Wikipedia talk:Single-purpose account/Archive 2

Essay tag
As far as I can tell, there is no such thing as an "information page" (see WP:POL). I've restored the essay tag to make it clear that this is not a policy or a guideline.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * But the term SPA and aspects of this concept are mentioned at various guidelines. It is not just an essay, but I do see your point about there not being a standard for "information" pages. Perhaps it is time to label it as a guideline? — Satori Son 12:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If there isn't, there should be. So let's create one. "Essay" implies personal viewpoint. There is a space in between policy and guideline, and personal viewpoint, for pages which reflect information widely held within the community, but which is neither "just one person's thoughts on a theme" nor an official policy/guideline. FT2 (Talk 12:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say guidelines offer enough space between personal opinion and policy and have the virtue of coming up first as a proposal. I support the idea of getting this page into shape and proposing it as a guideline (though I of course don't support the current version of it).--Thomas Basboll (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Information pages are not policies and guidelines themselves. That's pretty clear already. Making it an essay makes it an "opinion" which it isn't. It isn't clear to me based on the above that there was consensus to make it an essay instead of an information page. Zenwhat (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Propose as guideline?
Who thinks we should propose this page as a guideline for Wikipedia?
 * Support--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support--Zenwhat (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

credibility
Why is it so important that an editor has "credibility" across multiple subjects to avoid accusations and other effects of this policy? I think there should be a reference to people referring to editors, who are making good edits in just one area, as SPA's as being uncivil. There has to be some continued wrong doing outside of what is thought to be naive by AGF for this to be brought up IMO. Ans e ll 19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

tagging community discussions
"In communal decision-making, single purpose accounts sometimes have a tag added below their name, as an aid to those discussing or closing the debate." Why is there a necessary bias against someone who only edits in one area. Conceivably someone could edit their whole wikipedia time in one area, then come to a discussion about deletion of one of their articles and find they are not the same as everyone else who is not likely to know as much about the area as they are and leave because they think being knowledgeable in an area is frowned upon. In a bare deletion discussion without this sundry markup they might not see the immediate bias against their input, but with this tag they definitely would find this bias up front and simply leave for similar projects which actively accept expert input, leaving wikipedia essentially a novice effort based on a few internet sources! This statement isn't neutral enough yet, and does not contain allowances at all for long-term single purpose accounts which may have violated policies just like everyone when they first start, but otherwise are good. Ans e ll 19:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

POV tag
I added this tag due to the fact that - whoever contributed to this article -

a) puts suspicion before the fact; that way assumption of the user's good faith can be trampled at free will by anyone who wants to disqualify a newcomer

b) legalizes incivilty and bias against a user that might find it appropriate to contribute to only one article or to a small number of articles - through branding him as someone who might be a bad guy

c) As to the "Labelling a user with 'single-purpose account' on a talk page which is not a short deletion discussion should be avoided unless their is specific evidence that they are editing to a specific agenda after they have been informed of the relevant policies." - what is the specific agenda? Something that can be freely stated by anyone about anything? What is the specific evidence? These generic notions are very dangerous in the hands of those who might act as a group and implement the single purpose account through mutual cooperation and support - as a tool for eliminating anyone who might be against them, and without opening a single-purpose account at all.

--Stagalj (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I fail to see the POV concern. Any account that contributes or does only one particular thing, such as edit a particular article, puts forward a single opinion or adds one particular link, is infact a "Single-purpose account".


 * a) This merely an essay about a term applied to a style of account use on Wikipedia. Single-purpose accounts are a common neutrality and advocacy concern. Some cases there are conflict of interest issues along with other policy and guideline concerns.


 * b) Single-purpose_account Handling and advice suggests no such incivilty and bias. UN states "Contributors should assume good faith when dealing with such accounts.".


 * c) For example, 'single-purpose account' with a specific agenda may look like this;
 * This account was created (and named talidari) for the sole purpose of creating the article Talidari and adding links to talidari.net. --Hu12 (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This account was created (and named talidari) for the sole purpose of creating the article Talidari and adding links to talidari.net. --Hu12 (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a POV - due to the fact that it comes from a group of people and not from neutral and credible sources. Also - it is based on the "specific evidence that they are editing to a specific agenda" - which comes from nowhere. Then - "Contributors should assume good faith when dealing with such accounts."- a meaningless phrase which together hardly could qualify this scribbling as an essay. If someone needs this type of 'essay' - please, let him/her to write it in his/her sandbox.--Stagalj (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to offer an opinion, please. I think a couple of you are over-reacting to this essay a bit. One, it's an essay as the original tag made clear to the reader. It's not a policy, a guideline, or even an ordinary WP article. Second, I'm not familiar with any policy requirements for WP essays explicitly stating that the same criteria for WP articles must be applied to WP essays, so the POV tag strikes me as being either out of place or presumptuous, depending on one's take on the issue. Third, believe it or not, "single-purpose anon IP accounts" (or SPAs for short) sometimes exist on Wikipedia. To give one sadly recurring example, the gaijin article is constantly facing the edits of SPAs who insist on turning Wikipedia into their own private soapbox with (usually) unsourced or unreliably sourced edits placed in the lead section. This is done to fulfill a political agenda. I can think of at least 4 recurring SPAs that fit this description, who fail to discuss their unsourced edits on the talk page, and who refuse to identify themselves. Indeed, for the few that do come to the talk page, they explicitly state that WP policies and guidelines are an irritating hindrance to their views and that they should be allowed to put whatever they see fit in the article. Is that balanced, neutral reporting of the known reliable sources in a serious WP article? Of course not. But they don't care about those things. Finally, is it bad faith to write a historical essay that offers the descriptions of some editors who experience this problem sometimes? I don't see how unless those opposed to this essay are either (1) also willing to scrap essays in general or (2) actually supporting the actions of SPAs. But this is just an opinion having encountered the phenomenon myself on Wikipedia. FWIW, J Readings (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have recently warned  for edit warring and disruptive use of an IP account. POV tagging an essay is further disruption. Please do not continue along this path, Stagalj, or you will be blocked. Jehochman Talk 03:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This essay does not seem very consistent with Policy
Specifically there are problems with the overview section. Wikipedia:Username policy states:


 * Single-purpose accounts
 * A single-purpose account is an account that contributes regularly, but does only one particular thing, such as edit a particular article or put forward a single opinion. By contrast, most regular contributors will edit and discuss many different things. Such accounts are permitted, and such a pattern of contributions may simply indicate a new or inexperienced contributor. However, it may also indicate sock puppetry. Contributors should assume good faith when dealing with such accounts.

The Second sentence of the essay WP:SPA advises, "If an new user participates in a discussion without an edit history in the area, he or she may be an illegitimate sock puppet." This puts the cart before the horse and does not WP:AGF.

Another sentence that does not WP:AGF is, "New users will begin to edit articles in which they have an interest. Such accounts will warrant particularly gentle scrutiny before accusing them of something they may not have known previously." Basically this implies they are going to screw up so only WP:BITE them gently.

The sentence, "It may be helpful to cite the official policies regarding sock puppets and meat puppets for guidance on such matters, especially if new users have joined Wikipedia specifically to participate in a debate, or if they have joined at the request of another user who wants help in discussions on a particular article." seems to be more concerned with WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT rather than WP:SPA.

Other than those issues, and the order of priorities of the essay it should not be hard to edit this to be more compliant with Username policy.

Moving the following paragraph to the second paragraph would go a long way toward improving the essay IMO. "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 only on a narrow range of articles may find it difficult to build credibility in community discussions, although extended improvement to a specific section of Wikipedia should not disadvantage an expert opinion. As with all Wikipedia articles, users need to cite the relevant verifiably published evidence from reliable sources to support their point of view. Inevitably, some experienced editors might not agree with interpretations of evidence in discussions. Please do not be discouraged by such editors. Eventually, they will respect you." Ward20 (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * SPAs, especially anon SPAs who sometimes push political agendas, are an unfortunate reality on Wikipedia. I would not suggest that we bite new users and assume bad faith. On the other hand, I strongly disagree with the suggestion (not necessarily made by Ward20) that editors should not be advised how to determine and deal with potential POV-pushing situations by SPAs and anon SPAs. To be frank, I think both sides of this discussion make legitimate points. If I understand him correctly, Zenwhat wants editors to know about the occasional reality and advise people against blatant, relentless, single-minded POV-pushing. I agree. On the other hand, other users don't want to encourage prejudice against new users either. I think that a happy (and useful) middle ground can be constructed for this essay. Hopefully, we can clarify that middle-ground while still making it acceptable for all parties concerned. J Readings (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No argument. I just wanted to give some input. The better the tool the better the product (and hopefully fewer blisters). Ward20 (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Understood and appreciated. (^_^) J Readings (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The erosion of WP:SPA.
I see in the past few days there's been a number of substantial edits which have eroded and downgraded the wording at WP:SPA, without much discussion here. 

For anyone involved, please discuss your edits here and why you think WP:SPA should be worded more lightly. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems fine to me. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also seems fine to me. I edited for misspellings, poor grammar, policy links, etc. As I stated above, I have no great love for obvious anon SPAs who deliberately push political agendas on Wikipedia, despite concerted attempts to reason with them. The gaijin article is a classic example. I've given up on it, despite years of research on the subject and faithfully following policies and guidelines. That said, other editors have a legitimate point. No good comes from advising other editors to assume the worst about a new user from the very beginning. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Erosion is good if it stops users indiscriminately labelling users in a way they are likely to find offensive. This page should be a place for them to understand, not to give a few light guides that people using the template might want to follow if they want. This page was of course designed to support the template, not the other way around, and as such it needs to be developed more to ensure it is okay. Reverting two large sets of edits in the past two weeks with the reason that it erodes the force that you were previously using it for isn't really a very nice reason IMO. Ans e ll  00:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree The final version of this diff reads better and shows a lot of work and polish over the previous version. Ward20 (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I was just overreacting and being a dick.

I was about to pull out specific examples of stuff I disagreed with and found... nothing. Sorry! &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one thing, though: It should not however be tagged with "essay" since it is not an essay. It's an information page. Calling things essays generally encourages them to be ignored, which this page should not. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)