shoot first". It's more that we have tendency to shoot people for being SPAs after we have discovered them to be non-neutral. That should make SPAs nervous. And I don't think that nervousness is what should make new editors try to participate all over the place. New editors should be encouraged to contribute in whatever way they like. They should not start feeling that just because they don't participate broadly that they are not welcome. Saying that it is sometimes okay to use "SPA" as an insult sends the opposite message.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS A related point: there is a sense in the article that only new users can legitimately be SPAs. Or at least that you have to be very, very neutral in your actions if you don't spread yourself around, whereas if you do spread around you don't have to be as careful about how you edit. Again, that's descriptively true. People who contribute broadly are generally allowed to express their personal opinions much more freely than people who are focused. But is that really in the spirit of WP?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is my experience the the SPA identification is used almost exclusively by people to call someone a POV Pusher without actually calling the editor a POV Pusher because calling someone a POV Pusher will be seen as uncivil but somehow calling someone an SPA is not. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's about right. It's almost a code word.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best definition I've heard. DollyD (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you oppose my improvements. Sigh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixmypedia (talk • contribs) 20:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an SPA, participating as PalestineRemembered (I sign my posts "PR" but almost everyone knows my name since it shows up at history and at contributions). There is no reason for my name to make anyone feel uncomfortable - and, before you ask, I don't have any Conflict of Interests regarding anything on ME topics.

I propose that the following statement is nonsense and that it be removed "If you create a single-purpose account, don't pick a username related to the topic you're editing about. If you do so, people might assume you are editing with a conflict of interest, causing lots of unnecessary drama. User_talk:Virgin_United User_talk:Young_Trigg" because:

1. The two examples given are nonsense, the editors Virgin United and Young Trigg chose names that they thought were neutral when they were not. This bears no relationship to a real SPA like me.
2. Nobody's been deceived into thinking I have a CoI.
3. In this topic area (and perhaps others?) there are editors who almost certainly have substantial CoIs - but can't be discriminateed against, and cannot even be forced to confirm or deny CoI anyway!

I have a suspicion that there are other problems with this policy - but for starters, the self-labelling of SPAs is certainly not to be discouraged. The rejection of this attempt to force me to change my name (defeated 12-1) is a clue - even (perhaps especially) people with whom I've had content disputes have no problem with the name I'm using. I propose deleting the above sentence in 7 days (or suggest someone else do it). PR^talk 09:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this entry is an essay, not a policy. With that idea in mind, the purpose of the essay is to advise newcomers on what is -- generally speaking -- an SPA and what is a prudent course of action in one's interactions with SPAs. Presumably, the advice also extends to SPAs. It does not have the force of policy behind it. Also, I do not think that this particular sentence is directed at any one editor, so that should give you a little comfort. Of course, I never added that particular sentence and I would need to look in the edit history archives to see who did if it really mattered in the grand scheme of things. Overall, I think the sentence still provides some good-faith advice to (at least) anonymous IPs who perhaps one day will choose to register an account. Should they have a conflict of interest or any inherent biases or (and this is probably most important) the will to limit potential conflicts before they begin to edit, at least they were forewarned in this essay that it is best not to add to a potential problem with provocative-sounding user names. You know the old saying: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." J Readings (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many entries is one expected to make on the first day they post? It takes time to understand and get around this site. To be tagged for that is outrageous. WitnessofWTS (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this has been a problem for users who don't have user pages. No where in the article does it say that inorder to not be considered an SPA they have to have a user page. There needs to be something in the body that warns taggers explicitly that this is not grounds for tagging someone as a single purpose account. I recently found a person tagged as an SPA who edited several pages on vitamin A, parilla oil, phospholipid creatine, vitamine B, dietary reference intake and frenectomy, and seemed extremely knowledgeable of the scientific literature on the subject. He then made a contribution on a deletion page about a runner and was tagged as a single purpose account (TWICE by two different people) even though he has worked on several unrelated pages. I think that identifying SPAs has its place but misidentifying them when they clearly do not meet the standards is extremely offensive. I almost think that it should be grounds for a warning if it obvious the person is not an SPA (as it is something done usually only by people who know what they're doing, ie. beginners don't tag SPAs). What do people think? MATThematical (talk) 03:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Studies have shown that quite a lot of information on Wikipedia is contributed by newbies, either with newly formed accounts or with no accounts at all. Many people join Wikipedia, contribute their very small amount of knowledge, and disappear never to be seen again. But whatever knowledge they do contribute comes from their area of expertise, and is extremely valued. Many of these people work on just one article or one group of related articles.

This is not to say that those with thousands are any more or less valued. These regulars provide tasks such as improving the appearance of existing pages, working on major projects, updating ever-changing information, or improving navigation between pages. Some work to remove information that should not belong.

The big concern are those who try to ruin or otherwise harm the encyclopedia with a SPA. If a SPA was formed to commit [planned] vandalism or to be used by a person who already has an account but is pretending to be two separate people in order to save an article up for deletion, that's when you run into trouble.

A new account that comments on an AfD is really a big issue here. If the account was formed after the AfD began, this may be a SPA account trying to save the article (or in some cases, get it deleted). But then again, if the account has a few other edits on other similar articles in which useful information was added, this may be someone who joined just to work on their area of expertise, came across the article up for deletion, and decided to try to save it. Hellno2 (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this addressed my issue. My issue is that people who have an edit history on various different pages before they edit a deletion article are being marked as SPAs because they do not have user pages. Not having a user page is not part of the SPA definition as it is currently defined. Basically people are being tagged as SPAs when they are clearly not. This is a major problem MATThematical (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the definition is unclear, and SPA labels are being employed inconsistently. Things that this essay does not address, that need to be addressed are:

1. time line of edits. What happens when someone has several edits in a various topics, but has not edited in 3 months, or 6 months, or a year, or 3 years, ... etc. does the gap in the time line mean he or she has to re-establish themselves as a non-SPA. I personally think not, but it needs to say yes, no, or its controversial in the article. The reason why some people might want to consider identifying these people as SPAs is that an inactive member can be recruited to a deletion page from an outside site, but at one time this currently inactive member had a good edit history.
2. what deems a variety of topics. Would lets say edits on a variety of different athletes across a few sports be considered different topics, what if its just football players, what about just football players on a particular team, or football players on a particular team still currently playing. How about someone who just does health edits, what about just nutrition edits, what about edits only on vitamins, minerals and micro-nutrients, what about only water soluable vitamins, what about just B vitamins. At what point is the group of edits considered similar enough to warrant an SPA tag. There should be an example that spells this out, it doesn't have to spell out controversial gray areas, but it should say what definitely does not warrant an SPA tag
3. Reverting SPAs. If someone thinks they have falsely be accused of being an SPA is it taboo to immediately revert it. Should a revert accompanied by an explanation on the taggers talk page occur, or should the explanation go on the discussion, or should the person give the explanation first and then wait for a response before a revert.

Personally I don't like SPA *tags* but understand their utility. But because they are so controversial there needs to be some guidence on when it is definitely NOT appropriate to tag someone as an SPA. Its easy to get offended when tagged as an SPA, but its even worse when one does not understand why they are being tagged (especially when their edit history does not fall into the category explained in this essay). MATThematical (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone starts out as a SPA, at least with regards to contributing new material. If we bite them all there won't be anyone left. To me, the SPA distiction is only useful as a warning sign for serious violations like COI and neutrality. UncleDouggie (talk) 06:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you can still be labeled as an SPA after 4+ years and thousands of edits outside the SPA focus. RFA/Scientology/Proposed decision#AndroidCat Just saying... AndroidCat (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The remark above "Personally I don't like SPAs" is a gross breach of WP:AGF. The latter is policy. We need to remember that WP:AGF is policy. All this silly prejudice against SPAs is not. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not WP:Canvassing for input. (Really, it's a messy topic and you don't want to go there.) This is intended as a heads-up: Scientology SPAs, Replacement of Scientology SPAs. AndroidCat (talk) 07:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice. Interesting developments, indeed. J Readings (talk) 08:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the page hasn't been policy, and perhaps doesn't need to be, it seems like it could usefully be upgraded to a guideline given how deeply it has penetrated the Wikipedia lexicon. It has some good advice, has been around for a few years and has had the participation of quite a few editors. What says the crowd wisdom on upgrading this page to a guideline? Nathan ^T 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I boldly marked it as such before the above post, but don't mind if someone finds that overbold and reverts me. Nathan ^T 22:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there is some kind of procedure involving the wider community that must be followed before it can be tagged as a guideline, rather than an essay. I agree that ArbCom's approval of the contents of the current essay with respect to the recent Scientology rulings serves to enhance the legitimacy of the essay in the eyes of the wider community and I was going to suggest that we incorporate some of ArbCom's specific rulings on the matter of SPAs into the essay/article itself. That said, we should track down the procedure and see if it can be upgraded. I certainly wouldn't object to its upgrade in light of the recent ArbCom events. J Readings (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did the current ArbCom approve of the essay, or did they find it .. useful? There's a difference. AndroidCat (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"performs edits to a group of unrelated articles in the same manner on Wikipedia" So all bots and batch edits are single purpose accounts? Gurch (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All editors I would have thought. Unless they adopt a different "manner" on some articles to on others. Everyone who edits at all must edit either a single article, a group of related articles, or a group of unrelated articles. 87.254.70.250 (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, this confuses me to, how do you edit if you don't edit 1 article, 2+ related articles, or 2+ unrelated articles? This seems incredibly vague to me. We need a clearer definition so that we can fairly determine who is an is not single-purpose. It would seem to me that someone editing unrelated articles has more than a single purpose? Tyciol (talk) 04:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are SPA that align with Wikipedia.

