text:
Günter Guillaume

Günter Guillaume (1 February 1927 – 10 April 1995) was an East German spy who gathered intelligence as an agent for East Germany's secret service, the Stasi, in West Germany. Guillaume became West German chancellor Willy Brandt's secretary, and his discovery as a spy in 1973 led to Brandt's downfall in the Guillaume affair.

Early life
Günter Karl Heinz Guillaume was born on 1 February 1927, at 31 Choriner Straße in Prenzlauer Berg, then a working-class district of Berlin. He was the only child of Karl Ernst Guillaume, a pianist who played in bars and theatres, where he provided background music for silent films, and Johanna Old Pauline (Loebe), a hairdresser. His parents, who had married four months before Günter's birth, were both native to Berlin. Due to the combination of the Great Depression and the introduction of sound films, the Guillaumes suffered financial hardship. These experiences made the extremist policies being presented by Adolf Hitler and Nazi Party attractive to Karl Guillaume, and he joined in March 1934.

Guillaume was conscripted as a Flakhelfer in 1944. On January 17, 1944, Guillaume applied for admission to the NSDAP and was admitted on April 20 of the same year (membership number 9,709,880).

Career
In 1956, he and his wife Christel, also a Stasi agent, emigrated to West Germany on Stasi orders to penetrate and spy on West Germany's political system. Rising through the hierarchy of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, he became a close aide to West German chancellor Willy Brandt.

In 1974, West German authorities discovered that Guillaume was spying for the East German government. The resulting scandal, the Guillaume Affair, led to Brandt's resigning the chancellorship. On 15 December 1975, Guillaume was sentenced to 13 years in prison for treason; his wife Christel, to eight years. In 1981, Guillaume was returned to East Germany in exchange for Western spies caught by the Eastern Bloc. Christel, who had returned earlier that year, divorced him.

In East Germany, Guillaume was received and celebrated as a hero, worked as a spy trainer, and published his autobiography Die Aussage ("The Statement") in 1988. Two years later, he married his second wife, nurse Elke Bröhl. Guillaume and East German spymaster Markus Wolf said that Willy Brandt's downfall was not intended, and that the affair was among the Stasi's biggest mistakes. After Die Wende and German reunification, the reunified Germany granted Guillaume immunity from any further prosecutions.

Guillaume was called as a witness for the prosecution in Markus Wolf's trial for treason in 1993. In his testimony, he claimed he "could barely remember details of events stretching back over forty years" and in response to most questions put by the prosecution and the presiding judge, Guillaume only referred them to his autobiography.

Death
Guillaume died of heart attack and a stroke on 10 April 1995, in Petershagen/Eggersdorf, near Berlin. Guillaume's first wife died on 20 March 2004.

In culture
The Brandt-Guillaume story is told in the play Democracy by Michael Frayn. It follows Brandt's political career as West Germany's first left-of-centre chancellor in 40 years, and his fall because of his assistant. It portrays Guillaume as in conflict by spying on Brandt while growing to admire him.

title: Günter Guillaume


text:
Fud

Fud or FUD may refer to

People

 * "Fud" John Benson (artisan) (born 1939), American artist
 * Fud Candrix (1908–1974), Belgian jazz saxophonist and violinist
 * Fud Leclerc (1924–2010), Belgian singer
 * Fud Livingston (1906–1957), American jazz musician

Other uses

 * Female urination device
 * Fear, uncertainty and doubt, a propaganda tactic
 * Fud (brand) of Sigma Alimentos foods
 * Federal University Dutse, Nigeria
 * fud, the ISO 639-3 code for the Futunan language

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Fud


text:
31 (number)

31 (thirty-one) is the natural number following 30 and preceding 32. It is a prime number.

Mathematics
31 is the 11th prime number. It is a superprime and a self prime (after 3, 5, and 7), as no integer added up to its base 10 digits results in 31. It is the third Mersenne prime of the form 2n − 1, and the eighth Mersenne prime exponent, in-turn yielding the maximum positive value for a 32-bit signed binary integer in computing: 2,147,483,647. After 3, it is the second Mersenne prime not to be a double Mersenne prime, while the 31st prime number (127) is the second double Mersenne prime, following 7. On the other hand, the thirty-first triangular number is the perfect number 496, of the form 2(5 − 1)(25 − 1) by the Euclid-Euler theorem. 31 is also a primorial prime like its twin prime (29), as well as both a lucky prime and a happy number like its dual permutable prime in decimal (13).

31 is the number of regular polygons with an odd number of sides that are known to be constructible with compass and straightedge, from combinations of known Fermat primes of the form 22 n + 1 (they are 3, 5, 17, 257 and 65537).

Only two numbers have a sum-of-divisors equal to 31: 16 (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16) and 25 (1 + 5 + 25), respectively the square of 4, and of 5.

31 is the 11th and final consecutive supersingular prime. After 31, the only supersingular primes are 41, 47, 59, and 71.

31 is the first prime centered pentagonal number, the fifth centered triangular number, and the first non-trivial centered decagonal number.

For the Steiner tree problem, 31 is the number of possible Steiner topologies for Steiner trees with 4 terminals.

At 31, the Mertens function sets a new low of −4, a value which is not subceded until 110.

31 is a repdigit in base 2 (11111) and in base 5 (111).

The cube root of 31 is the value of $\pi$ correct to four significant figures:
 * $$\sqrt[3]31 = 3.141\;{\color{red}38065\;\ldots}$$

The thirty-first digit in the fractional part of the decimal expansion for pi in base-10 is the last consecutive non-zero digit represented, starting from the beginning of the expansion (i.e, the thirty-second single-digit string is the first $$0$$); the partial sum of digits up to this point is $$155 = 31 \times 5.$$ 31 is also the prime partial sum of digits of the decimal expansion of pi after the eighth digit.

The first five Euclid numbers of the form p1 × p2 × p3 × ... × pn + 1 (with pn the nth prime) are prime:

 * 3 = 2 + 1
 * 7 = 2 × 3 + 1
 * 31 = 2 × 3 × 5 + 1
 * 211 = 2 × 3 × 5 × 7 + 1 and
 * 2311 = 2 × 3 × 5 × 7 × 11 + 1

The following term, 30031 = 59 × 509 = 2 × 3 × 5 × 7 × 11 × 13 + 1, is composite. The next prime number of this form has a largest prime p of 31: 2 × 3 × 5 × 7 × 11 × 13 × ... × 31 + 1 ≈ 8.2 × 1033.

