Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Single purpose account


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was keep.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Single purpose account
There's a lot of reasons as to why this page is currently being detrimental to our discussions here. For one, it's a pretty standard violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA - we're arbitrarily categorizing people as only here for one intent, sometimes wrongly, and never done well. As most of them are new users, this also horribly violates WP:BITE, as it's incredibly harsh to label someone as only here for one purpose just because they dove into policy/deletion discussion early on with their editing. This isn't to say that "single purpose accounts" do not exist, but that a) we don't need to be rude and tag them when we don't know what they're doing, and b) we already had ways to combat such things by simply neutrally pointing out small edit counts. Not that any of this matters, anyway - with the exception of deletion review, we don't "vote" here, so it shouldn't matter what "purpose" anyone's here for. Finally, I know quite a few long-term editors who one could easily consider "single purpose." If I tagged their contribs with an tag, I'd likely be blocked. Why allow the same thing ifthey have 900 fewer edits?? Let's nip this in the bud. I'm including Template:spa with this nomination, but I don't know how to add a deletion tag without wrecking it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. -- Szvest 14:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up ®
 * Keep. Single purpose accounts do exist, and the term 'single purpose account' is a hundred times better and less biting than 'sockpuppet' or 'meatpuppet', which was users were calling them before this term came into common usage. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the better and more common thing I was seeing was merely User's first edit or User's 14th edit . It was much, much better than this thing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that the account's new isn't what makes it their opinion discountable, though; it's when the account hasn't made any edits that doesn't relate to the AfD's subject. If an account's first edit is to participate in an AfD, and then he goes off and participates in completely different AfDs or does something else unrelated, then it's not an SPA. It does happen. That's why 'User's xth edit' doesn't tell enough of the story compared to 'single-purpose account'. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The difference? The former is neutral and tells exactly what we know, the latter highly subjective and fairly insulting.  WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF aren't things we can discard on a whim.
 * Keep This page isn't an arbitrary categorisation, and you do get single-purpose accounts on many AFDs and on MFD/CFDs etc, so this is necessary. --SunStar Net 15:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's entirely arbitrary. Rarely, if ever, does an SPA-tagger know that an account is used for a single purpose, and never would I be allowed to tag an otherwise "established" user as such.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep / rewrite I always assumed SPA was talking about an account created for (or appears to have been created for) an AfD or some kind of straw poll. I've never had an issue with someone who only wanted to edit a small group of articles. -- Ned Scott 16:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep While I am reluctant to keep anything a prominent inclusionist actually wants deleted (and conversely), this is a reasonable page; it may be worth marking it Essay. The extension to users who only edit the Fooland article is not actually unreasonable, if we don't apply it too soon; those do tend to be cranks. Septentrionalis 18:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Any differentiation between inclusionists and deletionists which may be rife in the community does not have a relationship to Wikipedia: space. The encyclopedia space is a totally different matter. Ans e ll  23:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I was thinking about this today, and even if we get rid of this page people will still make such references. Personally, I didn't actually look at this page until today, and before there was the SPA template I would just comment in AfDs "manually" (as would others). That got me thinking, we should actually be using this page to talk about how SPAs can be perfectly fine, and to make it clear that being an SPA alone shouldn't have significant weight. We want to keep our eyes on trolls, but we also want to protect good faith SPAs, so probably the best thing is to use the page for both. -- Ned Scott 21:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In other words, a sort of extension for WP:AGF, but with specific context. -- Ned Scott 21:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would you nominate this for deletion? —Centrx→talk &bull; 21:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To be sure to stop any growth of this abusiveness. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep defining the term on the page is not a violation of WP:NPA, nor WP:BITE etc. In much the same way that definition of a Vandal or Vandalism is not. Misapplicaton of that term or labelling someone without reasonable cause might be, so I can perhaps see an argument for deleting the template (or better dealing with abusive use of the template, if someone is purely an abusive single purpose account no need to be PC about it and avoid calling the spade a spade) --pgk 22:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not an assumption of good faith at all. For one, presuming that an account is solely in existence to contribute to one area of knowledge is not in the wiki culture. Also, presuming that they are doing it maliciously, and building a template around this page so that the template has a backing is even worse. Commenting on the number of edits the user has may be one thing, but labelling them on their first few edits is never going to advance their will to improve wikipedia, or to sustain the necessary community element behind the encyclopaedia building. Ans e ll  23:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep If Jeff nominates something for deletion, it's an automatic keep... But without kidding, I don't see the WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA or WP:BITE violation per se. Especialy re NPA it clearly comments on the account's edit history, which is the opposite of a personal attack. ~ trialsanderrors 00:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * From WP:CIVIL: "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another" and "Giving users derogatory names...," occasionally "Lies."