They are archives and related who have original materials. It seems to me that a summer intern adding a few hundred pointers to original material holdings of an archive (archive x has y feet of z's papers) would fall within what the Wikipedia is about.

It does promote the archive, but that's true no matter who added the information. Keith Henson (talk) 02:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This edit claims that SPA is generally related to sockpuppetry. Possibly that's true in some cases that I haven't noticed – the SPAs that I see are very likely to be new users (no alternate account) who have one objective at Wikipedia: to promote something. Why is this change needed? I rather think the lead should restored. Johnuniq (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. The whole SPA thing is hazy enough without trying to merge in socks. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree we can state in the leade that SPAs can be other things too. For example, there are people who edit Wikipedia for only one purpose in their lives, such as writing about a single movie, or about all the members of a sports team. And there is nothing wrong with that. But we must be sure not to template or even be suspicious of those whose first edits are on one article or topic before they will subsequently do something else.

However, if an account's first edits are to do something more advanced, like commenting in an AfD, proposing a bunch of articles for deletion, or attempting to get a new policy/guideline in place, most likely, it is operated by someone who previously edited with another account.

When it comes down to things, the reason why we have an SPA essay is not because SPAs are inherently bad, but because there is such a thing as sock puppetry.

Information on how to spot a sock puppet is detailed at Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry. Hellno2 (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this section there? It seems to be about identifying sock-puppet accounts (SPAS), not about identifying single-purpose accounts (SPAs). Colour me confused.--Slp1 (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The idea that SPA's are essentially "suspected sock-puppets" is (like the idea that they are essentially "suspected POV-pushers") a way of making users who focus their contributions narrowly feel unwelcome. I'm not confused about it; it just disagree with the implicit message of that paragraph. (The whole section essentially argues that it's only okay to be an SPA when you are a new user.)--Thomas B (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My view is a "Single Purpose Account" may be useful descriptor when edits prove problematic for other reasons. Often, in my experience, this is related to POV and COI and advocacy issues. On the other hand, as you say, narrowly focussed contributions are not a problem if edits are well sourced, of NPOV etc. The whole sockpuppet thing seems tangential, and in fact alternate accounts are specifically permitted in order to seperate some kinds of editing topics. I think this whole essay needs a revamp. Maybe I'll give it a go sometime, but other views would be welcomed.--Slp1 (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know the history, but it is true that a significant number of SPAs are sock or meat puppets. The section is essentially saying that accusations ("statements regarding motives") should not be made. It might be worded more effectively, but it is on the one hand alerting sockpuppets that we are alert to the possibility that a proficient SPA may need watching, while also telling editors not to bite newcomers. Johnuniq (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence for the significant number statement? What percentage do you think? I find it a bit hard to believe it is that high... there are so many editors that tend to focus on one topic, and I don't know really know why people would sockpuppet unless they are avoiding bans/block, in which case, once again, there has been other disruption going on to get the block. --Slp1 (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that it is a high percentage (and in the previous section you will see that I argued that a recent change that introduced the concept of sockpuppetry into the lead should be reverted, as was done). I totally agree that WP:SPA should focus on the SPA side and downplay the puppet side. I see SPAs who are not wiki literate but who learn enough to add links to their favorite site (not sockpuppetry, but also not "a new user without an edit history who immediately performs tasks..."). New SPA accounts can often be seen in AfD discussions, and while no particular edit skill is shown, there is clearly puppetry involved. The section in question is talking (I think) about POV merchants who create socks to boost the apparent support for a particular outcome, or to avoid blocks. Those socks often show editing skills. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. Yes, it's true that bringing in sockpuppets or friends/colleagues/family etc, in about AFDs or any other kind of consensus discussion can and does happen fairly often. I wonder though whether the issue then is less that they are Single PAs, (which we were all once, I guess, in our first few edits), and more that what people chose to do in their first edits that is suspicious. I would like to try and improve the essay a bit. Not straightaway, as it would be good to read the archives etc, I imagine, think a bit, and get some more opinions. But when the time comes what do people suggest about how the changes should be made? Is it better to be bold or would it be good to set up a subpage that we could work on? --Slp1 (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements are good, but perfection is elusive and I'm inclined to prefer stability. A problem with a subpage is that you might invest a bunch of time and get emotionally attached to the new text, then find arguments from others when you want to incorporate it. Whatever you do, bear in mind that {{spa}} is regularly used in AfD and similar, and its link to WP:SPA has to quickly make sense. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my discussion above in 2009 about defining SPAs and no one commenting that they disagree. I am going to edit the Identifying an SPA section (if there is consensus here) to include the following. I just wanted to run it by everyone first, so it doesn't look hostile. Overall we need to establish guidelines as to when it is inappropriate to label a user as an SPA particular when assigning a tag. The other option is to put this in the tagging section. Please let me know if you want anything in this changed. Hopefully we can reach some consensus to things that an SPA is not. ...

What an SPA is not

When Identifying an SPA it is important to make sure one is doing so properly. Note that there is no mention of time in the definition of an SPA. If a user at one time had a substantial and diversified history of edits, he or she can no longer be considered an SPA, even if the user has recently focused on a single topic. Also if a user had a substantial edit history followed by a long time gap of inactivity, this is not a reason to label the user as an SPA. It is also important to consider what counts as a diverse group of edits. Very broad subjects like music, medicine, sports, history, and physics are diversified topics within themselves. If a user only edits within a broad topic, this does not necessarily mean the user is an SPA."... MATThematical (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a had quick look at your changes and they seem good, although I think there may be too many words and there may be some redundant or possibly side-topic statements. One issue is that now the essay is more focused on the evils of people who use the SPA term in describing another editor, with only the lead asserting that being an SPA (in the true sense) is itself bad. As I mentioned, the essay is commonly linked in AfD and other discussions with {{SPA}}, so the essay must make sense to someone trying to work out what the tag is asserting, and there should be a couple of brief examples of SPA behavior: promoting a website, product, POV, or anything without a focus of "what is good for Wikipedia?". I'll try to get some time to join in editing the essay. Johnuniq (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wandering if this counts as a common misuse. I have seen it once, so I am not sure it is common, and am not sure if its a misuse either. However, one user was tagged as an SPA because the majority of his edits was on talk pages. In my opinion, someone putting a large portion of their edits on talk pages before they edit an article is a sign of a responsible editor trying to follow WP:NPOV and should not be grounds alone to tag someone as an SPA. If someone has a substantial amount of edits on talk pages of varying subjects, should the fact that most of them being talk pages make the user an SPA? I think the category talk page, should not count in terms of an appropriate use of an SPA label. I believe the SPA label points to a person serving a particular purpose. I don't think someone trying to improve wikipedia by starting discussions on talk pages should be considered a single purpose. This may be slightly more controversial than the other "common misuses" I put in the article, so I want to get a consensus before I add this. Also feel free to suggest other "common misuses".MATThematical (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends, and it's more of a "I'll know when I see it" kind of definition. If user X predominantly posts somewhat POV comments in talk pages relating to a similar topic (say, many global warming articles, or many articles relating to a politician or political party), I think the term "SPA" may very well apply. Now consider user Y who does nothing but post somewhat useful comments in articles related to music: the term "SPA" does not really apply to Y because their comments are diverse (they don't always promote a particular band/website/POV). Suppose user Z has a grand total of 10 edits, each of which was to add a comment to a music related talk page, and that comment said something like "there is great review at www.example.com": user Z is an SPA because their activity is narrowly focused and is indistinguishable from someone who has no particular interest in Wikipedia other than its potential as a means of promotion. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead currently includes the sentence "The presence of such clearly defined SPAs has provoked a strong reaction among the English Wikipedia community of editors." This is untrue, or at best misleading. The "strong reaction" has always been confined to a minority, probably a very small minority. Most editors have a sense of proportion.