While 13 and 31 in base-ten are the proper first duo of two-digit permutable primes and emirps with distinct digits in base ten, 11 is the only two-digit permutable prime that is its own permutable prime. Meanwhile 1310 in ternary is 1113 and 3110 in quinary is 1115, with 1310 in quaternary represented as 314 and 3110 as 1334 (their mirror permutations 3314 and 134, equivalent to 61 and 7 in decimal, respectively, are also prime). (11, 13) form the third twin prime pair between the fifth and sixth prime numbers whose indices add to 11, itself the prime index of 31. Where 31 is the prime index of the fourth Mersenne prime, the first three Mersenne primes (3, 7, 31) sum to the thirteenth prime number, 41. 13 and 31 are also the smallest values to reach record lows in the Mertens function, of −3 and −4 respectively.

The numbers 31, 331, 3331, 33 331, 333  331, 3  333  331, and 33  333  331 are all prime. For a time it was thought that every number of the form 3w1 would be prime. However, the next nine numbers of the sequence are composite; their factorisations are:

 * 333 333  331 = 17 × 19  607  843
 * 3 333  333  331 = 673 × 4  952  947
 * 33 333  333  331 = 307 × 108  577  633
 * 333 333  333  331 = 19 × 83 × 211  371  803
 * 3 333  333  333  331 = 523 × 3049 × 2  090  353
 * 33 333  333  333  331 = 607 × 1511 × 1997 × 18  199
 * 333 333  333  333  331 = 181 × 1  841  620  626  151
 * 3 333  333  333  333  331 = 199 × 16  750  418  760  469 and
 * 33 333  333  333  333  331 = 31 × 1499 × 717  324  094  199.

The next term (3171) is prime, and the recurrence of the factor 31 in the last composite member of the sequence above can be used to prove that no sequence of the type RwE or ERw can consist only of primes, because every prime in the sequence will periodically divide further numbers.

31 is the maximum number of areas inside a circle created from the edges and diagonals of an inscribed six-sided polygon, per Moser's circle problem. It is also equal to the sum of the maximum number of areas generated by the first five n-sided polygons: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, and as such, 31 is the first member that diverges from twice the value of its previous member in the sequence, by 1.

Icosahedral symmetry contains a total of thirty-one axes of symmetry; six five-fold, ten three-fold, and fifteen two-fold.

In science

 * The atomic number of gallium

Astronomy

 * Messier object M31, a magnitude 4.5 galaxy in the constellation Andromeda. It is also known as the Andromeda Galaxy, and is readily visible to the naked eye in a modestly dark sky.
 * The New General Catalogue object NGC 31, a spiral galaxy in the constellation Phoenix

In sports

 * Ice hockey goaltenders often wear the number 31.

In other fields
Thirty-one is also:
 * The number of days in each of the months January, March, May, July, August, October and December
 * The number of the date that Halloween and New Year's Eve are celebrated
 * The code for international direct-dial phone calls to the Netherlands
 * Thirty-one, a card game
 * The number of kings defeated by the incoming Israelites in Canaan according to : "all the kings, one and thirty" (Wycliffe Bible translation)
 * A type of game played on a backgammon board
 * The number of flavors of Baskin-Robbins ice cream; the shops are called 31 Ice Cream in Japan
 * ISO 31 is the ISO's standard for quantities and units
 * In the title of the anime Ulysses 31
 * In the title of Nick Hornby's book 31 Songs
 * A women's honorary at The University of Alabama (XXXI)
 * The number of the French department Haute-Garonne
 * In music, 31-tone equal temperament is a historically significant tuning system (31 equal temperament), first theorized by Christiaan Huygens and promulgated in the 20th century by Adriaan Fokker
 * Number of letters in Macedonian alphabet
 * Number of letters in Ottoman alphabet
 * A slang term for masturbation in Turkish.

title: 31 (number)


text:
Wikipedia:Protection policy

In some circumstances, pages may need to be protected from modification by certain groups of editors. Pages are protected when there is disruption that cannot be prevented through other means such as blocks. Wikipedia is built on the principle that anyone can edit and therefore aims to have as many pages as possible open for public editing so that anyone can add material and correct errors. This policy states in detail the protection types and procedures for page protection and unprotection and when each protection should and should not be applied.

Protection is a technical restriction applied only by administrators, although any user may request protection. Protection can be indefinite or expire after a specified time. The various levels of protection are detailed below, and they can be applied to the page edit, page move, page create, and file upload actions. Even when a page is protected from editing, the source code (wikitext) of the page can still be viewed and copied by anyone.

A protected page is marked at its top right by a padlock icon, usually added by the template.

Preemptive protection
Applying page protection solely as a preemptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed. Instead, protection is used when vandalism, disruption, or abuse by multiple users is occurring at a frequency that warrants protection. The duration of protection should be as short as possible and at the lowest protection level sufficient to stop the disruption, allowing edits from as many productive users as possible.

Exceptions include the Main Page, along with its templates and images, which are indefinitely fully protected. Additionally, Today's Featured Article is typically semi-protected from the day before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page until the day after it leaves.

Protection types
The following protection types are available to administrators for protecting different actions to pages:
 * Edit protection protects the page from being edited.
 * Move protection protects the page from being moved or renamed.
 * Creation protection prevents a page from being created (also known as "salting").
 * Upload protection prevents new versions of a file from being uploaded, but it does not prevent editing of the file's description page (unless edit protection is applied).

Protection levels
The following protection levels are available to administrators for adding protection to the different actions to pages:
 * Pending changes protection (only available for edit protection) requires any edits made to the page by unregistered users and accounts that are not confirmed to be approved by a pending changes reviewer or an administrator before the changes become visible to readers who are not logged in.
 * Semi-protection prevents the action by unregistered users and users with accounts that are not confirmed.
 * Extended confirmed protection, previously known as 30/500 protection, prevents the action if the user's account is not extended confirmed (at least 30 days old with more than 500 edits). In most cases, it should not be a protection level of first resort, and should be used where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective. Activation or application of this protection level is logged at the Administrators' noticeboard.
 * Template protection prevents the action by everyone except template editors and administrators (who have this right as part of their toolset).
 * Full protection prevents the action by everyone except administrators.

