Wikipedia talk:Single-purpose account

message: 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)
thread_title: In a nutshell

message: 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
#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.
#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: When does a single purpose account become not a single purpose account?

message: 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)
thread_title: Essay or guidline

message: 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)
thread_title: Changing back to "essay"

message: 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. PRtalk 16:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion - SPAs are better if they're labelled as such

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Jordanee155, I am sorry you feel that way, and will not contribute further.--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: This tag is elitist and insulting

message: It's pathetic. Made and used by self-important losers. Father Mucker (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Get rid of this policy

message: I don't like that template very much. The Single Purpose Account tag is SPAstic (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I hate SPA tags

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That's about right. It's almost a code word.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Best definition I've heard. DollyD (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

text: And yet you oppose my improvements. Sigh.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixmypedia (talk • contribs) 20:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Implicit point that SPAs are always "new users"

message: 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:
#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.
#Nobody's been deceived into thinking I have a CoI.
#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). PRtalk 09:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Encourage SPA labels & delete spurious CoI concerns

message: 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)
thread_title: Newcomers

message: 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:
#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.
#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
#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Defining a SPA

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you for the notice. Interesting developments, indeed. J Readings (talk) 08:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: FYI: SPA used as an ad hoc policy in an Arbcom RFAR

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Bots and batches

message: 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)
thread_title:  Archive single purpose accounts 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
thread_title:  First paragraph of "identifying SPAs" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 , 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)
thread_title:  Proposed Major Revision (Identifying SPAs)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Adding Common misuses to the new list 

message: 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)
thread_title: Newbies

message: 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)
thread_title:  General test 

message: 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)
thread_title:  SPAs for AFDs 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is SPA for people with one edit in an AfD? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Can you give me an example of when the label is useful?  Gregcaletta (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This essay is racist ;-) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A balancing tag? 

message: 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):
     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)
replies: text: The case is unusual: it is rare for general comments on an article talk page to be tagged with , 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  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)
replies: text: Follow-up: the talkpage threads in question got archived   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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Appropriate use of SPA tags? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rename and Overhaul the Article?!! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I prefer "generally limited" to the current language. — Satori Son 15:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Broadly limited" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Query; Assistance? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Editors from other projects 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Students 

message: ===Another new user bitten by the template===
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  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)
thread_title:  2013 

message: 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  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)
thread_title: Another new user bitten by the template

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  People need to deal with SPAs by notifying them of the issues with their edits. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: @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)
thread_title:  Are editors who are only involved in deletions considered SPAs? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed Change in test 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Adding SPA Tagging Guidelines 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Considering recent edits in timeline 

message: (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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: 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)
thread_title: Single purpose editor

message: ===Userbox===
*This is a userbox for those opposed to SPA's. - Stormy clouds (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: 2017

message: *This is a userbox for those opposed to SPA's. - Stormy clouds (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Userbox

message: 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)
thread_title:  SPA tags should be signed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  General revisions