A question which is never properly answered, because it has no good answer, is: what is intrinsically wrong with being an SPA? The best answer we get is that being an SPA correlates to some degree with POV-pushing and other ills. Even this allegation is unproved. I'd like to make the following points:

• Conventional encyclopedias are written solely by SPAs as a matter of course. Experts are invited to contribute on their specialist subject and no other.
• If someone is an SPA and a good editor, and there certainly are such persons, they should be congratulated. It is reasonable to invite them to broaden their activites, but quite wrong to deprecate their work to date.
• If someone is an SPA and a POV-pusher, the fact that they are SPA should be a matter of relief. To suggest that they ought to spread their POV-pushing more widely seems madness.
• In my recent experience, just as much harm is done by wide-ranging editors working in ignorant good faith on specialist subjects which they do not understand.
• There is a heading "Identifying SPAs". Whose job is this? Why is this necessary? If someone is breaking the real rules such as WP:NPOV, let them be reverted, argued with on talk pages, disciplined if necessary. This is all irrespective of their SPA status. This may seem exaggerated, but to my mind the focus on SPAs reminds me of ethnic profiling, and I find it equally distasteful.
• Finally, the "SPA debate" is badly biassed against SPAs; most wikipedia editors don't have a problem with them, and therefore don't bother with pages like this one. It is almost only those who have strong anti-SPA opinions who get to express them.

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you. In my opinion this whole article needs to be redone from a more neutral point of view. I think the biggest problem is the use of the SPA tag. Currently the tag is most commonly used by established editors trying to point out in AfD debates that a particular user may have been referred to by an outside website or group to vote stack. In my opinion this isn't particularly important because the editor who makes the final say on AfD debates only goes by the validity of the arguments and not how many people agree or disagree.

My personal preference would be to no longer to use the SPA tag for new editors who may be referred to from other sites. If one wants to make a new tag for this, that is fine. Perhaps even a new user tag. The problem is that SPAs are in general good editors, but their image is being tarnished by people who POV/votestack, mainly new users. These users get SPA tags and all of a sudden their activities are associated with being an SPA.

That being said, since the SPA tag exists it is important that people are not falsely being labeled SPAs. I in general like to look at AfD pages (but don't comment on them too often) and found one person being labeled an SPA for editing articles only related to nutritional biology (which is a hugely diverse field), people who were deemed SPAs for not having user pages (now that's just silly, and surprisingly the most common false tagging I have seen), people who were established editors with over 70 edits in a diverse field but had not edited a page in a year were labeled SPAs when they initially returned on an AfD page, but continued to edit other articles that very day. If we are going to have the SPA label we need to make sure that it only gets applied to SPAs. A common misuses section is necessary so that editors can point to this essay when a fellow editor incorrectly uses the tag.MATThematical (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An SPA is not really defined by their edits, it's their attitude (of course we can only see the edits, and we have to guess the attitude from the edits). I gave some examples in my comment just above this section (03:52, 15 February 2010). If a large proportion of a user's edits concern a single website (adding links/refs to the site in various articles, or mentioning the site in various talk pages), the user is an SPA and has to be treated with caution. It's a similar concept to WP:COI, but often an SPA can be unambiguously identified, whereas asserting someone has a COI usually involves conjecture.

Only a small minority of editors care about any single issue, so I suppose the sentence claiming "strong reaction" is not verified. However, there really are a bunch of people who passionately oppose SPAs, although I think the reason the "strong reaction" is mentioned is to alert the reader that "SPA" has negative connotations, and to let an SPA know why they are receiving (or will receive) a strong negative reaction.

The point that should be made clear by the essay is that an SPA edits in a way that suggests their focus is on the promotion of something external to Wikipedia, such as an idea, a product, or a website. An SPA uses Wikipedia to promote something without apparent concern for the improvement of Wikipedia. An SPA exploits the altruism of the many extraordinarily talented volunteers who built Wikipedia, hence the strong reaction.

@MATThematical: I have never seen a false SPA tagging (although this is a big place and I'm sure it happens). Would you please give a couple of links to illustrate. I would be particularly interested to look at the nutritional biology case you mentioned. Johnuniq (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The particular example I was referring to was the tagging of this editor User:Jasonbholden in the deletion article of Chris Derrick a runner. This tag in my opinion was completely to the contrary of the definition of the SPA given in this essay, and I used this one as an example because it encompassed many of the types of misuses I have seen. In this example a registered dietitian who made edits on several vitamin pages, medical procedures, supplements, discussions (including posting drafts of what he intended to edit), and dietary intake pages(all from well supported review articles) was labeled as an SPA on a deletion page of a runner. It is possible that there is a high correlation between running and nutrition, but I doubt thats why he was tagged. Perhaps the period of absence from editing the wiki followed by joining an AfD discussion was suspicious, but being tagged as an SPA was certainly not warranted at all, and he was tagged twice, by two separate well established editors. In adition after joining the AfD discussion, he became an active editor again for a good period of time during and immediately after the AfD discussion. In addition all of his comments were logical and focused on what counted as substantial coverage from secondary sources, there was no references to any agenda that I could see.

Now to be honest, by "many" I don't mean i see tons of examples all the time, but I see a couple a year, and I am a fairly light editor, so I am sure there is a decent amount. From what I have seen, AfDs with a high number of true SPAs posting usually led to an over willingness by established editors to tag lightly suspicious users along with the obvious legitimate SPA tags. I do not have any more specific examples, because the nutritional biology one is the only one I saw in an AfD that I actually commented in (ie. I was able to look for it by searching my contributions). Usually I see these in AfDs I don't comment in, and then I can't remember them later.MATThematical (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to be constructive about this. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. That means all sorts of misuse will occur. The particular misuses we're considering are a) people who are advertising some product (possibly themselves), and b) people pushing a POV. Either way, it's people trying to sell something. The way to deal with such misuse is, being WP:CIVIL throughout, to explain WP:NPOV, WP:RS and notability guidelines. This may be hard work, but it's the necessary way, and quite often it works well. Such misusers may or may not be SPA; it's irrelevant. The point is, editing discussions are based on what people write, not on who they are.

The only context where we need perhaps to concern ourselves with the overall record of other editors is when there is voting, especially in deletion discussions, particularly if a vote is not supported by much argument. In those cases it is reasonable to give less weight to votes from very recent arrivals, or from people who have a history of bias in their contributions. Admins who close discussions can work this out for themselves.

The next question is, who is this essay addressed to? If it's intended as advice to the misguided, it needs to be much more welcoming and positive. I'd rather recommend WP:Five pillars as a start. If it's intended as help for the experienced editor trying to deal with the misguided it again needs to be more positive. WP:BITE has a much better balance.

Finally taking up a couple of points made by Johnuniq above:

• "there really are a bunch of people who passionately oppose SPAs" - there may well be. Wikipedia has indeed a bunch of editors who spend a disproportionate part of their energy on attacking other editors. They are not part of the solution; they are part of the problem.
• "The point that should be made clear by the essay is that an SPA edits in a way that suggests their focus is on the promotion of something external to Wikipedia" - in other words, we should seek out people we don't like, and firmly insult them. No, please don't. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you make excellent points. However, the worst part about this essay is that it has an identity crisis. We first need to decide what an SPA is. An SPA as a label is not particularly a bad thing, but it has now been used to described POV pushers. We need a separate tag for this so SPA can be restored to its original positive/neutral meaning. Its not fair to people who are SPAs that make great edits in their expert field. The SPA tag has dirtied their name, and hence it needs to only be used for POV pushers or only be used for true SPAs. Not both, we need a separate tag. MATThematical (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably the best solution. Following the link in your post above caused me to notice that "template:not a ballot" includes