Submitting requests
Any of the above protections can be requested at Requests for page protection. Changes to a protected page should be proposed on the corresponding talk page, and then (if necessary) requested by adding an edit request. From there, if the requested changes are uncontroversial or if there is consensus for them, the changes can be carried out by a user who can edit the page.

Except in the case of office actions (see below), Arbitration Committee remedies, or pages in the MediaWiki namespace (see below), administrators may unprotect a page if the reason for its protection no longer applies, a reasonable period has elapsed, and there is no consensus that continued protection is necessary. Editors desiring the unprotection of a page should, in the first instance, ask the administrator who applied the protection unless the administrator is inactive or no longer an administrator; thereafter, requests can be made at Requests for unprotection. Note that such requests will normally be declined if the protecting administrator is active and was not consulted first. A log of protections and unprotections is available at Special:Log/protect.

Protection levels
Each of these levels is explained in the context of edit protection, but each can be applied to other types of protection except for pending changes.

Pending changes protection

Pending changes protection allows unregistered and new users to edit pages, while keeping their edits hidden from most readers (specifically, unregistered editors – the vast majority of visitors to Wikipedia articles) until those changes are accepted by a pending changes reviewer or administrator. An alternative to semi-protection, it is used to suppress vandalism and certain other persistent problems while allowing all users to continue to submit edits. Pending changes is technically implemented as a separate option, with its own duration, and it yields to other edit protection levels in cases of overlap.

When a page under pending changes protection is edited by an unregistered (IP addresses) editor or a new user, the edit is not directly visible to the majority of Wikipedia readers, until it is reviewed and accepted by an editor with the pending changes reviewer right. When a page under pending changes protection is edited by an autoconfirmed user, the edit will be immediately visible to Wikipedia readers, unless there are pending edits waiting to be reviewed.

Pending changes are visible in the page history, where they are marked as pending review. Readers who are not logged in (the vast majority of readers) are shown the latest accepted version of the page; logged-in users see the latest version of the page, with all changes (reviewed or not) applied. When editors who are not reviewers make changes to an article with unreviewed pending changes, their edits are also marked as pending and are not visible to most readers.

A user who clicks "edit this page" is always, at that point, shown the latest version of the page for editing regardless of whether the user is logged in or not.
 * If the editor is not logged in, their changes join any other changes to the article awaiting review – for the present they remain hidden from not-logged-in users. (This means that when the editor looks at the article after saving, the editor won't see the change made.)
 * If the editor is logged in and a pending changes reviewer, and there are pending changes, the editor will be prompted to review the pending changes before editing – see Pending changes.
 * If the editor is logged in and not a pending changes reviewer:
 * If there are no unreviewed pending edits waiting, this editor's edits will be visible to everyone immediately; but
 * If there are unreviewed pending edits waiting, then this editor's edits will be visible only to other logged-in users (including themself) immediately, but not to readers not logged in.

Reviewing of pending changes should be resolved within reasonable time limits.

When to apply pending changes protection
Pending changes can be used to protect articles against:
 * Persistent vandalism
 * Violations of the biographies of living persons policy
 * Copyright violations

Pending changes protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against violations that have not yet occurred. Like semi-protection, PC protection should never be used in genuine content disputes, where there is a risk of placing a particular group of editors (unregistered users) at a disadvantage. Pending changes protection should not be used on articles with a very high edit rate, even if they meet the aforementioned criteria. Instead, semi-protection should be considered.

In addition, administrators may apply temporary pending changes protection on pages that are subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option. As with other forms of protection, the time frame of the protection should be proportional to the problem. Indefinite PC protection should be used only in cases of severe long-term disruption.

Removal of pending changes protection can be requested of any administrator, or at requests for unprotection.

The reviewing process is described in detail at Reviewing pending changes.

Semi-protection

Semi-protected pages like this page cannot be edited by unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia). Semi-protection is useful when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users, or to prevent sockpuppets of blocked or banned users from editing, especially when it occurs on biographies of living persons who have had a recent high level of media interest. An alternative to semi-protection is pending changes, which is sometimes favored when an article is being vandalized regularly, but otherwise receives a low amount of editing.

Such users can request edits to a semi-protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the Edit semi-protected template if necessary to gain attention. If the page in question and its talk page are both protected, the edit request should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection instead. New users may also request the confirmed user right at Requests for permissions/Confirmed.

Guidance for administrators
Semi-protection should be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred or to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes.

Administrators may apply semi-protection on pages that are:
 * Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) if blocking individual users is not a feasible option.
 * Subject to edit warring if parties involved are unregistered or new editors. This does  apply when autoconfirmed users are involved.
 * Subject to vandalism or edit warring where unregistered editors are engaging in IP hopping by using different computers, obtaining new addresses by using dynamic IP allocation, or other address-changing schemes.
 * Article discussion pages, if they have been subject to persistent disruption. Such protection should be used sparingly because it prevents unregistered and newly registered users from participating in discussions.
 * Protection should be used sparingly on the talk pages of blocked users, including IP addresses. Instead the user should be re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. When required, or when re-blocking without talk page editing allowed is unsuccessful, protection should be implemented for only a brief period not exceeding the duration of the block.

In addition, administrators may apply semi-protection to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view).

A page and its talk page should not normally be protected at the same time. In exceptional cases, if a page and its talk page are both protected, the talk page should direct affected editors to Wikipedia:Request for edit through the use of a non-iconified page protection template, to ensure that no editor is entirely prevented from contributing.

Today's featured article is, since 2023, always semi-protected. This was historically not the case, however.

Extended confirmed protection

Extended confirmed protection, previously known as 30/500 protection, allows edits only by editors with the extended confirmed user access level, administrators, and bots. Extended confirmed is automatically granted to users on the edit following the account meeting the criteria of being at least 30 days old and having 500 edits.

As escalation from semi-protection
Where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic. Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege extended confirmed users over unregistered/new users in valid content disputes (except as general sanction enforcement; see below).