 * From WP:NPA: "Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom." No different than "Jeff is a single purpose account."  Furthermore, NPA says "Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is."
 * WP:BITE: "If you do determine, or sincerely believe, a newcomer has made a mistake...try to correct the mistake yourself. Don't slam the newcomer." Furthermore, "Whilst it is fine to point a new user, who has made a mistake, towards relevant guidance it is out of order to suggest that they stop taking part in votes, AfD discussions etc until they 'gain more experience.' This both discourages the new editor and may deprive WP of much needed insights." And finally, "Do not call newcomers disparaging names, such as "meatpuppet."   "Assume good faith on the part of the newcomer. They most likely want to help out. Give them a chance!"
 * I think it's overwhelmingly clear. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To you obviously. ~ trialsanderrors 01:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What part do you disagree with? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * All. ~ trialsanderrors 01:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detail, then. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well if you want more detail: accusations of impropriety, derogatory, repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom, newcomer has made a mistake, disparaging names, meatpuppet. I don't see how any of this applies here. The strongest "accusation" I can see here is "user is likely more familiar with the subject under discussion than with how it's governed by Wikipedia policies". On the A's fanboard I frequent, new users are tagged with a "Dominican Summer League" marker. Venomous, disparaging, accusatory? I don't see it. ~ trialsanderrors 02:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. We see obvious SPAs on Articles for Deletion all the time: accounts that use Wikipedia nomenclature and clearly know enough that they aren't a newbie, yet randomly nominate articles for deletion with absolutely zero edit history.  There is nothing wrong with a Project page dealing with this phenomenon. &mdash;   Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  02:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the page regardless of your opinions about the content. Move the bulk of this debate over to the Talk page to decide if it's a good idea to have this essay/policy or not.  If not, tag it as rejected so everyone can learn from it.  Deletion would merely lead users to reinvent the wheel.  Rossami (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep essentially per trialsanderrors. "Assume good faith" doesn't mean we are prohibited from ever drawing conclusions about a user based on their observable behavior. Opabinia regalis 05:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep deleting the page achieves nothing, and solves nothing. People will still point out single-purpose accounts - and still can do so in a uncivil, bad faith and BITEing way. Better to try and turn the SPA tag into something useful than to just throw it out. The SPA tag is useful, especially in AfDs with sockpupptery already clearly present. It's just how it's used, which does need fixing. But deleting isn't the solution. -- `/aksha 06:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Although Badlydrawnjeff's argument was very strong, I still don't think that the page is actually offensive. However, I think that there is something wrong with branding these users. As Jeff said, we don't need to be rude and tag them when we don't know what they're doing. Well Drawn   Charli  e  08:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - No given arguments to delete are convincing, also as per Opabinia Regalis. --Improv 16:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. No arguments to delete are plausible.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I shortened the template Spa and removed the contested "possible SPA". The factual claim "few or no other edits" doesn't strike me as outside of WP:AGF. ~ trialsanderrors 22:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per trialsanderrors. Whisp e ring 22:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per trialsanderrors. It's useful information. Krakatoa  Katie  10:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: With a little hacking and fiddling, I got a form of tfd-inline to show on spa, Jeff. -- nae'blis 18:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this is useful as many of the above comments have pointed out, especially when dealing with people who pop onto Wikipedia from unknown other places to drop votes, a phenomenon which worries me because many of these SPA's also do not discuss inline with Wikipedia policy, or discuss at all. --Nuclear Zer0 18:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, especially with the new, more neutral wording. Perhaps a rename is in order, too.  Deli nk 19:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - It has a lot of use in some hotly contested XfD's. The template doesn't bite the newbies nor is it a personal attack. It just shows that the identified editor has jumped right into XfD from (almost) nowhere. Torinir ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 20:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as incredibly useful when used appropriately. The thing to do is not eliminate the spa tag, but to encourage editors to use it wisely. -- Kicking222 21:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the page - indeed needs to be used only in narrow situations, but I just encountered such a situation 15 minutes ago and cited to this page, plus the concept of "single purpose accounts" is used in several arbitration committee decisions (such as this one), so the arbitrators apparently find it useful as well. I'm not as certain about the template. Newyorkbrad 23:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep template, Keep and IMPROVE the ESSAY: This essay is fraught with WEASEL WORDS.  