User talk:神风

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, 神风. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! GotR Talk 17:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sock accounts
पाटलिपुत्र has admitted that this 神风 account with over 500 edits between 2012 and 2016, and the User:Tahar Jelun were his additional sock accounts. See the full case file here. Do our guidelines require that these be blocked? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would always block the accounts in such a case, though I don't think it is required by policy. Still, I block because I think it removes temptation to start using the account again. Note, I am assuming, because this appears to be the case, that the sockmaster account is currently in good standing. If that account is not in good standing, i.e. if it is blocked, all related accounts should also be blocked to prevent WP:EVADE. In a case like this, I'd include a note in the block message, being clear that the person is in good standing but that they won't be using this account. --Yamla (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that note. Before and if we do anything to this account, please note that according to, the earliest sockmaster account is the sole account that is left in place when we give second chances, and all later sock accounts are to be blocked per our SPI guidelines. FWIW, this 神风 account registered on 9 July 2012, while the पाटलिपुत्र account registered on 25 October 2016. The last edit by the 神风 account was on 30 November 2016 if that matters, after which date a number of other socks co-edited the same articles/topic area logging in and out on the same day. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * FWIW, the User:神风 remains active in parallel to and along with पाटलिपुत्र on wikimedia commons. The last content contribution by User:神风 in wikimedia commons is dated 26 July 2018, while the पाटलिपुत्र has contributed content in August 2018 to wiki-sister project. Similarly User:Tahar Jelun was active in wikimedia commons after a CU-SPI block in wikipedia along with their sock पाटलिपुत्र. FWIW, 神风 has recently disclosed their link to पाटलिपुत्र, but this use of multiple accounts in parallel within wiki-sister projects, after the last CU-SPI block, is difficult to understand and seems to evade scrutiny or make scrutiny less easy? Further, it is obvious that the sockmaster has not abandoned the old accounts in other wiki-sister projects nor has this sockmaster forgotten the password of a long abandoned old account. Whatever we do here, I hope we will consistently apply our policies without discrimination or favor to this editor and others. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't need to worry about sister projects, though admittedly having the user be consistent as to which account they use, that's a benefit. I suggest blocking this account, noting that the block applies to en.wiki only, and only because the person has agreed to stop using this account. Then, it's clear the block isn't for (current) abuse here but rather, to prevent accidental abuse in the future. I strongly believe that's permitted by our policy and nobody would object to this. --Yamla (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I believe पाटलिपुत्र should be blocked, 神风 (= kamekaze = WW2 phenomenon where explosives-loaded aircraft made a deliberate suicidal crash on the enemy) left as the only surviving sockmaster because it seems to be their oldest, if we were following our policies/guidelines consistently. I have read Bbb23 comments in the past, and he insists on this "only the oldest" guideline. If we were to block this older kamekaze account, leave the younger account this sockmaster prefers, we should consider officially adopting this policy in all future SPI investigations. We can go to the committee for clarification on this, but they are busy folks and I do not see any benefit to the Wikipedia project in starting a new precedent for पाटलिपुत्र. Why not stick with how things have worked so far? any guidance? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with this case at all so please consider this a general comment. Personally, in these cases where there is no way to confirm that the older accounts belong to the same person (they both have not edited in nearly two years) then I would not block them. If the user still has access and can log into those accounts and make a confirming edit, then I could honour their self-requested block, otherwise I would just leave the accounts alone; this is as close to a "consistent principle" as I can offer you. As for 's "oldest account doctrine", in my experience this is based on the inner (private) workings of checkuser, and unless he's told us that we should treat a different account as the master (which he's done occasionally) then I wouldn't make any assumptions. And if the user is still socking on Commons, that's a problem for Commons (in the sense that we can't and wouldn't do anything about it locally). Hope some of that helps. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Do we need more confirmation than पाटलिपुत्र admission to have socked as Goldsmelter, this kamikaze and Tahar Jelun accounts as well? For the behavioral links, please see LouisAragon's filing and my comments in the past. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, yes, for blocking in this manner there needs to be a technical confirmation or an admission from the accounts themselves. Otherwise I could say any old account belongs to me and ask for it to be blocked for whatever reason, and if the user doesn't have access to those accounts and isn't able to use them anyway, then there's no harm in leaving them alone. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Greco-Bactrian kings
Template:Greco-Bactrian kings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)