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}}

where I find the use of the word "suspected" rather offensive but it confirms what you say. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@MATThematical: Thanks for the info above regarding the case where you objected to a user being labeled as an SPA. I have had a look at WP:Articles for deletion/Chris Derrick and its history, and I can see that the stress gauge was somewhat high during that discussion, however I think you are incorrectly regarding the SPA tag as an insult. That deletion discussion shows a classic case where it is obvious that canvassing led to a bunch of editors arriving to help keep the article, and it was totally correct that Jasonbholden (all contribs) be tagged as an SPA: Jason did 16 edits April–June 2008, then nothing until May 2009 when Jason joined the deletion discussion. The SPA tag does not assert that a user has done anything wrong: it is just a factual statement that the user has made few or no other edits outside this topic, and it is useful to combat the vote stacking that sometimes occurs in discussions. The tag does not eliminate the user's contribution to the discussion (if their comment made a good point in accord with policy, the comment will be highly regarded by the closing admin). It is clear that Jason is a valuable editor, but there were several SPAs active in the deletion discussion, and it was reasonable at that time (when Jason's first edit in 11 months was to comment in a deletion discussion) to tag all such editors as an SPA. Clearly you strongly disagree, and I do not think I will convince you of the usefulness of the SPA tag in discussions. A different and stronger use of the SPA label is as a description of a person who is pushing some agenda, such as the promotion of a website or a product. Johnuniq (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree that it is useful in the last regard. I even agree that all other tags on that page were correctly used (I think all other users had less than 3 edits previously, and even the 3 edit person only edited male runners). However, Jason's previous edits although only 16 were a classic case of good editing in a diverse field of topics. A leave of absence that is less than a year is not particularly long for an editor, given the life situations people can go through. I think when tagging SPAs one should carefully consider the edit histories of all the users he/she tags on an individual basis. Canvassing can cause many SPAs to arrive on an article to save it, but that only gives reason to tag the actual SPAs who come from the canvassing, not everyone suspected to have arrived from the canvassing. For all we know, every editor on that page except the creator came as a result of the canvassing. Its possible that people who were in favor of the deletion arrived via an outside link. Whether this particular editor was referred to by an outside website, I do not know, but even if he was, no where in this essay does it suggest that finding a link to the page from an outside website is grounds for being tagged as an SPA. It is clear that he did not fit the definition of an SPA given on this page. He had a diverse edit history, and thats all that matters. It is irrelevant whether he found the page using WP, google, or some other outside website. The tag is a factually incorrect statement for this editor. The statement Jasonbholden "has made few or no other edits outside this topic" was simply not true. I do not think 16 qualifies as only a few edits, especially considering it was to 8 pages, most of which were unrelated to each other and all of which were unrelated to the article under the AfD. Perhaps we should tag people as suspected of coming from canvasing, I would not be opposed to that, as I think this editor was likely referred to by an outside link. However, coming from canvasing and being an SPA are not the same thing and there needs to be separate tags for this if we want to tag editors in AfDs like Jasonbholden.MATThematical (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we cannot determine (and per WP:CIVIL should not attempt to determine) whether an editor's comments in a poll are affected by canvassing or a WP:COI. A new editor may hit "Random article" and just happen to find an page with a deletion discussion tag, and their first edit may be to comment in the deletion discussion. Now consider an editor who does 16 edits in fields totally unrelated to athletics or BLPs. After 11 months with no editing, their next edit is to comment in a deletion discussion for an athlete. It is exactly the same as the editor who has made no other edits because it raises the question of how the editor found the discussion, and whether they are addressing the issue from a disinterested position (questions we cannot answer, and which we should not attempt to answer). All we can do is add {{SPA}} and let the closing admin evaluate the policy-based discussion. Some SPA tags will be "wrong" in that the editor just clicked "Random article" or whatever: that's why the SPA text is neutral and sticks to the known facts. In the case we are discussing, the facts can be contested (and you removed the tag from the discussion), but the editor placing the SPA tag was doing all that can and should be done. It would be unfortunate if the editor receiving the SPA tag were offended, and the text in this essay should carefully point out that the tag is not an insult. You mention that the editor actually made 16 diverse edits so "SPA" is not literally true. Yes, I suppose so, but I think the tag should just be seen as a comment about the current situation: the editor is approaching this discussion as if they were an SPA (which is not necessarily a bad thing, but if there are several SPAs, it should be noted). I guess I'm seeing this from a different perspective, and I certainly agree that the case we are discussing involves a good editor who should not be at all concerned if someone suggested they might be an SPA. Also, I agree that "SPA" is not really correct in this case, but I do not think it is sufficiently wrong in principle to warrant some new tag being devised. Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's all very well for Johnuniq to insist that "the text in this essay should carefully point out that the tag is not an insult" when there is abundant evidence, including several other things he has written on this very page, that it is intended to have a meaning which can only be taken as insulting, and that it is recognised as such by all concerned. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a somewhat insulting tag no matter what language is here. That being said, I am less concerned about the insult and more concerned about people being pointed to a page that doesn't tell them why they were tagged. This confusion could lead to anger, and I think this is where the true insult lies. If someone is tagged then they should know exactly why they are being tagged. In this example you say he edited like an SPA. If you are referring how he edited, this is certainly not the case. Most of the SPAs did not sign their comments, he did. Most SPAs did not refer to WP policy pages, he did, most of the SPAs made arguments like "other stuff exists" and other common fallacies (even I did to a degree), he did not. I would say out of the editors on that page against the deletion he behaved the least like an SPA, and there were several established editors against the deletion. The vast majority of editors who come from canvassing will actually be SPAs so I don't see the loss in only tagging the ones that are actually SPAs. I do not agree that the leave of absence warrants your comment that he is approaching the discussion like an SPA. Its one thing to require neutrality, its another thing to require disinterest in the subject. Most editors are interested in the subjects they edit. I personally only comment in AfDs that seem interesting,but that does not mean that I try my best to stay neutral and stick to the facts. It is clear that this AfD got very heated, and accusations and tags only added to the heat. Especially because it gave the hostile feeling that if you disagreed with the position you were automatically an SPA. Another thing you have to realize is that AfDs can be easily found if one accesses the articles main page. This is how I found out about this AfD, and hence why it was the first one I commented on. It is also possible that the main page is frequented by many runners and the the actual article itself may have well been the canvasser. We will never know.MATThematical (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I visited the page after a long break, and ended up rewriting the introduction (it described SPAs too wordily and in a less helpful manner. It also didn't describe the tag, which is probably the #1 reason users end up at this page). Then I noticed this dialog. The revised intro probably solves other issues raised in this discussion too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think the revised intro is a definite improvement. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the newbies under the common misuses section because it does not seem to be agreed upon that newbies are not SPAs. I think by definition newbies do start as SPAs, but thats under the original definition that an SPA is a person who has edited a single page or related group of pages. Because of this new association with POV pushing perhaps it is time to change the definition and add newbies to the list of common misuses, but if we are going to do that we need to change the definition first, so this page doesn't contradict itself anymore than it already has.MATThematical (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The body of WP:SPA describes "considerations" but doesn't really expand on what an SPA is.

I have tried to sum up a general test and definition of an SPA, and to do so in a way that is not disparaging towards new or niche editors.

Although it's fairly accurate, if this becomes used as WP:CREEP or quoted everywhere as something to argue and dispute over, then it may be worth completely removing it. Unsure which way it'll go at the moment. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your edit is very good. The page is getting very long now. I think the common misuses section can be trimmed a little, because it now overlaps the general definition a lot. Also the other considerations section seems a bit like someone rambling on and on about opinions, its wishy washy and doesn't add much. So maybe that section can go, or be drastically trimmed. Just a thought MATThematical (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the past several months, I have seen two AFDs formed with SPAs.

One was an article proposed for deletion with an account used for nothing but proposing a lot of articles for deletion. The other was an account that made just two edits: One to place the AFD template on the article, and the other to create the AFD discussion page. To this day, that account has no further edits.

In both instances, coincidentally, it was the third time the respective article had been proposed for deletion. Both articles, though hated by those who have wanted them deleted, survived these AFDs overwhelmingly and still stand to this day.

In one of these, the nom was blocked for sock puppetry, and the AFD was promptly closed. In the other, I opened what remains the only SPI I have ever opened to this day. The conclusion was that there was no evidence of sock puppetry.

