Wikipedia:Single-purpose account
This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
A single-purpose account (SPA) is a
Wikipedia's
For these reasons, experienced editors often scrutinize the editing activities of new editors and single-purpose accounts to determine whether they are
- New editors have the right to be treated with respect and civility, 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 not bite newcomers. Remember that every editor on Wikipedia was new at some point. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits.
The
General test
The general test for an SPA is:
A user who appears to focus their edits on a particular article or related set of articles in a way which may cause other users to question whether that person's edits are build an encyclopedia.
It must be understood that evidence that a user seems to be editing appropriately and collaboratively to add knowledge in a niche area may suggest that the user is likely to be an editor with a preferred focus-- this is perfectly acceptable. By contrast, evidence that a user is editing to add promotional, advocative, or non-neutral material 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 raise concerns.
SPA tagging
Decision-making tags
- In communal decision-making, single-purpose accounts suspected of vote stackingwill sometimes have a tag unilaterally added after their name (producing a note that the editor "has made few or no other edits outside this topic"), 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 what the new editors are doing. The format of the tag is:
{{subst:
add this after the user's signature (do not replace the signature)spa|username}}{{subst:
use this if the user did not add a signaturespa|username|UTC timestamp}}
- Before adding such a tag make sure you are doing so with good reason. 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 to the tagged editor — use with consideration. If a tag is warranted, it should be limited to one instance per single-purpose account per conversation thread to inform readers in that thread. Adding a tag after every comment by a single-purpose account within a single thread is unnecessary and likely to be perceived as antagonistic.
Whom not to tag (SPA tagging guidelines)
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 timeline: A given user's overall timeline of editing should be taken into consideration before placing an SPA tag on that user's edits. Only a complete edit history will allow a fair consideration of that editor's intentions. Examples of users whose edits should not be labeled as being those of an SPA include the following:
- Users with a diversified edit history that indicates that the user became inactive for an extended period and then later re-established themselves with single-subject edits. Note that a time gap in edit history may be evidence that the person may have been referred to Wikipedia by an outside source (see WP:MEATPUPPET), but this is not evidence that the account is an SPA.
- Users who are established editors whose current focus is on a single topic. Once an editor is well established with a large, diversified edit history, such users are welcome to edit on single subjects for extended periods without their edits or their accounts warranting the SPA tag.
Edits by a single user 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", or "geometry" are diversified topics within themselves. If a user only edits within a broad topic (such as "spiders"), this does not mean the user is an SPA (though only editing the page Latrodectus might). Some very broad but specialized academic topics may seem narrow to editors with little or no knowledge of the field – if you are unsure what constitutes a specialized topic, then it may be best to mention this fact when claiming a certain account is an SPA or to not place such a label in the first place.
Lack of a user page or signature: 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. In addition, even the most experienced editors occasionally forget to sign their comments.
A subject outside of SPA area: An editor can become labeled as an SPA within a given subject, but do not label other edits as belonging to an SPA if the edits are to a genuinely unrelated page. The tag should only be used on pages that relate to the single-purpose account's "single purpose".
Number of edits: A user should not be tagged as an SPA just because they only have a handful of edits. While all users with just a single edit are by definition an SPA, users with as few as five or even 10 edits are not necessarily SPAs even if those edits are on a single topic or appear to be promoting a "single purpose". More important than the number is the content of those edits. Labeling a new account as an SPA after very few edits may be construed as biting the newcomers.
Handling and advice
If you are in a discussion with someone who edits with appearance of being a single-purpose account
Community standards such as
If you are a newcomer or are editing as a single-purpose account, good policy-based editing will likely earn you 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 are working a single-purpose account
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 harbour a conflict of interest, causing unnecessary drama.[1][2]
If you wish to continue working as an SPA, capitalize on the strengths of that role, particularly with regard to sources. Be willing to buy or borrow books and articles on your chosen subject. Search thoroughly for information online. Make notes reminding you from where your information comes, carefully check its
The community's main concern is that edits by single-purpose accounts stand at odds with Wikipedia's
Other considerations
While a new user without an edit history who immediately performs tasks that seemingly require a post-beginner level of editing skill (such as editing non-mainspace pages, uploading images, or participating in a discussion) may be an illegitimate
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.
It may be helpful to cite the official policies regarding
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 expert opinions. As with all Wikipedia articles, users need to cite the relevant
Further information if you have been linked to this page
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:
- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not—what is acceptable or unacceptable use.
- Wikipedia:Five pillars—the editing foundations of Wikipedia.
- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view—the core policy that informs how pages are to be approached.
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry—the core policy covering both users with multiple accounts, and multiple users working together on one "viewpoint" in a debate.
- Wikipedia:No personal attacks—some new users may find the single-purpose account label to be insulting.
- Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers—new members will become new contributors soon enough if they are willing to learn about Wikipedia culture, so welcoming new users does more good than labeling them as new.
See also
- Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing
- Wikipedia:Canvassing
- Internet sockpuppet
- Role account
- Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
- Wikipedia:Griefing
- Wikipedia:Signs of sockpuppetry
- Wikipedia:Sleeper accounts
- Wikipedia:Tag team
- {{spa}} – template to tag contributions by a single-purpose account
Notes
- ^ "User talk:Virgin United – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". En.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 2014-01-08.
- ^ "User:Young Trigg – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". En.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 2014-01-08.