Contentious topics
When necessary to prevent disruption in designated contentious topic areas, administrators are authorized to make protections at any level. (This is distinct from the extended confirmed restriction below.) Some community-authorized discretionary sanctions grant similar authorizations.

Extended confirmed restriction
Some topic areas are under Arbitration Committee extended confirmed restriction as a general sanction. When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed users may make edits related to the topic area. Enforcement of the restriction on articles primarily in the topic area is preferably done with extended confirmed protection, but it's not required (other enforcement methods are outlined in the policy). As always, review the policy before enforcing it.

Community general sanctions, applying a similar extended confirmed restriction, have also been authorized by the community.

General sanctions has a list of the active general sanctions that incorporate the extended confirmed restriction.

Other cases
High-risk templates can be extended-confirmed protected at administrator discretion when template protection would be too restrictive and semi-protection would be ineffective to stop widespread disruption.

Extended confirmed protection can be applied at the discretion of an administrator when creation-protecting a page.

Logging and edit requests
As of September 23, 2016, a bot posts a notification in a subsection of AN when this protection level is used. Any protection made as arbitration enforcement must be logged at Arbitration enforcement log. Community-authorized discretionary sanctions must be logged on a page specific to the topic area. A full list of the pages under extended confirmed protection can be found [ here].

Users can request edits to an extended confirmed-protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the template if necessary to gain attention.

Full protection

A fully protected page cannot be edited or moved by anyone except administrators.

Modifications to a fully protected page can be proposed on its talk page (or at another appropriate forum) for discussion. Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. Placing the template on the talk page will draw the attention of administrators for implementing uncontroversial changes.

Content disputes
While content disputes and edit warring can be addressed with user blocks issued by uninvolved administrators, allowing normal page editing by other editors at the same time, the protection policy provides an alternative approach as administrators have the discretion to temporarily fully protect an article to end an ongoing edit war. This approach may better suit multi-party disputes and contentious content, as it makes talk page consensus a requirement for implementation of requested edits.

When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as vandalism, copyright violations, defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people. Administrators are deemed to remain uninvolved when exercising discretion on whether to apply protection to the current version of an article, or to an older, stable, or pre-edit-war version.

Fully protected pages may not be edited except to make changes that are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus. Editors convinced that the protected version of an article contains policy-violating content, or that protection has rewarded edit warring or disruption by establishing a contentious revision, may identify a stable version prior to the edit war and request reversion to that version. Before making such a request, editors should consider how independent editors might view the suggestion and recognize that continuing an edit war is grounds for being blocked.

Administrators who have made substantive content changes to an article are considered involved and must not use their advanced permissions to further their own positions. When involved in a dispute, it is almost always wisest to respect the editing policies that bind all editors and call for input from an uninvolved administrator, rather than to invite controversy by acting unilaterally.

"History only" review
If a deleted page is going through deletion review, only administrators are normally capable of viewing the former content of the page. If they feel it would benefit the discussion to allow other users to view the page content, administrators may restore the page, blank it or replace the contents with template or a similar notice, and fully protect the page to prevent further editing. The previous contents of the page are then accessible to everyone via the page history.

Protected generic file names
Generic file names such as File:Photo.jpg, File:Example.jpg, File:Map.jpg, and File:Sound.wav are fully protected to prevent new versions from being uploaded. Furthermore, File:Map.jpg and File:Sound.wav are salted.

Template protection

A template-protected page can be edited only by administrators or users in the group. This protection level should be used almost exclusively on high-risk templates and modules. In cases where pages in other namespaces become transcluded to a very high degree, this protection level is also valid.

This is a protection level that replaces full protection on pages that are merely protected due to high transclusion rates, rather than content disputes. It should be used on templates whose risk factor would have otherwise warranted full protection. It should not be used on less risky templates on the grounds that the template editor user right exists—the existence of the right should not result in more templates becoming uneditable for the general editing community. In borderline cases, extended confirmed protection or lower can be applied to high risk templates that the general editing community still needs to edit regularly. A full list of the pages under template protection can be found [ here].

Editors may request edits to a template-protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the template if necessary to gain attention.

Edit protection
Edit protection restricts editing of a page, often due to vandalism or disputes, ensuring only experienced users can make changes (see above for more information).

Creation protection (salting)

Administrators can prevent the creation of pages. This type of protection is useful for pages that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated. Such protection is case-sensitive. There are several levels of creation protection that can be applied to pages, identical to the levels for edit protection. A list of protected titles can be found at Special:ProtectedTitles (see also historical lists).

Preemptive restrictions on new article titles are instituted through the title blacklist system, which allows for more flexible protection with support for substrings and regular expressions.

Pages that have been creation-protected are sometimes referred to as "salted". Editors wishing to re-create a salted title with appropriate content should either contact an administrator (preferably the protecting administrator), file a request at, or use the deletion review process. To make a convincing case for re-creation, it is helpful to show a draft version of the intended article when filing a request.

Create protection of any duration may be applied to pages being repeatedly recreated in violation of policy using the lowest protection level sufficient to stop the disruption (autoconfirmed, extended-confirmed, or full). Due to the implementation of ACPERM, non-confirmed editors cannot create pages in mainspace; thus, semi-creation protection should be used only for protection of pages outside of mainspace.

While creation-protection is usually permanent, temporary creation protection can be applied if a page is repeatedly recreated by a single user (or sockpuppets of that user, if applicable).

Move protection

Move-protected pages, or more technically, fully move-protected pages, cannot be moved to a new title except by an administrator. Move protection is commonly applied to:

 * Pages subject to persistent page-move vandalism.
 * Pages subject to a page-name dispute.
 * Highly visible pages that have no reason to be moved, such as the administrators' noticeboard and articles selected as "Today's featured article" on the main page.

Move protection of any duration may be applied to pages being repeatedly moved in violation of policy using the lowest protection level sufficient to stop the disruption (extended-confirmed or full). Due to the implementation of ACPERM, non-confirmed editors cannot move pages so semi-move protection has no effect.

Fully edit-protected pages are also implicitly move-protected.

As with full edit protection, protection because of edit warring should not be considered an endorsement of the current name. When move protection is applied during a requested move discussion, the page should be protected at the location it was at when the move request was started.

All files and categories are implicitly move-protected, requiring file movers or administrators to rename files, and page movers or administrators to rename categories.