In general, what are the views of using accounts solely for the purpose of proposing articles for deletion? Hellno2 (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the SPA tag applied to editors who have made a single edit; a vote in an AfD. Is that the correct application? It seems like they should develop a history of editing in only one area first, or I could be wrong. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The SPA label is controversial, some seeing it as bordering on an attack and failure of WP:AGF, while others see it simply as a statement of fact to be considered when evaluating opinions or edits. It is common to use {{spa}} in AfD discussions because it is very easy for undetected canvassing to occur, which can cause a flurry of activity from people who have made very few edits in other areas. I am one of those who believe that a closing admin should discount opinions from someone who has made very few edits outside the AfD or its article. There is no effective defense against SPA votes other than use of the SPA label, although of course anyone, including an SPA, can point out a policy reason to keep or delete a page. So, my opinion is that the answer to your question is "yes": it's a description, not an insult. Johnuniq (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The admin is not supposed to count votes but only logical arguments based on policy and NPOV secondary sources. The SPA tag only makes the admin's eyes hurt while reading the fine print of the editor's argument. If their reasoning is not rational or policy based it should be discounted regardless as to whether he is an SPA or not. The SPA tag's main purpose is to satisfy the taggers rage against canvassing. We all hate canvasing, so this is certainly understandable, but in my opinion, not very useful. MATThematical (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, maybe not quite racist, but jokes aside, I think there are seriously problems with this article. The definition of SPA is currently nonsensical. How can it be "apparent" that an editor has a "focus on one (or at most a handful of) matters or purposes" if they also have a "very brief editing history"? Surely, the shorter a person's history, the more impossible it is to determine whether that editor has a "single purpose". This essay could be salvaged if the word SPA were defined simply as being an editor who has tended to focus on a particular article or subject over one's edit history. An editor who focuses ""on one (or at most a handful of) matters or purposes" could be a shameless promoter (a bad thing) is a SPA but so is an expert who choses to edit articles exclusively within one's area of expertise (a very good thing). On the other hand, someone who instead does not "focus on one (or at most a handful of) matters or purposes" could be a wikignome (a very good thing) or a vandal (a bad thing). Under this definition, the opinions of SPAs would not be, as a category, any less valid that a non-SPA. Unfortunately, the term "SPA" is now used on Wikipedia almost exclusively pejoratively. One editor on wikiquote even used the "allegation" of being and "SPA" against me, as a rationale for having me blocked from the site, because he has a dispute with some of my edits (although the request was rejected by a sensible administrator). According to the definition on this essay, I do not actually fall under the label "SPA" because I do not have a "very brief editing history" (I have around 2000 edits). However, I think I should fall under the category of an SPA, because there are only two areas in which I significantly contribute, one of which is articles related to Eckhart Tolle which was recently promoted to Good Article status. If my editing had been spread across other articles, in which I had less interest, it is unlikely that the article would yet be at Good Article standard {it's actually missing a photo, but apart from that it is pretty good}, even though some non-SPAs have made some significant contributions, they have not had the time to do extensive research into the particular subject that was required. This essay clearly reenforces this derogatory sense of the term, which is demonstrated and compounded by the a definition of the term that the essay uses. The essay, as it stands, crosses the line from useful categorisation into unsubstantiated rhetoric and bigotry. The SPA tag sounds even more horrible. It reminds me far too much of a Star of David pinned to a Jew. If significant changes cannot be made, then I suggest it be deleted. Gregcaletta (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC) To summarise, I believe there are two different categories that are being mixed up here. The are editors who have very few edits, for which the correct term should be "newbies" and there are a more experienced editors who have chosen to focus on a particular subject or set of subjects (this is what the term SPA should be used for). Neither of the categories should be considered derogatory, although the first category, "newbies", could be banned from AfDs if they consistently vote poor. In any case, the derogatory sense of the word SPA, which this essay reenforces, is completely unnecessary and its definition is at best misleading and at worst nonsensical. Gregcaletta (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge of the case you are referring to, but I suggest that calmly explaining why you have performed your edits is best. From your point of view, "SPA" is not relevant. No one is ever blocked for "being an SPA"; people are only blocked after disruptive editing, and a disruptive editor who is also an SPA will often be blocked more readily than otherwise. Even if WP:SPA were deleted, people would still find ways to be critical of other editors, and some criticisms will be valid and some won't. It is very likely that the SPA label is sometimes used inappropriately, but the label is still useful when correctly applied. Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me an example of when the label is useful? Gregcaletta (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't take the time to find cases that I personally endorse (I haven't noticed any recently), but an indiscriminate list is here, and a somewhat different list is here. In general, when participating in difficult discussions, such as at WP:AFD or at some noticeboard, it is useful to know if the discussion is being influenced by SPAs. I'm not talking about a good SPA (someone with detailed knowledge of a small area of interest where they make useful edits). I'm referring to the disruptive SPAs who use Wikipedia for promotion, or who turn up to influence a discussion (see this search). Also, it is useful to point bad SPAs to WP:SPA so they can understand that they are not the first to realize that they can promote a product by editing Wikipedia, and that we have procedures to respond. Johnuniq (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general I agree with Gregcaletta, although the "racist" heading and simile are a bit exaggerated. However, there is an entrenched minority in wikipedia who are attached to the concept of SPA. They have no real power, and the best way to deal with them is to ignore them. If anyone uses that label against you, just carry on as if nothing had been said, and discuss issues on their merits. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In all of the few examples I looked at on that list, the term is either used in a derogatory sense, or even as if there were some kind of "conspiracy". I have not seen any examples where the term is useful. If someone in an AfD discussion clearly being unreasonable, then they are clearly being unreasonable and there should be no need to label them. Although I now realise it is unlikely that this essay would be deleted, I would request that someone significantly change the article to warn against this becoming a strange and dangerous mix of conspiracy theory and bigotry, something like a witch-hunt. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The SPA tag is a very similar concept to the Star of David which was stuck to Jews in Nazi Germany. I would prefer that its use be recommended against in this essay, but I fear that will not gain consensus, so instead I request as a compromise that the following change be made. I would like to change this:

"The SPA tag may be used to visually highlight that a participant in a multi-user discussion has made few or no other types of contribution. However a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that clearly align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines will usually find their comment given full weight regardless of any tag."

to this:

"An SPA tag is sometimes used to visually highlight that a participant in a multi-user discussion has made few or no other types of contribution. However, any editor's argument should be assessed on its merits, not purely on the editor's history. If they make good points that clearly align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines, their comment should be given full weight regardless of any tag."

I thought I would get a nod from someone here on the talk page before I go ahead and make the edit

Gregcaletta (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's overstating it: of course WP:AGF applies, but we are not required to ignore an editor's history when deciding, for example, whether to read another wall-of-text or whether to simply close a discussion. How about these changes to the second sentence:

However a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that clearly align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines will usually findshould have their comment given full weight regardless of any tag.