It barely says anything.  But newcomers often come to Wikipedia with someting specific that they really think should be added as a new article, etc.  If they didn't feel strongly enough about some topic to inspire them to get involved, they would only just READ Wikipedia and never edit.  It's fair warning for them to have a chance to understand how it looks to other Wikipedians when they open an account and edit only one page (or closely related pages-- book and author and author's website), discuss only that page (those pages) and involve themselves only with the existence and content of that page (those pages).  The template is tasteful to point out a possible single purpose account, and if the essay is well written we can encourage the possible SPA editor to read it to give them a chance to explain their involvement and discuss with us.  When I first started editing Wikipedia I participated in an AfD discussion on an article I had never seen before and someone responded to my contribution by saying that I had only recently opened the account.  I replied by explaining why and how I joined Wikipedia as an editor and gave further reasons not to delete the article being discussed.  Since I am a real person and not a sockpuppet the explanation satisfied everyone.  No harm, no foul. But it woud have helped me if there were a well-written essay explaining the concept of an SPA (this is not).  OfficeGirl 00:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. A useful article and template that will continue to become even more useful as Raul's Sixth Law of Wikipedia continues to raise its ugly head. -- Satori Son 02:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Useful and in my opinion not newbie-biting at all. In fact, I find the tone of the article rather innocuous and would favor a stronger tone - see the above comment about weasel words. Crystallina 02:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Some users really only care about one or two areas or have one or two areas of expertise. It's strange to penalize users who don't create content or take part in discussions not relevant to them. Wikipedia a rticle contributions from new or anonymous users are not questioned so long as the facts are there and documented, so why should discussion elements be considered on anything but the merit of the argument? SUNSHINE INCARNATE|
 * Delete - The reasons I've seen displayed above for this are that it isn't as biting or infuriating to new users who are entering into a discussion on a topic that they either hold an obvious interest in, or, better yet, the posibility of expertise. Well, it certainly may come off as somewhat reasonable to the person who, in their passing interest, have said "Keep!" or "Delete!" on whatever topic their friend mentioned was up for debate and he needed help with. Fine. But to those of us who have a genuine expertise in a field, particularly an obscure field which is under/mis-represented on Wikipedia? It sounds patronizing. Which, when your knowledge of something is clear and distinct, and you wish you share that knowledge, comes off as the most infuriating thing you can imagine. I would rather be told "You're a jackass if you think that!" than "HEY EVERYONE! IT'S THIS GUYS FIRST POST, EVERYONE SHUT YOUR EYES AND KEEP SCROLLING!" because, believe me, that is exactly how it comes off. It makes for a very cold entry to your community. SchuylerTowne
 * Delete per nom; this clearly violates WP:BITE and is often not used correctly. If kept, then definitely delete the template, as this is an essay, not a policy or guideline and we should not be enforcing anything. --Rory096 19:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Much better than WP:SOCK, whihc is what we used to call the legions of "brand new users" who flood AfDs. Guy 22:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: the more WP gets popular the more this kind of information is needed more and more. Pavel Vozenilek 23:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep template should definitely go. essay should stay, at least as I've re-written it. The essay should not condone separate treatment (it's not a guideline), but simply describe what goes on and why. Derex 23:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep While a potentially strong designation, sometimes no other word exists to quickly describe an account that was created solely to edit on one subject. I do not find this designation more offensive than "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet," which are words that are flung around in Wikipedia all the time. This attempt at deletion is an unwarranted fear of potential error in the face of overwhelming reality that an SPA is one of the major problem creators of Wikipedia. --210 physicq  ( c ) 00:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep On AfD pages which are invaded by a large number of people voting because they've been linked from a site, it's useful to tag those edits - it's important to indicate that a large number of votes in one direction isn't a snapshot of Wikipedia editors, but is highly influenced by being linked to. Of course there's nothing wrong with a newbie, but there's a difference between someone who's just starting on Wikipedia, and someone who's only making an edit because they were following a link to encourage them to vote. This doesn't mean their say gets less weight - that's up to the admins to decide. And is there a more appropriate template that can be used instead? Mdwh 01:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Meatpuppets need to be branded and identified. I would actually prefer the template to be stronger ("this meatpuppet is here to whine about their favorite article being deleted and should be ignored at all costs"), but that might not be civil.... --- RockMFR 03:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * and in complete ignorance of our other basic community policy, assume good faith in new users, dont bite them at their first contributions. Ans e ll  05:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * comment, if the wikipedia community cannot distinguish between someone new that engages in a discussion about the merits of the article and someone new who says "keep", then we have bigger problems than . Why do we not apply AGF to a vandal inserting "penis" in articles, but do apply it to a meatpuppet saying "KEEP OBVIOUS IMPORTANCE 2,000 MEMBERS ON FORUMS HANDS OFF"? --user:Qviri 05:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not see the comparison there. The first person would not get blocked as is, they would be assumed to be a possible good editor, and warned about the effect of their action in visible articles. The second one is on a discussion on a non-article page, which BTW is not actually a vote anyhow, and hence they can have their say no matter what. The "HANDS OFF" bit is a little provocative and they could be shown the owning articles guideline, however, the rest of their statement is their opinion and we should assume good faith and let them contribute without making them feel like they are unwanted as editors. Ans e ll  06:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This guys 'branding' comment is exactly why this should be deleted. This only gives people like him validation to abuse newcomers, in direct violation of the rules of Etiquette, Civility, WP:BITE, and assume good faith. --- Sahkuhnder 10:59, 05 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. The worldwide sale of kitchen knives gives murderers validation to use them in hundreds of murders worldwide, in direct violation of laws of most civilised societies. --user:Qviri 13:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Kitchen knives don't come with anything that says murder is acceptable. This implies that the abuse of newcomers has official endorsement and permission. It only serves to give the appearance of approved sanction and consent when someone gets does act malevolent. To mark someone as inferior only encourages and legitimises the debasement of them. --- Sahkuhnder 17:29, 05 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It helped me understand what a single-purpose account is. --theDemonHog 04:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep And I notice that no one voting here are SPA's. Interesting that I find them at all the controversial AfD debates.  The purpose of Wikipedia is the creation of the encyclopedia.  When a new users first contributions to the project are to the processes behind it that they haven't been a participant, their value is questionable.   Let them get experience with the process of building an encyclopedia before we take their input on that process seriously.  It's not BITE or AGF violations, it's simply common sense.  SPA is a designation that helps people weigh value of input on procedure questions by new editors.  It should be limited to Wikipedia space process discussions. --Tbeatty 05:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Some people only have interest in a single topic. How is it fair that their contribution should be any less valued because of that? If a new member's first entries are ridiculed simply because they are their first entries, then why would they ever want to return to make additional contributions? Are we not wise enough to judge merit based on what was actually said, instead of judging based on when the person joined? --- Sahkuhnder 11:14, 05 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not a problem only having interest in a single topic - indeed, I would object to the usage of this template for someone who was happily doing general edits on a single article. The problem is when it seems likely that someone has signed up for an account just to vote on something like an AfD. No one is ridiculing anyone here. This is a particular problem with things like AfDs for Internet forums, where the Internet forum then advertises the Wikipedia link and gets a load of people to come over to vote Keep (which is exactly what has happened with the Civilization Fanatics Center case - although ironically a couple of those voted Delete because they don't like Wikipedia...) As for judging, that's up to the Admins (afaik) - this template doesn't mean such people get less say, it merely marks such users, and the Admin who makes the decision can choose to take it into account or not. This isn't a case like Sockpuppets, where "votes" would be striked out altogether - your "votes" are still left. Mdwh 15:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment But people do ridicule, ironically enough by the very user commented on above and on the Civilization Fanatics Center page you referenced. I agree that the Admin who makes the decision can choose for them self, so then why do we need to keep this as a tool whose only real purpose can be to make new users feel less than welcome? To say it "merely" marks the users is exactly my point. An Admin doesn't need them to be marked, they are capable of seeing for themselves, and to "merely" mark a newcomer as inferior will only negatively influence the relationship for no reason. --- Sahkuhnder 17:06, 05 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If people ridicule, then that's a separate issue to this SPA. They'd still be ridiculing you if this template didn't exist. It's actually quite time-consuming to go through every edit and check the edit history, and it's a lot more efficient if one person only has to do this for each edit, rather than every editor and admin having to check every edit. Is your problem that a person may be incorrectly marked - i.e., they are a newbie who just coincidentally started editing on Wikipedia at the time of the AfD? If that is that case, then we could