Upload protection

Upload-protected files, or more technically, fully upload-protected files, cannot be replaced with new versions except by an administrator. Upload protection does not protect file pages from editing. It can be applied by an administrator to:
 * Files subject to persistent upload vandalism.
 * Files subject to a dispute between editors.
 * Files that should not be replaced, such as images used in the interface or transcluded to the main page.
 * Files with common or generic names. (e.g., [[File:map.png]])

As with full edit protection, administrators should avoid favoring one version over another, and protection should not be considered an endorsement of the current version. An exception to this rule is when they are protected due to upload vandalism.

Cascading protection

Cascading protection fully protects a page, and extends that full protection automatically to any page that is transcluded onto the protected page, whether directly or indirectly. This includes templates, images and other media that are hosted on the English Wikipedia. Files stored on Commons are not protected by any other wiki's cascading protection and, if they are to be protected, must be either temporarily uploaded to the English Wikipedia or explicitly protected at Commons (whether manually or through cascading protection there). When operational, KrinkleBot cascade-protects Commons files transcluded at Main Page/Tomorrow, Main Page/Commons media protection and Main Page. As the bot's response time varies, media should not be transcluded on the main page (or its constituent templates) until after it has been protected. (This is particularly relevant to Template:In the news, for which upcoming images are not queued at Main Page/Tomorrow.) Cascading protection:
 * Should be used only to prevent vandalism when placed on particularly visible pages, such as the main page.
 * Is available only for fully protected pages; it is disabled for lower levels of protection as it represents a workflow flaw. See below as well as this bug ticket for more information.
 * Is not instantaneous; it can be several hours before it takes effect. See T20483 for more information.
 * Should generally not be applied directly to templates or modules, as it will not protect transclusions inside tags or transclusions that depend on template parameters, but will protect the documentation subpage., for alternatives.

The list of cascading-protected pages can be found at Cascade-protected items. Requests to add or remove cascading protection on a page should be made at Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items as an edit request.

Permanent protection

Administrators cannot change or remove the protection for some areas on Wikipedia, which are permanently protected by the MediaWiki software:
 * Edits to the MediaWiki namespace, which defines parts of the site interface, are restricted to administrators and interface administrators.
 * Edits to system-wide CSS and JavaScript pages such as MediaWiki:common.js are further restricted to interface administrators.
 * Edits to personal CSS and JavaScript pages such as User:Example/monobook.css and User:Example/vector-2022.js are restricted to the associated user and interface administrators. Interface administrators may edit these pages, for example, to remove a user script that has been used inappropriately. Administrators may delete (but not edit or restore) these pages.
 * Edits to personal JSON pages such as User:Example/data.json are restricted to the associated user and administrators.

Such protection is called permanent or indefinite protection, and interface protection in the case of CSS and JavaScript pages.

In addition to hard-coded protection, the following are usually fully protected for an indefinite period of time (though not necessarily with interface protection):

 * Very visible pages, such as the Main Page.
 * Pages that should not be modified for legal reasons, such as the general disclaimer or the local copy of the site copyright license.
 * Pages that are very frequently transcluded, such as or, to prevent vandalism or denial of service attacks. This includes images or templates used in other highly visible or frequently transcluded pages. See High-risk templates for more information.

Office actions

As outlined in, pages can be protected by Wikimedia Foundation staff in response to issues such as copyright infringement or libel. Such actions override community consensus. Administrators should not edit or unprotect such pages without permission from Wikimedia Foundation staff.

Superprotect
Superprotect was a level of protection, allowing editing only by [ Wikimedia Foundation employees who were in the Staff global group]. It was implemented on August 10, 2014 and removed on November 5, 2015. It was never used on the English Wikipedia.

For several years, the Gadget namespace (which no longer exists) could only be edited by WMF staff, which has sometimes been referred to as superprotection even though it is unrelated to the above use.

Cascading semi-protection
Cascading semi-protection was formerly possible, but it was disabled in 2007 after users noticed that non-administrators could fully protect any page by transcluding it onto the page to which cascading semi-protection had been applied by an administrator.

Pending changes protection level 2
Originally, two levels of pending changes protection existed, where level2 required edits by all users who are not pending changes reviewers to be reviewed. Following a community discussion, level2 was retired from the English Wikipedia in January 2017. It was suggested then that "Pending changes level1" be referred to in the future as simply "Pending changes".

Article talk pages
Modifications to a protected page can be proposed on its talk page (or at another appropriate forum) for discussion. Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. Placing the template on the talk page will draw the attention of administrators for implementing uncontroversial changes.

Talk pages are not usually protected, and are semi-protected only for a limited duration in the most severe cases of disruption.

User talk pages
User talk pages are rarely protected. However, protection can be applied if there is severe vandalism or abuse. Users whose talk pages are protected may wish to have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good-faith comments from users that the protection restricts editing from.

A user's request to have their own talk page protected is not a sufficient rationale by itself to protect the page, although requests can be considered if a reason is provided.

Blocked users
Blocked users' user talk pages should not ordinarily be protected, as this interferes with the user's ability to contest their block through the normal process. It also prevents others from being able to use the talk page to communicate with the blocked editor.

In extreme cases of abuse by the blocked user, such as abuse of the unblock template, re-blocking the user with talk page access removed should be preferred over applying protection to the page. If the user has been blocked and with the ability to edit their user talk page disabled, they should be informed of this in a block notice, subsequent notice, or message, and it should include information and instructions for appealing their block off-wiki, such as through the UTRS tool interface or, as a last recourse, the Arbitration Committee.

When required, protection should be implemented for only a brief period, not exceeding the duration of the block.

Confirmed socks of registered users should be dealt with in accordance with Sockpuppetry; their pages are not normally protected.

User pages
Base user pages (for example, the page User:Example, and not User:Example/subpage or User talk:Example) are automatically protected from creation or editing by unconfirmed accounts and anonymous IP users. An exception to this includes an unconfirmed registered account attempting to create or edit their own user page. IP editors and unconfirmed accounts are also unable to create or edit user pages that do not belong to a currently registered account. This protection is enforced by an edit filter. Users may opt-out of this protection by placing anywhere on their own user page.