Frankly I don't think it's worth worrying about this wording because as I mentioned earlier people will always find a way to act inappropriately – I recently commented on a case where editor X added a period to a sentence which caused editor Y to put a level 3 vandalism warning on X's talk page: that could be excused as a blunder, but X very politely enquired whether Y understood what had happened, and Y simply blathered (Y is now blocked until they are able to give a plausible undertaking to not repeat the behavior). We will not update some guideline to say "do not use level 3 vandalism warnings when another editor adds a period to a sentence" because we have to assume some level of competence. If you would like to point to a clearly inappropriate usage of the SPA label, I would be happy to look and see if my opinion shifts. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term "SPA' was recently used in an attempt to block me from the encyclopaedia, although I do not fit the definition given on this page, and the request was ignored. However, I cannot even imagine a case in which the term can be used in a sense that is particularly useful. In all the examples I have seen, the term is used merely so that one can ignore any merit that there might be to one's argument. If there is not any merit to the argument, then there should not be need to label the editor with what is notw a derogatory and sometimes conspiratorial term. In any case, I am concerned that this essay, in its current form, actually reenforces the current problematic use of the term SPA as a kind of witch-hunt term. I would certainly support the changes you suggest, but I would like to point out that the changes I suggested did not imply that one must "ignore an editor's history", I merely suggested that we emphasise that an "argument should be assessed on its merits, not 'purely on the editor's history". Gregcaletta (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change. Re the case you mentioned: I won't comment, because I am not familiar with the practices at other projects, except to say that a quick look made me think that the SPA label was a very small part of the claim, and was not the basis for an attempt at a "block and/or final warning". No one is blocked for being an SPA. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should introduce an essay and tag corresponding to the opposite "problem" to that indentified by SPA, namely WP:Know-all (compare Know-it-all), for those editors who habitually join discussions and edit on subjects which they do not understand, or lack required backgound knowledge. Not only does this occur, but I have seen examples where editors (including admins) have frankly admitted their ignorance of a subject, yet have carried on to edit, discuss, vote or close discussions as if they did know something about it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the SPA tag essentially refers just to very new accounts, not to people with specialised knowledge. I think it is a silly name and a silly tag, and having an opposite know-it-all tag would just be the opposite silliness. I think a better solution is just to ignore the SPA tags, remove them if you want, and be on the look-out for anyone using the term SPA in ad hominem sense so that you warn them against such derogation. Arguments for deletion should be judged on their merit, not based on the user's edit history. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed a proposal at an ArbCom case which uses the SPA concept. The case is not relevant here, but the proposal is very good evidence that many editors recognize that SPAs can be a problem: see Single issue editors and the "Topic restrictions" sections a little further down. Johnuniq (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lighten up, Greg, my suggesion of a WP:Know-all tag was intended to be provocative to believers in SPA, and you were meant to see the funny side. Never mind. As for Johnuniq's point, what he observes shows only that the SPA obsession has infected even some members of ArbCom. It remains the case that SPA status ought to be treated as irrelevant. If a left-handed Jew breaches wikipedia policy, the breach of policy should be addressed without reference to other features of that editor's identity. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following diffs show an editor adding the note "69.228.156.201 has made few or no other edits outside this topic" in an attempt to discredit or dismiss the anon-IP's comments. One sampling (there are more): [1][2] [3] [4][5]   Is this appropriate? And if another editor objects, can the 'tags' be removed? A quick look at the anon-IP's history shows him editing other articles, though most edits are on MMfA and talkpage. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The case is unusual: it is rare for general comments on an article talk page to be tagged with {{spa}}, but it is rare for an IP SPA to shotgun so many comments onto a talk page, while making many edits to the article. On balance, I would say that no harm is being done by the SPA tags (I did not notice any objection by the IP user, and a quick look at the talk makes it appear that {{spa}} was only added when the IP user did not sign their comment, i.e. 15 times). Yes, the user is doing some other editing, but they are definitely focused on this article. Johnuniq (talk) 08:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: the talkpage threads in question got archived [6] [7] before I could comment on, object to or simply remove the tags, and I still feel they were inappropriate. I've since notified the accused editor under his newer, non-IP account. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Imho it's generally better to directly notify an editor if there are concerns. That way, he/she gets a notification and can reply to it. With unsigned notes, there's no notification and the accused doesn't even know who to talk with about the issue. This only strengthens my point that the (imho bad) habit of adding anonymous notes is problematic and leaves the victim at a disadvantage. There should be a better policy. Gray62 (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After reading several comments on this talk page I think it would make sense to rename this page as something like "SPA tag" and talk about tagging. I think having all this conversation about what an SPA actually is is pretty useless, because people are pretty much only coming to this page for a few reasons (1) they want to know why they were tagged, (2)they want to know what this whole tagging thing is, and (3) taggers want to have some guidelines they can point to as why they tagged or did not tag certain people (all of these mainly in AFDs). All this writing about single purpose accounts being editors that are experts in a field really detracts from the purpose of this article in my opinion. We either need two separate essays or a complete redo on this one. What do others think?--MATThematical (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does "broadly limited" (in the first sentence) mean? Can we think of a clearer phrase for whatever it's trying to get across? Axlrosen (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the text is less than perfect, although I can't think of an improvement. It's just saying "generally limited", as in "a large percentage of edits are in one area, although some small percentage of other edits may also be present". It's quite common for an SPA to focus attention on some field, but also have a few edits in gaming (or wrestling, or other recreational stuff of interest) articles. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about "generally" or "mainly" or "principally" or "primarily" limited? Or if that's not clear enough, we could say "limited, or mostly limited," Axlrosen (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "generally limited" to the current language. — Satori Son 15:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I yearn for a policy that thwarts SPAs, something in the direction of limiting their one-sided interests. For example, if an editor's contributions are over 40% on one article, they automatically get a warning, and when they get to 50% they are automatically blocked from the article and it's talk page, IOW an effective article ban, but not a topic ban since there are likely other articles dealing with the same topic, but automated bots can't figure that out. This would hopefully force them to start editing other topics for awhile, and when the percentage drops back down to 40%, then they are again allowed access. My basic thinking is that editors should be forced to make the encyclopedia their main motivation, not warring over their favorite topic. It's valuable experience for SPAs to edit in other topic areas and it's good for them to learn that peaceful collaboration actually works. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there is no way something like that will be implemented in our time. For one thing, there are good SPAs who do great work in a very narrow range (and I don't mean adding youtube video links to band articles). I noticed this link in User:AGK's signature the other day. While it is not about SPAs, it is a related situation where Wikipedia's AGF openness is being ruthlessly exploited. Between SPAs and civil POV pushers, the future looks bleak. Johnuniq (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this page looking for what someone meant when they used the term SPA, and this tag strikes me as a very bad idea. For one thing, Wikipedia should be about reasonable people making decisions based on the subject matter, not whether some editor likes to specifically write about cheese. This label strikes me as saying "if someone is a sportswriter, then they have no business writing about sports." How silly. Maybe someone can explain how adding a negative label to someone genuinely invites a better outcome? Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying that a sportswriter should not write about sports. Is there some wording in the essay that you think is unhelpful, or which conveys the "sportswriter" idea? Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question/point I was having is, why is it at all relevant to "tag" someone as a Single-Purpose Editor? Unless someone says they are a single-purpose editor, like "I am a writer of ONLY sports", why should it matter, and why is it relevant for someone to be tagged as such? This seems like a built-in tag to be able to discriminate not based on the content of what is being said, but to just dismiss out of hand, because one sees a label.

“

The SPA tag may be used to visually highlight that a participant in a multi-user discussion has made few or no other types of contribution. However a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comment given full weight regardless of any tag.

”

I'm asking why this tag even exists, if it is simply a way for people to eagerly dismiss other editors' work? It seems to run very counter to the idea of "good faith". -- Avanu (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, in an ideal world we would spend two weeks individually explaining to each problematic editor exactly why repeatedly adding links to their favorite website is unhelpful, or why inserting promotional wording is undesirable. That's pretty much what has to happen anyway, but as well as protecting new users, we have to protect old users and the encyclopedia. Do you have an example of an actual problem? Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on the Jared Loughner page someone on Talk requested that it be moved "because a nonresponsive SPA" named it Jared Lee Loughner. At the time, I assumed SPA was some Wiki-jargon and probably just meant 'person', but finally the discussion closed, and I decided to look up what it meant. Upon finding this page, and noting the general tone of the editor from the Loughner page, it became clear that he simply uses it as a disparaging term, intended to devalue the opinion of other editors. After reading the full description here, it just makes me wonder how there is ANY value in such a term unless it is SELF-applied. It just seems like a way to say "you're a newbie, so your 2-cents only counts for 1." And that MIGHT be true, but shouldn't a debate in ideas be based on the actual value of the ideas, not the worth of the people expressing them? -- Avanu (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that on the article talk page you gave an excellent reason why Jared Lee Loughner should stay at that name, and that is the current situation. The nomination for the move pointed out that the person who created the article was an SPA (with a link to their contributions to confirm the point), and nonresponsive (with a link to their talk page to confirm the point). In this case we see that the inexperienced, nonresponsive SPA was correct. Nevertheless, it is a useful pointer for editors entering into a discussion to have the situation clearly layed out—we do not need to use euphemisms when describing simple behavior. Anyone who thinks SPA=evil is misguided, just as it is misguided to suggest that editors should not be alerted to SPAs who often are problems (and often are not—there are many excellent SPA editors, some of whom are IPs). At any rate, this example proves that the SPA label did no harm: the action taken by the SPA editor was confirmed by consensus (actually it was "no consensus", so it is more accurate to say that consensus did not overrule the new editor). Most editors are quite capable of evaluating a situation for themselves, and will not automatically argue against an SPA. Johnuniq (talk) 06:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally used when an SPA makes themselves noticeable by causing problems, sort of like a constructive IP who could edit for years without anyone noticing them, but if an IP causes problems in their first two edits they risk getting blocked. There will fly epithets about anonymous IP vandals, etc., but no one will ever complain about or tag the constructive IP who never causes problems. It's their behavior that draws attention to them and then gets them in trouble. (The fact that by far most vandalism is caused by IPs is another matter, but the community seems to think that the vast amounts of time wasted on vandal hunting by registered editors is just fine. I obviously disagree and think that IPs should be required to register after they reach a certain number of edits. If they have tried editing and decide to get serious, then they should register and enjoy the benefits that brings. There is still no legitimate reason for allowing IPs to edit indefinitely. There is no upside to that story. Just because there are a very few constructive IPs doesn't justify the enormous damage all the others do.) -- Brangifer (talk) 07:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just quickly pointing out here that someone who just edits sports pages is a classic "misuse" of the SPA tag, in fact even someone just editing baseball pages is probably not an SPA. SPA tags are for very specific subjects, something like currently active baseball players on the Los Angeles Dodgers. Basically the idea is that the person is editing with a single purpose, in this case perhaps promoting their favorite team by only editing pages of current players on the team. It would be silly to argue that a person were "promoting sports". If you ever see someone tagging a sports editor or a Biology editor or cooking editor etc. as an SPA, you should revert the tag, and warn the tagger on their talk page using the new shortcut to the common misuses section WP:SPATG. I am really glad you pointed this out Avanu. Thanks a bunch. --MATThematical (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on some of the comments on this talk page, I have a suspicion that the tag might be frequently over used. Is there anyway I can look at a list of all the times its been used? I would like to point those who use the tag incorrectly to this essay so they use it more appropriately in the future. Personally I don't edit many AfDs so I don't see the tag too often.--MATThematical (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you visit {{spa}} and click "What links here" in the toolbox in the sidebar, it will list those pages which "transclude" the template, that is, those pages where the SPA template is used. Of course it won't show the many places where people just use the text "SPA". It is also possible to make a wikilink: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Spa. You may want to change the Namespace to "Wikipedia". I think you would have a fairly hard time making sense of the list, but you can try. If you notice any recent (last couple of months) misuse of the tag, please let us know here.

