Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Single-purpose account

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Withdrawn to make it about 20% cooler. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Single-purpose account


This essay is simply a way for people to eagerly dismiss other editors' work. It seems to run very counter to the idea of "good faith", and in fact encourages biting of new users who are unfamiliar to the processes of the project. To further clarify on the hypocrisy of this essay, I'm going to use myself and a possible scenario as examples. Me, being an editor for eleven months now, and some person defending a Viagra advertisement. What makes me different from him, if I make the majority of my edits solely to My Little Pony related topics, and him making edits almost solely to Viagra? It's because I'm not new, and he is. This essay is clearly a violation of WP:BITE in the sense that it unintentionally encourages seasoned editors to act as fascists, by rubbing their experience in the faces of potentially future-contributing users, while at the same time this essay publicly styles itself as being neutral.  Rainbow  Dash  !xmcuvg2MH 16:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Speedy" keep If the essay has neutrality problems, they can be fixed by editing, not deleting. But unfortunately there are a number of people who edit Wikipedia solely to push their own point of view and use Wikipedia processes to do so (e.g. AFD). The essay clearly says that "Many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest [...]" and specifies that the content of the essay is about those SPAs that "edit for the purposes of promotion, showcasing and/or advocacy" (e.g. people who were canvassed to register to !vote "keep" at an AFD). There is no reason to delete the essay just because some people might misuse it to BITE newbies. Many essays and rules are sometimes misused in that way yet we do not delete them because of it. Regards  So Why  16:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, many people make points and all, but you must admit to the obvious sense of hypocrisy in the air.  Rainbow  Dash  !xmcuvg2MH 16:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Previous !vote has not specified a "Speedy keep" reason, see WP:Speedy keep. If this was not intended to be a speedy keep !vote, then the !vote needs to be amended.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You are correct, although that's not really a relevant point. "Speedy keep" has been established to be a valid !vote even without the nomination meeting WP:SK as a means to express that there is no possible reason to discuss the matter for the allotted period of time. That said, I'm willing to clarify my !vote so that you or others are not confused by it. I hope it's okay now ;-) Regards  So Why  20:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: spa refers to the page "for information on when it is appropriate to use [it]." Dynamic&#124;cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 16:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly. We don't delete essays like this unless they are outright inflammatory. This essay explains a long-established view, it'd be folly to delete it on the grounds of merely disagreeing with it. Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict x2) Keep for a start the fact that you disagree with an essay doesn't mean the essay shouldn't exist. It's not a policy or guideline, merely the expression of the opinion of many editors, and the fact that you don't share the opinion doesn't mean much. Anyone who has edited in certain areas of the encyclopedia will know there are an awful lot of editors who spend all their time promoting some viewpoint on one issue and that such editors are usually disruptive. Nor are such editors necessarily new - some manage thousands of edits. Comparing any essay to fascism is ridiculous hyperbole. Hut 8.5 16:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You can use . Dynamic&#124;cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 23:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but the nom's concerns got me thinking about something. Perhaps this should be split into 2 concepts. The "SIA" or "special interest account" which is an editor with a narrow or specialized interest and the "SPA" or "single purpose account" which is someone who "drops out of the sky" to participate in one event such as an XFD, edit war, RFC, etc. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Note, I have reopened this discussion to make this comment. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with everyone above, and SoWhy sums up my thoughts very well. We're a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If something needs to be fixed, we should do exactly that. MJ94 (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep (disclosure: page creator). This page was created to explain a term used in WP:SOCK policy way back in 2006. It was heavily edited to explain the issue and not discriminate unfairly, and does that quite well. I think the real issue is, the nominator wants to stop people using the term "SPA" and hopes that removing the essay explaining the term will do that. But the term predated the essay. If the term is in use then we need to explain it. If the nominator wants people to stop using the term then Village Pump and RFC would be good places to test sentiment. FT2 (Talk 19:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Single purpose account for the previous deletion discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I also agree with everyone above, and, like MJ94, SoWhy also sums my thoughts up very well as well. LikeLakers2 (talk &#124; Sign my guestbook!) 23:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn nomination per Ron Ritzman's comment.  Rainbow  Dash  !xmcuvg2MH 00:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Wikipedia is very attractive for many POV pushers, and this essay (an opinion of many editors) discusses a common problem in neutral terms. Even if this page were deleted, experienced editors would keep referring to "SPA" because it is a term that has concrete meaning to those who spend time removing inappropriate edits from a range of articles. People find ways to be offensive, or to BITE new users, without ever mentioning "SPA", so even if that term were outlawed, the problem would not be solved. I see this is now redundant, but I just wrote it, so am posting. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.