User pages and subpages within their own user space can be protected upon a request from the user, as long as a need exists. Pages within the user space should not be automatically or preemptively protected without good reason or cause. Requests for protection specifically at uncommon levels (such as template protection) can be granted if the user has expressed a genuine and realistic need.

When a filter is insufficient to stop user page vandalism, a user may choose to create a ".css" subpage (ex. User:Example/Userpage.css), copy all the contents of their user page onto the subpage, transclude the subpage by putting on their user page, and then ask an administrator to fully protect their user page. Because user space pages that end in ".css" and ".js" are editable only by the user to which that user space belongs (and interface administrators), this will protect one's user page from further vandalism.

Deceased users
In the event of the confirmed death of a user, the user's user page (but not the user talk page) should be fully protected.

Protection of templates
Highly visible templates – those used on a large number of pages or frequently substituted – are often edit protected based on the degree of visibility, type of use, content, and other considerations.

Protected templates should normally have the documentation template. It loads the unprotected  page, so that non-admins and IP-users can edit the documentation, categories and interwiki links. It also automatically adds pp-template to protected templates, which displays a small padlock in the top right corner and categorizes the template as protected. Only manually add to protected templates that don't use  (mostly the flag templates).

Cascading protection should generally not be applied directly to templates, as it will not protect transclusions inside tags or transclusions that depend on template parameters, but will protect the template's documentation subpage. Instead, consider any of the following:
 * If the set of subtemplates is static (even if large), protect them using normal protection mechanisms.
 * If the set of subtemplates is unbounded, use MediaWiki:Titleblacklist to protect all subtemplates using a particular naming format (as is done for editnotice templates and subtemplates of Template:TFA title).

Note: All editnotice templates (except those in userspace) are already protected via MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. They can be edited by admins, template editors and page movers only.

Sandboxes
Sandboxes should not ordinarily be protected since their purpose is to let new users test and experiment with wiki syntax. Most sandboxes are automatically cleaned every 12 hours, although they are frequently overwritten by other testing users. The Sandbox is cleaned every hour. Those who use sandboxes for malicious purposes, or to violate policies such as no personal attacks, civility, or copyrights, should instead be warned and/or blocked.

Available templates
The following templates can be added at the very top of a page to indicate that it is protected:

On redirect pages, use the Redirect category shell template, which automatically categorizes by protection level, below the redirect line. A protection template may also be added below the redirect line, but it will serve only to categorize the page, as it will not be visible on the page, and it will have to be manually removed when protection is removed.

title: Wikipedia:Protection policy


text:
Scott Air Force Base

Scott Air Force Base is a United States Air Force base in St. Clair County, Illinois, near Belleville and O'Fallon, 17 mi east-southeast of downtown St. Louis. Scott Field was one of 32 Air Service training camps established after the United States entered World War I in April 1917. It is headquarters of Air Mobility Command (AMC) and its showcase wing, and it is also the headquarters of the U.S. Transportation Command, a Unified Combatant Command that coordinates transportation across all the services.

The base is operated by the 375th Air Mobility Wing (375 AMW) and is also home to the Air Force Reserve Command's 932d Airlift Wing (932 AW) and the Illinois Air National Guard's 126th Air Refueling Wing (126 ARW), the latter two units being operationally gained by AMC.

The base currently employs 13,000 people, 5,100 civilians with 5,500 active-duty Air Force, and an additional 2,400 Air National Guard and Reserve personnel. It was announced in June 2014 that two new cybersecurity squadrons will be added to the three currently on base.

Its airfield is also used by civilian aircraft, with civilian operations at the base referring to the facility as MidAmerica St. Louis Airport. MidAmerica has operated as a Joint Use Airport since beginning operations in November 1997.

World War I
During World War I, Secretary of War Newton Baker advocated an expanded role for aviation. Business and political leaders on both sides of the Mississippi River wanted the Midwest to be chosen as a site for one of the new "flying fields." Aerial expert Albert Bond Lambert joined the St. Louis Chamber of Commerce and directors of the Greater Belleville Board of Trade to negotiate a lease agreement for nearly 624 acres of land.

After inspecting several sites, the U.S. War Department agreed to the lease June 14, 1917. Congress appropriated $10 million for its construction, and 2,000 laborers and carpenters were immediately put to work. The layout of Scott Field was typical of aviation fields built during World War I. Construction began in June 1917. The government gave the Unit Construction Company 60 days to erect approximately 60 buildings, lay a mile-long railroad spur, and to level off an airfield with a 1,600 foot landing circle. Construction was underway when the government announced, on July 20, 1917, that it would name the new field after Corporal Frank S. Scott, the first enlisted service member killed in an aviation crash. Scott had died after an unexpected engine failure had brought down the aircraft that Lieutenant Lewis Rockwell had been giving him an orientation flight in at College Park, Maryland, on September 28, 1912.

Scott Field began as an aviation-training field for World War I pilots in August 1917 when the 11th and 21st Aero Squadrons from Kelly Field, Texas, arrived. Construction was completed in August, and the first flight from Scott Field occurred 2 September 1917. Flying instruction began 11 September 1917. Later the 85th and 86th Aero Squadrons arrived, and more than 300 pilots and many ground units were trained for service by the war's end in 1918.

Training units assigned to Scott Field were:
 * Post Headquarters, Scott Field – October 1919
 * 114th Aero Squadron, February 1918
 * Re-designated as Squadron "A", July–November 1918

 * 221st Aero Squadron,  December 1917
 * Re-designated as Squadron "B", July–November 1918

 * 242d Aero Squadron (II), April 1918
 * Re-designated as Squadron "C", July–November 1918

 * Squadron "D", July–November 1918
 * Flying School Detachment (Consolidation of Squadrons A–D), November 1918 – November 1919

By 2 September, William Couch, a civilian flying instructor, and Scott Field Commander, Major George E. A. Reinburg, made the first flight from Scott Field in a Standard J-1 two-seater biplane. At least seven J-1s were already on Scott; by the time the first Curtiss JN-4D "Jenny" arrived. Operable from the front or rear seat, the 8-cylinder, 90- horsepower, Jenny would become the primary trainer used on Scott Field. Everything moved fast in a wartime environment, including the dangerous act of learning to fly airplanes. A judgment error or weather shift could produce severe accidents in the fragile aircraft of the day, so it soon became apparent that Scott Field needed a medical air evacuation capability.