check that by noting that later they did have more general edits. But if we're talking about people who only follow a link to vote on an AfD and never edit again, then I don't see what the problem is. I have no problem with genuine new users - the problem is when people just follow a link to vote-flood an AfD, and you know as well as I that that's what's happened here, as we've both seen the thread on the CivFanatics forum. Mdwh 18:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Then please allow me to present myself as a perfect example. I joined and made several edits to an article. When a different article, Civfanatics, came up for deletion I went to the deletion discussion page and saw that it welcomed constructive comments. I made some comments and left my opinion as I was invited to do. I was then labeled as a SPA with the template, to show to all comers that my input was to automatically be just that of another meatpuppet (which I was also specifically called). I'm not easily intimidated, but I could see where this would cause many others to feel very unwelcome and shy away from any further participation. --- Sahkuhnder 18:46, 05 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay fair enough, I see that you did have an account and make 1 edit before the AfD. Mdwh 00:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If we're now objecting to people commenting on AfDs and not doing anything else, we might as well delete Template:AfD! The entire point of that template is to notify people who are reading the article that the article is being considered for deletion. If we don't want new users coming to express their opinions on AfDs, then sure, keep this essay and its template, and delete Template:AfD. But that seems awfully elitist and unwelcoming to newer users to me. --Rory096 17:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't object to "people commenting on AfDs and not doing anything else". Just that if an AfD has been linked from somewhere (not the Wikipedia article, but a high traffic site elsewhere) for the purpose of flooding the discussion with a load of votes, some people feel it can be useful to be aware of which accounts may be part of this. Mdwh 18:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As this template is currently used, people are tagging everybody who doesn't edit anywhere else. If there's a flood of meatpuppets, all that has to be done, just as has been done in the past, is to stick an tag on the AfD and maybe comment next to the people who seem to have participated in it.  It's not worth having a template for that, especially considering the amount it's been abused. --Rory096 18:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * is used, but it doesn't replace this template, as it doesn't indicate which edits are likely to be part of that. As for "comment next to the people who seem to have participated in it", yes, that's exactly what this template is for. On what basis is it not worth having a template to simplify this procedure and make things consistent? Having said that, I could agree to rewording this template with something slightly different - e.g., maybe it is more appropriate to say something like "This user has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is suspected of having been directed to come here by someone else" (i.e., it's not just that they have few edits). Mdwh 00:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do we need to label them in the first place? If they have been shown the AfdAnons tag which states clearly that the thing is not a vote, then it is implied that they do not need to be "labelled" in order to be left out of the "not-vote". Does the labelling encourage them to think of wikipedia as an accepting community? Ans e ll  01:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a simple vote in the sense that the greater number always gets that result, but in my experience, a large number of votes in one direction tends to "win", so I'd say the numbers still have an influence. Mdwh 02:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - but it could do with a bit of rewriting. Moreschi 21:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep; not only does it not bite newbies, it is important for them to read. It could do with some expansion.  In my experience, although there are exceptions, the narrower the editor's focus, the less likely the editor is to abide by NPOV.  We need to state this in the Wikipedia space somewhere.  Antandrus  (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a social phenomena that exists on Wikipedia; no harm in accurately describing it. And in some situations it is helpful to understanding what is happening. FloNight 23:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete/Revise significantly. The tag can be useful, but the definition is far too broad. "Has edited only a small range of articles" should not figure into it--if someone is doing editing, then it's very unlikely that he is a sockpuppet. He may have an interest in the topic he "votes" on, but that is emphatically not a reason to discount his opinion. As the tag stands, it is misleading, and even insulting, to that sort of user. JudahH 00:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - In many cases, it is impossible to determine whether a new user/IP is coming to an AfD via a forum flood or is just a random new user. There really isn't a way to narrow the definition of the spa template. --- RockMFR 01:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - If we can't tell where a new user came from then wouldn't it be better to err on the side of politeness and be welcoming to everyone unless there is actual clear evidence of a reason to not be? I would rather unjustly welcome a troublemaker sometimes than scare away a new user who came with good intentions. A forum flood is obvious without the need to run around (often unfairly) "branding" people. Remember, you