Hmmm, I see that you are supposed to "subst" the spa template (don't know why, and it's quite a while since I've used it). The above would only find those cases where it is not substituted. I just had a quick look at WP:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 23, and searching for "has made few or no other edits" finds a few cases where it is used (a couple I checked were not substituted). Johnuniq (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

those actually sound like good methods. When I have more time I might do this. Anyway I actually wanted to know whether people were misusing the tag in the sense that they were tagging people who shouldn't be tagged. I have ran into this twice, and considering how few AfDs I actually look at thought it might be widespread. However, I could just have gotten a bad small sample. Basically I want to link the "What an SPA is not" section on taggers user pages so they clarify. People who look like they are sockpupetting, vote stacking etc. but have diversified edit histories should not be labeled an SPA, maybe they should be labeled something else but thats another issue entirely. --MATThematical (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. An IP--with its very first edit as that IP--joined an AfD discussion. I tagged the IP with the relevant SPA tag. But an IP has just deleted the SPA tag. What is the proper course, at this point in time? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends on circumstances and how aggressive you are feeling—there are no guidelines, and I have seen established editors insist that SPAs be tagged, and I have seen cheeky SPAs successfully remove the tag. In the case in question, the user is obviously familiar with Wikipedia and is not posting content-free me-too votes as would be done by most SPAs, so I would be inclined to leave the tag removed (I'm assuming the two IPs are the same editor). Insisting on the SPA tag is more important when several SPAs miraculously appear at the one AfD. Johnuniq (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has been many past debates on which editors of good standing from other Wikimedia projects who do not have many edits here are tagged as single-purpose accounts. I think this is an abuse of SPA tagging and should be prevented in order to encourage WP:AGF.

Therefore I propose the following extra line in "what not to tag":

Editors mainly active on other Wikimedia projects: Many editors participate on multiple Wikimedia projects, of which few belong to the English Wikipedia. If they are editors of good standing on other Wikimedia projects, they should not be tagged as SPAs even if their edits on the English Wikipedia appear to focus on one single purpose.

--Deryck C. 23:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not worthwhile, unless there is evidence that there is a significant problem with such tags. Consider the implications: before tagging a registered account (or an IP?), I should use some very slow tool that reports global contributions, then spend ten minutes deciding whether "good standing" applies to the editor if they are active in another project. Further, the section says "under no circumstance", but I'm pretty sure that some thought would produce scenarios whereby a tag might be appropriate. Every rule at Wikipedia can be, and has been, abused—it's not possible to specify all the things that people should not do. If someone is tagged, they are free to point out any exceptional circumstances, and all reasonable editors would respect exceptions and remove an unwarranted tag. Johnuniq (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One current case is the ongoing discussion at Talk:Republic of China#Requested move. The misuse (if not abuse) was such that two active, good-standing editors from zh.wp were falsely accused of being sockpuppets. Deryck C. 20:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate, but that's just confirming my point: an editor asked for an SPI check and (I guess from your above message) it turned out that no sockpuppetry was involved. Every part of Wikipedia can be misused, and it should be obvious that only editors who are reasonably believed to be SPAs should be so tagged, and only under the circumstances outlined on the SPA page. On the Internet, people should expect blunt talk: someone might accuse me of vandalism, and I just have to calmly explain my position and not try to change procedures just because a few isolated cases of false accusations regarding vandalism occur. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that it's a recurring problem, particularly rife in discussions about culture and local interests outside the English-speaking world, where many editors with local knowledge are more involved in another Wikimedia project. Deryck C. 11:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say that several such examples were confirmed to show an actual problem. How big is that problem? As mentioned, every procedure at Wikipedia is abused, and writing more rules is not necessarily going to help. Putting that to one side, what about my earlier message regarding the practical issues—the proposed text is in a section which prohibits certain tagging, yet there is no reasonable way to check whether an IP or account posting here is an editor in good standing on another project. If a significant problem is demonstrated, perhaps some other wording somewhere else might be appropriate. However, "should not be tagged" is obviously correct, and reasonable editors are not going to disagree if someone removes a tag with an edit summary pointing out that the user is in good standing at project X. An editor in good standing at another project should be sufficiently used to mistakes to understand that SPA tags are not (usually) intended maliciously—all that is required in response is a calm and brief explanation. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of practicality, there's now WP:SUL :). I think the problem arose when I read on Talk:Republic of China that several users argued for the restoration of the SPA tags even after the users were proven to be active and of good standing on other Wikimedia projects, citing that WP:SPA does not consider one's involvement elsewhere in the Wikimedia community. Hence I consider that a loophole that should be plugged. Deryck C. 19:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia, documented procedures describe what the community considers to be best practice. I have not looked at the case you mention, but I'm guessing that it may involve some nationalist views regarding what is the "correct" name for a country. I suggest the correct procedure would be to start an WP:RFC on that case (or has it been settled?), and include a subquestion regarding whether SPAs who are active in another project should be labeled in the discussion. If a wide discussion resulted in "labels should not be used", then some change here should occur. However, there are standards for titles that apply to enwiki and it does seem plausible that editors from another project may not be focused on applying those standards; indeed, they may be wanting to change them. That's fine, but why should they appear to other participants as editors who are familiar with enwiki procedures? At any rate, this is the sort of issue that needs to be settled on a case-by-case basis because it is very unlikely that a one size fits all solution will apply. Procedures are generally not changed whenever some problem arises since every procedure has been misused. Johnuniq (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor who slapped a COI template on a student's university project article (identified as such by the banner on the talk page), on being asked about it said "The user is a SPA", linking to her contributions list.

Maybe this article about SPAs should make some mention of students doing school or college assignments, who are likely to edit a single article only but should not be treated with suspicion because of this! A reminder to check the article talk page for the "Educational assignment" banner would be useful. PamD 15:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm arguing here, it makes no sense to tag IPs as single-purpose accounts.

Although the essay and template already (and imho accurately) refer to single-purpose accounts, not editors, this is far from a semantic game.

The reason it makes no sense to tag IPs as SPAs, or to refer to them as such, is that it is to be expected that the time span that one IP was assigned to one editor covers only a short amount of time during which the person is quite likely to have made edits only in one limited area.

I've been reverted twice, with no valid reasoning provided in either instance. One revert was based on circular reasoning, the other one was even weirder. Please provide your refutation of my argument which is based on the limited time most IP addresses are assigned to individual editors, making it nonsensical to refer to or tag IPs as SPAs. --78.35.241.177 (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's wildly improbable two people who got the same IP by chance would act so similarly as to be suspected of being the same "SPA". So if you happen to edit the same article as the previous user on that IP a few days earlier, especially if you're edit warring, you will be assumed to be that same person. If you don't like it, sign up for a named account. Or change your IP yet again and sin no more. Barsoomian (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your reply is entirely beside the point of my argument.

It's wildly improbable two people who got the same IP by chance would act so similarly as to be suspected of being the same "SPA". -- What? That's not the issue. The issue is that even tagging any one IP address as being single-purpose makes no sense to begin with, because that same person is most likely making many edits in many areas from many IP addesses which are dynamically assigned to them by their respective ISP. Your attempted point conflates alleged SPA with suspected sockpuppetry. These are two very distinct concepts you're hopelessly mixing up here.

So if you happen to edit the same article as the previous user on that IP a few days earlier, especially if you're edit warring, you will be assumed to be that same person. -- That's suspected sockpuppetry, not single-purpose editing.

Or change your IP yet again -- I'm not changing my IP at all. My ISP assigns me a new address at random intervals, with no control over it on my part (server-side DHCP).

and sin no more. -- This makes as much sense as the rest of your comment, with the distinction of sounding like veiled accusation. Out with it, if you have something to say. --78.35.241.177 (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made my point and I'm finished with this topic. Barsoomian (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have not made any point. Unless the other reverter or someone else comes up with something much more valid than your confused conflation of two distinct concepts, this means that my initial edit was correct, and your revert was incorrect. Thanks for participating though. --78.35.241.177 (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of another new user that felt insulted by the template applied to their edits; the current wording makes it look like WP:AGF does not apply to the tagged user. Can we expand the text of {{spa}} to clarify that other users are still required to assume good faith and must avoid BITEing the newcomer? I suggest adding "All other editors are reminded to assume good faith and don't bite newcomers." - so that the tagged editors are informed of their rights at the same time as their duties. Diego (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a new SPA who seems to have made few to no edits and there are problems with the edits (overly promotional), there should be an attempt to educate the user and make a post on his or her talk page. If this isn't happening, uninformed SPAs may think "they're removing my information for no reason!" and become frustrated.

The talk page makes it clear that SPAs may be well-intentioned and they may not understand or know what is appropriate for an encyclopedia. In addition to commenting in the edit summary, longtime users need to either: A. start a new discussion on the article talk page and ping the SPAs or B. make a post on the SPA's talk page and discuss the problems with his/her edits.

