Wikipedia:Single-purpose account

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Single purpose account)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:SPA" redirects here. For the policy on sockpuppet accounts, see WP:SOCK.

A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose. If you are in this situation and some editors directed you to this page, pointing that you made "few or no other edits outside this topic", they are encouraging you to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia guidelines about conflicts of interest and advocacy. This is because many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, but a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored causes, which is not allowed.

Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has determined that "single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project."

For these reasons, experienced editors often scrutinize the editing activities of new editors and single-purpose accounts to determine whether they are here to build an encyclopedia (perhaps needing help and advice), or whether they are editing for promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas. Although the community seeks to attract new and well-informed users knowledgeable in a particular subject, Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy.

  • New editors have the right to be treated with respect and civility, and can demand them from other editors; but they should also be aware that, while courtesy and a warm greeting will usually be extended, they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Wikipedia standards.
  • Existing editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly, civilly, not bite newcomers, and remember everyone was new at some time. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits.

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.

General test[edit]

The general 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.

Evidence that the user seems to be editing appropriately and collaboratively to add knowledge in a niche area, may suggest the user is likely to be an editor with a preferred focus. By contrast, evidence that a user is also editing to add promotional, advocative, or non-neutral approaches, or has a personal or emotional interest in the area of focus, possibly with limited interest in pure editing for its own sake, is more likely to suggest the user has the kinds of concerns described in the introduction.

SPA tagging[edit]

Decision-making tags[edit]

In communal decision-making, single-purpose accounts suspected of astroturfing or vote stacking will sometimes have a tag added after their name, as an aid to those discussing or closing the debate. These tags are not an official Wikipedia policy, and may be heeded or not based upon your judgment and discretion. If you are tagged as an SPA, 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. The format of the tag is:
{{subst:spa|username}}  add this after the user's signature (do not replace the signature)
{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp}}  use this if the user did not add a signature
Before adding such a tag make sure you are doing so with good reason. Not all unhelpful editors are SPAs, and it is important not to blindly tag all of them as such. Please consult the general test and the "who not to tag" section below, in deciding whether the editor is actually an SPA. Please keep in mind that the tag may be taken as an insult or an accusation—use with consideration.

Whom not to tag (SPA tagging guidelines)[edit]

Shortcut:

The following is a list of common misuses of the single-purpose account tag. You should under no circumstance consider anything that falls into the below categories as evidence for warranting an SPA tag.

Editing time line: the timeline of a user’s edits should not be considered when using single-purpose account tags. One must look at the editor’s complete edit history, not just recent edits. Examples of non-SPAs include
  • Users with a diversified edit history that become inactive for an extended period and later re-establish themselves with single subject edits. Note that a time gap in edit history may be evidence that the person was referred to Wikipedia by an outside source, but it isn't evidence that the person is an SPA.
  • An established editor focusing on a single topic is not an SPA. Once an editor is well established with a large, diversified edit history, he or she can focus on single subjects for extended periods of time without being labeled an SPA.
Editing only within a single broad topic: When identifying single-purpose accounts, it is important to consider what counts as a diverse group of edits. For example, subjects like spiders, nutrition, baseball, and geometry are diversified topics within themselves. If a user only edits within a broad topic, this does not mean the user is an SPA.
Lack of a user page: While many single-purpose accounts do not have user pages, this is not a reason for identifying a person as an SPA. Some established users who edit articles on a variety of subjects do not have user pages.
A subject outside of SPA area: An editor can be an SPA within a given subject, but if they make edits on an unrelated page, the tag should not be used for these edits. The tag should only be used on the pages that relate to the single-purpose account's "single purpose."

Handling and advice[edit]

If you are in a discussion with someone who edits as a single-purpose account
Communal standards such as don't bite the newcomers apply to all users. Be courteous. Focus on the subject matter, not the person. If they are given fair treatment, they may also become more involved over time.
If they are participating in an Articles for deletion discussion, then consider adding a {{Afd-welcome}} message to their talk page.
If you are a newcomer or editing as a single-purpose account
Good policy-based editing will gain rapid respect. Ask others for help as you learn. The same policies apply to you as to everyone else, although your reputation and your evidence will inevitably be taken into account in discussions by some experienced editors.
If you create a single-purpose account, do not pick a username related to the topic you are editing. Adopting such a username might lead some editors to assume you harbor a conflict of interest, causing unnecessary drama.[1][2]
If you wish to continue working as a SPA, capitalize on the strengths of that role, particularly as regards sources. Be willing to buy or borrow books and articles on your chosen subject. Search thoroughly for information on-line. Make notes reminding you from where your information comes, carefully check its reliability and neutrality. Reproduce it in the form of citations.
The community's main concern is that edits by single-purpose accounts stand at odds with Wikipedia's neutrality and advocacy policies. Indeed, in some cases, there may be clear conflicts of interest. Care in these areas will be seen as a sign of good editorship.

Other considerations[edit]

While a new user without an edit history who immediately performs tasks that seemingly require a post-beginner level of editing skills (such as editing non-mainspace pages, uploading images, or participating in a discussion) may be an illegitimate sock puppet, it remains possible that a new user’s contributions are alternatively the product of a disinterested third party with previous wiki editing experience wishing to improve the Wikipedia project or it may even be that tasks like editing non-mainspace pages, uploading images or participating in a discussion are nowhere near as difficult as you might think and don't actually require extensive experience or a degree in wikiology. For this reason, statements regarding motives should be avoided in almost all circumstances. The term should be used descriptively and should not be read pejoratively unless a disruptive agenda is clearly established. Users should be informed of relevant policies and content guidelines in a civil and courteous manner, especially if a tag will be applied to their comment.
New users acting in good faith often edit topics in which they have a general interest. Such accounts warrant particularly gentle scrutiny before accusing them of any breach of official policies and content guidelines. Indeed, some new users may be unaware that editing a single topic, and in the process adding their own views, may lead to some editors giving less weight to their ideas in article discussions.
One can only form opinions of editors as a result of their actions. Over time, they may diversify their contributions. Users who continue to work within a narrow range of articles may find it difficult to build credibility in community discussions, although extended improvement to a specific section of Wikipedia should not disadvantage an expert opinion. As with all Wikipedia articles, users need to cite the relevant verifiably published evidence from reliable sources to support their point of view. Inevitably, some experienced editors might not agree with cited interpretations during content discussions. Please do not be discouraged by such editors. Eventually, they will respect you.
It may be helpful to cite the official policies regarding sock puppets and meat puppets for guidance on such matters, especially if new users have joined Wikipedia specifically to participate in a debate, or if they have joined at the request of another user who wants help in discussions on a particular article.

Further information if you have been linked to this page[edit]

If you are new to Wikipedia or if you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's editing criteria, please read very carefully the following policy and information pages:

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ "User talk:Virgin United - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". En.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 2014-01-08. 
  2. ^ "User:Young Trigg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". En.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 2014-01-08.