yourself tagged me and incorrectly called me a "meatpuppet" in this deletion discussion that you started. --- Sahkuhnder 03:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, but rewrite - The page obviously is important. However, it needs a major rewrite. It is very slow to recognise the difference of a new user that has only edited a couple of articles, both related somehow, the user which primarily sticks to one type of subject & the new user which is used often as a sock puppet to vote for its puppeteer. Rewrite the article clearly outlining the differences & give links to the sockpuppet pages to explain why a new users used only in voting for another user are called this. Good idea bringing it here thought, as it will definitely give it some much needed attention to prompt the rewrite... Spawn Man 04:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment What are your thoughts about the spa template which is also being included in this nomination? Ans e ll  05:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: if the people who have "contributed" to Talk:The Zachary R. Smith Library had turned up (or will turn up) at the AfD for this article, why would I not tag thelm with the spa template? It's nice to assume good faith, but we don't need to close our eyes and pretend nothing is happening. Fram 06:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't quite get why that talk page should be singled out for you to be able to lay into people about their "single purpose" for being on wikipedia. On the contrary, it is absolutely essential to assume good faith. If you do not agree with a basic policy of wikipedia, how will you agree with the rest of the things this community believes in? Ans e ll  09:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 5 New accounts in 15 minutes, all with as first (and so far only) edit the defence of a newly created and Prodded article about an utterly non notable, unverifiable library, which has since in the AfD been accused by other editors of being a probable hoax (and it's hard to disagree with that judgment): I'm sorry, but pointing out that these people are "single purpose accounts" is assuming good faith, since otherwise I would think they were either sock- or meatpuppets. As for singlieing outthat page, it was an example I just came across, nothing more. I thought it was a good illustration of what is a single purpose account. And I didn't disagree with WP:AGF, I just pointed out that it has boundaries, and indicating that it appears that someone is a single purpose account is sometimes the best way. Even apart from that correction, your last question is a non sequitur. You can easily disagree with one thing and agree with the others. Fram 12:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Single purpose account and tag it as an essay, but delete spa as per WP:BITE.-- TBC Φ  talk?  08:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I very strongly object to the conflation of the essay debate and the template debate. I didn't even notice until just now that jeff mentioned the template, almost as an afterthought up top. The two are distinct issues. I'd like to keep the essay (as I indicated above), but ditch the template. Feh, I'm pretty sure I'm not alone on this confusion, and now the template will probably be tagged as having been "kept" when it hasn't been through a proper debate of its own. I object to that. Very irritating. Derex 09:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I figured the template was apart of the deal when I said keep. It doesn't matter if you delete the template, since people (like me) will just write it out manually. -- Ned Scott 11:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - lots of good arguments on both sides. However, as far as I can tell (and correct me if I'm mistaken), it's only used when it's a very clear case. Jeff makes a lot of good points, but I have rarely seen spa-tags used lightly. And even if the template is deleted, people will just write it out. riana_dzasta 13:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Re-word if you'd like but keep nonetheless.  Someone is going to point out that they are single purpose accounts anyway - we might as well make a standard way to do it.  BTW, I'm not generally in favor of calling anyone a SPA with anything more than 15 or 20 edits so the 900 edits case mentioned by nom. doesn't seem relevant.  If people are misusing this template, come up with a rule of some kind so they don't - but that's not a reason to delete the entire template. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Without dwelling further into semantics, we all really know what single purpose accounts mean and they are very detrimental to the ongoing improvement of Wikipedia.--Eupator 16:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful template. I disagree that it's harsh and BITEs, it's simply an informative message.-- Hús  ö  nd  17:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it is a bit harsh, but in the end it serves in the main to discourage the legion of Brand New Users from misinterpreting xFD as a vote, which is what it's for. In an ideal world we would not use it, but in an ideal world we would not feel a need to. Guy 18:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The wording that appears on the page is "xx.xx.xx.xx has made few or no other edits outside this topic." It's extremely relevant information in the context of an XfD debate. -- Jim Douglas (talk)  (contribs)  00:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, useful template and useful project. Nominator has put up for deletion whilst good-faith discussions on revision and clarification were in-process. Discussions, I might add, that he started. Do not see the point of putting a gun to the project's head when discussions were progressing apace.--Rosicrucian 06:49, 8 November 2006 (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.