If this is done enough and knowledge on exactly what Wikipedia wants or doesn't want is known to more and more SPAs, the world as a whole will better understand Wikipedia and long-time Wikipedians. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, but there are more of them than there are of us. It's hard. Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it may be difficult, partly because there are any of them. I believe Wikipedia has a guide on how to write in an encyclopedic way, so pointing SPAs to that will be a huge help. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across many editors who seem to have a narrow interest in nominating other editors' work for deletion. Some even specialize in a particular type of deletion, say wp:CSD, and do it to the exclusion of any other wiki activity. So I am wondering if it would be appropriate to tag them as described in Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account#SPA_tagging? 15:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: No. If someone focused on nominating/discussing articles of a particular topic for deletion, they might qualify as an SPA, but focusing on deletions in general is not what being an SPA is about. We all assume good faith and might devote considerable effort in answering comments from people on the assumption that (a) they are here to build the encyclopedia; and (b) they will consider the responses. An SPA is someone for whom those criteria may not apply—as far as the evidence goes, their interest is in promoting a particular POV/product/team/whatever, and there is little evidence to suggest the SPA might be here to benefit the encyclopedia. You might like to re-sign your post. Johnuniq (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying Johnuniq. The reason I started this thread is that I find the tone of this page to be the opposite of what you say. The introduction sounds mean-spirited to me, and I especially object to having The SPA tag may be used to visually highlight... right in the introduction. There seems to be no process for determining who is an SPA, so essentially anyone can decide how to tag other editors with/whom they disagree/dislike. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq. I completely disagree. Focusing solely on nominating articles for deletion is exactly a "single purpose". It implies a certain POV. If we make the arbitrary exception calling the single purpose of nominating for deletion not a single purpose, then the single purpose account tag becomes biased. In my opinion you are changing the definition of an SPA to meet your own point of view of what an SPA ought to be, but nowhere in the essay does it exclude this as being a single purpose. MATThematical (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current test for an SPA is:

A user who appears to have a very brief editing history, or an apparent focus on one (or at most a handful of) matters or purposes, creating a legitimate reason for users to assess whether their editing and comments appear neutral, reasonably free of promotion, advocacy or personal agendas, aware of project norms, not improper uses of an account, and aimed at building an encyclopedia.

I propose this be changed to

A user who appears to have an apparent focus on a narrow set of matters or purposes, creating a legitimate reason for users to question whether their editing and comments appear neutral, reasonably free of promotion, advocacy or personal agendas, aware of project norms, not improper uses of an account, and aimed at building an encyclopedia.

I am uncomfortable with explicitly mentioning a brief edit history. If a user edits two pages, one about baseball and one about a fashion designer. He is not an SPA, because the reason for believing he is not neutral is not "legitimate".MATThematical (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the following section

Frequency of edits: A user should not be tagged as an SPA just because they only have a handful of edits. While all users with one edit are by definition an SPA, users with as few as 3 or 4 edits are not necessarily SPAs if those edits are in a diverse set of topics and do not appear to be promoting a "single purpose."

There seems to be a bit confusion among editors using the SPA tag to indiscriminately tag any editor with X or less edits as an SPA, even if those edits are highly diverse. For some taggers X is as big as 30 or so edits! I've gone ahead and made the changes but please feel free to discuss here. MATThematical (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently returned to this page for guidance about how to deal with an editor whose recent edits (over the past nine months) have focused exclusively on a narrow range of articles, and particularly with the inclusion of favorable material and the deletion of properly sourced criticism. This narrow focus seems to define a single purpose account but the editor's earlier edits (over five months and constituting about 50% of his total) were dispersed over a dozen different articles.

Yet the discussion of the editing timeline seems to assume that an editor cannot become narrowly focused on a single topic in non-neutral fashion. From my experience this assumption seems wrong and I suggest revisiting this passage to recognize that if an author's recent edits (say over the last six months or a year) focus exclusively or to a great extent on a single narrow group of articles, that constitutes a single purpose account. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If a user has a well established record of diversified edits, but then for the last few months has been focusing on a narrow set of pages, that is not an SPA. However, if they are adding promotional material or deleting properly sourced material, that is of course inappropriate behavior and please feel free to flag that behavior as such, but don't use the SPA tag on this person for that reason alone. SPA is not a synonym for bad behavior. MATThematical (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) This page should be modified slightly to clearly include as SPAs editors whose editing consists almost entirely of !voting for deletion at AfD, or placing PRODs and CSDs, especially where they are advancing spurious arguments for deletion and have a relatively low edit count (perhaps a few hundred edits). We should have a template, like the present SPA template, to identify such editors at AfD, because the !voting pattern suggests an agenda. I don't think it consistent to tag an editor who does nothing but try to delete articles on a particular narrow subject, but not tag an editor who does nothing but try to delete everything. (2) This talk page is rather long and could do with being archived.James500 (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting to delete at AFDs is a single purpose if that is the only type of edits done by the user. Is that your argument? I agree with it, but am not so sure everyone else here would agree with us on this. --MATThematical (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be an important part of the first sentence of this essay . . . or this essay is just plain ol' garbage! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 16:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There might be a couple ways to interpret that. If you come to Wikipedia thinking "I am going to edit just for this one purpose" but then later decide "oh wait, other purposes" then you would be right. But it is also possible to make an account, to become a user, with the intent of editing a wide variety of topics.

It's not so much that you ARE a single-purpose editor, but it sounds like your point might be that upon making your 1st edit, you will have only edited 1 topic, so you will APPEAR to be a single-purpose editor until you make edits to other topics. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not this is wrong, MurderByDeletionism is correct. Note it might only be true for a matter of minutes or hours, but anyone with only one edit is by definition an SPA no matter how noble their intentions. Once they have established that they edit multiple topics then they are no longer an SPA, but this only happens after some time. But I agree that someone with only two edits in different fields (with different purposes) means that person is no longer an SPA, at least for the time being. So many users may only be SPAs for minutes, but they are still SPAs when they make their first edit. MATThematical (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to SPA and SPU with last vowel referring to account or user, would it also be possible to alias WP:SPE to represent the phrase "single purpose editor" ? This is what I thought I remembered this being called and took me a bit to find out the proper term. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• easy enough to make a redirect if others concur. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Code	Result
{{User:Stormy clouds/Userboxes/Single-purpose Accounts}}	User:Stormy clouds/Userboxes/Single-purpose Accounts	Usage

• This is a userbox for those opposed to SPA's. - Stormy clouds (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to change the existing, inofficial policy of adding unsigned notes within a user's comment. This is very intransparent, confusing users, and against the longstanding practice of signing edits. Such notes may occasionally be helpful when establishing a consensus, but it should be clear who posted them. a weasel phrase like "an user has raised a concern" should have no place here. Whoever has a concern should sign it. Anonymous accusations (and that's how it's perceived) are like a witchhunt. Gray62 (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely. A loose necktie (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No. Adding a signature would be totally confusing as a signature at the end would make it look like that person wrote the entire comment. Either an account is an SPA and the tag is useful in pointing that out and should stay, or it is unhelpful and should be removed. Pages have a history so anyone who really cares to identify the editor adding tags. Johnuniq (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a number of BOLD revisions to this page, not intended to change its content but to fix some formatting problems and to clarify a few points. I changed the "3 or 4" edits to "5 or even 10" edits (I think editing Wikipedia often begins with at least 3 edits to the same topic area, and that there isn't anything wrong with that per se), and rephrased a few of the other paragraphs. IMHO I think it reads much more consistently and clearly now, but feel free to review my edits and revert if you disagree. A loose necktie (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are a range of legitimate reasons for having a single-profile account, and perhaps even multiple single-purpose accounts.

• If there's an area where I have specific expertise but also potential conflicts of interest, it might make sense for all my edits on //that// subject to come from a dedicated account, whose user-page, in the interests of total transparency, can list my potential COI's.
• On the other hand if I work or volunteer for a GLAM-sector charity or organisation, and am encouraged to add links to WP for my organisation's relevant collections (with a "special dispensation" regarding COI), it might be sensible to have another dedicated account just for that, with a user-page explaining why COI's are unlikely to apply to these edits.

Add a further account for general editing, and that's three legitimate accounts, two of which will be SPAs.

Having just tried the "new account" process, it has all these ominous warnings about how only editing on a single subject is likely to have people challenging you as some sort of wikicriminal. It's really offputting and discouraging, and if I was a newbie, especially one wanting to share my expertise or cooperate in the GLAM initiatives, I'd be very worried about having my reputation or that of my organisation damaged by gratuitous tagging, and would tend not to want to participate. Eric Baird (researcher) (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]