Determined to improve the recovery of Scott's downed pilots, Captains Charles Bayless (post surgeon), Early Hoag (officer-in-charge of flying) and A.J. Etheridge (post engineer), along with Second Lieutenant Seth Thomas, designed two air ambulances, or hospital planes—using a configuration likely modeled after one in use at Gerstner Field, Louisiana. By the summer of 1918, Scott Field's engineering department had completed the rear cockpit modifications needed to convert two Jennies. Not long thereafter, on 24 August 1918, as aviator with a broken leg became Scott's first air evacuated patient.

Also reassuring was the support Scott Field enjoyed from the local community. Plenty of curious sightseers came just to watch the construction or catch a glimpse of airplane activity, but many from the local community also gave morale support to their "Sammies" (Uncle Sam's boys). They hosted dances and receptions, established a library branch on the field, and invited soldiers into their homes for Thanksgiving dinners. Likewise, Scott Field hosted sporting events with their community neighbors. On 17 August 1918, they invited the public to attend a field meet and flight exhibition—Scott's first air show.

Flying was discontinued at Scott Field after the war and the base population dropped. The War Department purchased Scott Field in 1919 for $119, 285.84

Inter-War period

Scott Field's future became uncertain after the 11 November 1918 armistice with Germany and the end of World War I. Large scale demobilization closed many U.S. airfields. Scott's remaining units were organized into a Flying School Detachment, and the field itself was designated as a storage site for demobilized equipment. Welcome news came early in 1919, with the War Department's announcement of its decision to purchase Scott Field, a decision influenced by Scott's central location and exceptional purchase price of $119,285.84. This gave Scott a promise of a future; however, it still lacked a mission.

Scott was transformed into a lighter-than-air (LTA) station in 1921, with the transfer of the Army Balloon and Airship School from Brooks Field, Texas. Lighter-than-air ships were used at Scott Field to research the capabilities of aerial photography, meteorology and conduct altitude experiments. The most notable addition was the new airship hangar. Constructed between September 1921 and January 1923, it was three blocks long, nearly one block wide and 15 stories high. One report commented that 100,000 men—nearly the entire U.S. Army in 1923—could have stood in formation inside it. Scott's hangar was second in size only to the naval station hangar in Lakehurst, New Jersey, the largest one in the world at the time. The base also had hydrogen production facilities, which were enhanced significantly around 1923.

Consistent with the transformation of the facility, Major John A. Paegelow was selected as commanding officer of the facility in 1923, succeeding Colonel C. G. Hall who left the facility "to pursue a course of instruction in rigid airships with the Navy." Paegelow had been during World War I the commander of all Allied lighter-than-air activities on the warfront. A couple of highlights of Scott's LTA era (1921–1937) include the 74-mph speed record for dirigibles, set by Scott Field's TC-1 in 1923, and the American free balloon altitude record of 28,510 ft, set in 1927, by Captain Hawthorne C. Gray. Captain Gray would have set a 42,470 foot world record later that same year had he survived that flight.

In the late 1920s, emphasis shifted from airships to balloons. In 1929, the 12th Airship Company was inactivated and replaced the next day by the 1st Balloon Company. Airplanes began to dominate activities at Scott Field by the mid-1930s. A series of airship mishaps led the Chief of the Army Air Corps to recommend an end to LTA activities in May 1937, and the following month Scott's LTA era came to an abrupt end.

Scott Field's central location was advantageous when it was considered for the relocation site of the General Headquarters Air Force (GHQAF), which managed the combat arm of the U.S. Army. Scott Field grew from 628 acres in 1938 to 1,882 acres in 1939. Most of the frame World War I and lighter-than-air constructions were torn down—only a few, such as the 9th Airstrip Squadron headquarters/barracks building, a brick theater and nine sets of brick non-commissioned officers' quarters at the south end of the field were saved.

New housing, industrial and administrative buildings were completed by May 1939. The expansion program continued into 1940 with the construction of 21 more buildings, including a 200-man barracks, a 300,000-gallon elevated water tank, a 43-bed hospital, Hangar No. 1 and a General Headquarters Air Force office.

Scott Field, as it existed at the end of the 1940 expansion program, is listed as the Scott Field Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places.

World War II

With the outbreak of World War II, the GHQAF move to Scott was cancelled. Instead, Scott Field reverted to its former role as a training installation. On 1 June 1939, one of Scott's Balloon Groups was redesignated as a headquarters unit of the Scott Field Branch of the Army Air Corps Technical Schools. Subsequently, various technical schools moved to Scott. Its communications training era began in September 1940 with the opening of the Radio School.

After September 1940, the primary wartime mission of Scott was to train skilled radio operator/maintainers; to produce, as the Radio School's slogan proclaimed, "the best damned radio operators in the world!" Scott's graduates flew in aircraft and operated command and control communications in every Theater of the War, and were often referred to as the "Eyes and Ears of the Army Air Forces." By the end of World War II, Scott's Radio School—becoming something of a "Communications University of the Army Air Forces", where it expanded during the war to fill about 46 large school buildings on base. It was from this course that many specialized radio and communications courses evolved, and had graduated 77,370 radio operator/mechanics. While all had been important to the nation's victory, two of the schools better known graduates were Medal of Honor recipient Technical Sergeant Forrest Lee Vosler, and the future first Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, Paul Airey.

Though the Radio School was the primary World War II-era mission, it was not intended to be Scott's only mission. The Air Corps had also planned for Scott to become a major air terminal due to its centralized location in the United States. In 1940, a $1 million project began to construct four mile-long concrete runways. Though not fully completed until November 1942, the portions that were complete provided a capability to give advanced flying school graduates instruction in instrument and night flying, navigation, photography, and administrative flights. By late 1943, the Radio School students were in the air as well, practicing code transmission under actual flight conditions. Unfortunately, airfield operations had to be sharply curtailed in May 1944, after an accidental tool-spark set fire to Hangar 1—Scott's only hangar. Repairs were not completed until May 1945.

United States Air Force
The U.S. Air Force became a separate service on 18 September 1947, and on 13 January 1948, Scott Field was re-designated as Scott Air Force Base and the 3310th Technical Training Wing assumed host responsibility from the 3505th Army Air Forces Base Unit. In 1948, Scott's Radio School was re-organized, with the radio operator and control tower courses relocated to Keesler AFB, Mississippi. In addition, the fixed wire courses at Scott went to Francis E. Warren AFB, Wyoming, so that Scott had room to expand its radio mechanic school.

In early 1949, Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson initiated a series of economic measures throughout the armed forces. His purpose was to effect greater utilization of the assets assigned to all services. As a result of these actions, a number of bases transferred between major commands, schools moved, and other bases closed. Because of these DOD-directed initiatives, Headquarters USAF decided to move Air Training Command (ATC) headquarters from Barksdale AFB, Louisiana to Scott AFB, effective 17 October 1949. The new ATC headquarters established in Building P-3, which was originally designed to be Headquarters, General Headquarters Air Force (GHQ Air Force). Air Training Command moved its headquarters into the building on 17 October 1949. At Scott, ATC absorbed the functions of its previous three subordinate headquarters—Flying, Technical, and Indoctrination Divisions.

Throughout the USAF transition, Scott's primary mission remained technical training; however, Scott's aeromedical evacuation mission continued to grow. By the end of 1950, Douglas C-54 Skymasters were bringing 200 patients a week to Scott.

In 1957, Military Air Transport Service (MATS) moved to Scott AFB to help facilitate management of its east and west coast units, and between July and October 1957, ATC transferred its headquarters to Randolph AFB, Texas. During the changeover some technical training continued, however, by February 1959, the few remaining technical courses left Scott for other bases. As part of the air mobility transition, ATC's 3310th Technical Training Wing was re-designated on 1 October 1957, as the 1405th Air Base Wing, a MATS organization. With the transition complete, Scott's new primary mission became air mobility.

With the re-alignment to MATS, Aeromedical evacuation continued to grow and in 1964, Scott's host wing was re-designated as the 1405th Aeromedical Transport Wing. Increasing importance placed on airlift and the decision by the Navy to set up its own transport command led to the Military Air Transport Service being re-designated as Military Airlift Command (MAC) in 1966. Associated with this reorganization, the 1405th was discontinued and its mission and resources were absorbed by the newly activated AFCON 375th Aeromedical Airlift Wing. The addition of a fleet of C-9A Nightingales in 1968 further expanded the 375th's aeromedical mission. In 1973, Scott's Patient Airlift Center coordinated 61 aeromedical missions to bring 357 former Vietnam War Prisoners of War back to the United States. In June 1973, the 1400th Air Base Wing inactivated, the 375th Air Base Group (today the 375th Mission Support Group) reactivated, and host wing responsibilities reverted to the 375th Aeromedical Airlift Wing. By 1975, the 375th gained responsibility for the worldwide aeromedical evacuation system.

The 375th gained another mission in 1978; Operational Support Airlift. Scott received its first T-39A Sabreliner in 1962. After 1978, the 375th was managing a dispersed continental fleet of 104 Sabreliners flying a combined 92,000 hours a year. The CT-39As were phased out in 1984, the same year the first Gates C-21A Learjets arrived at Scott.

As the 375th reorganized, it transitioned to a Military Airlift Wing in 1990 and an Airlift Wing in 1991. In 1992, Military Airlift Command inactivated and its personnel and assets were combined with others to form Air Mobility Command (AMC). Later in the 1990s, two new partners joined Scott's team, MidAmerica Airport and the Illinois Air National Guard 126th Air Refueling Wing. A 1987 Federal Aviation Administration authorization, followed by a 1991 joint use agreement resulted in the 1998 opening of the new MidAmerica Airport. Similarly, the 1992 realignment of refueling units to AMC, plus the planned MidAmerica construction, led to a 1995 Base Realignment and Closure committee recommendation to relocate the 126th Air Refueling Wing to Scott AFB.

AMC's 15th and 21st Air Forces became Expeditionary Mobility Task Forces in 2003. They, along with all AMC wings and independent groups realigned to a newly activated 18th Air Force. The new ready mobility operations capability would speed AMC's support for contingencies and humanitarian missions. In 2003, age, noise, maintenance and lack of demand led to the retirement of the C-9A Nightingale. In the years that followed, the C-21A fleet was reorganized and reduced. These events caused a flying mission restructuring that today has Scott using a diverse mix of assigned and non-assigned aircraft to support aeromedical airlift, operational support airlift and air refueling missions.

The 375th Airlift Wing officially became the 375th Air Mobility Wing on 30 September 2009. The Total Force Integration effort called for the creation of an associate unit consisting of active duty KC-135 pilots, boom operators, and maintainers who worked side by side with their counterparts in the 126th Air Refueling Wing. The 375th Operation Group staff had administrative responsibilities for 135 aircrew members and maintainers under the 906th Air Refueling Squadron, a unit that moved from Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota. The 126th Air Refueling Wing maintained the operational direction and control of the mission execution responsibility of these Airmen. Scott AFB served as one of six locations in Air Mobility Command and one of 10 throughout the Air Force where TFI efforts unfolded.

On June 25, 2014, the base was awarded two new cybersecurity squadrons that will add over 300 personnel, and an additional $16 million infrastructure improvements. The base presently has three cyber units.

Major Commands to which assigned

 * Signal Corps, U.S. Army, 20 July 1917
 * Bureau of Military Aeronautics, 20 May 1918
 * United States Army Air Service, 24 May 1918
 * United States Army Air Corps, 2 July 1926
 * General Headquarters Air Force, 1 March
 * Air Corps Technical Service (exempted station), 1 July 1939
 * Air Corps Technical Training Command, 26 March 1941
 * AAF Training Command, 31 July 1943
 * Re-designated: Air Training Command, 1 July 1946

 * Military Air Transport Service, 1 October 1957
 * Military Airlift Command, 1 January 1966
 * Air Mobility Command, 1 June 1992 – present

Major units assigned

 * Post Headquarters, Camp Scott, 1 September 1917 – 1920
 * Army Balloon and Airship School, 26 June 1922 – 30 June 1937
 * Air Corps/AAF/USAF Technical School, 1 June 1939 – 1 April 1959
 * 3505th Army Air Forces Base Unit, 1 May 1944 – 28 August 1948
 * 3310th Technical Training Wing, 26 August 1948 – 1 April 1959
 * Headquarters, Air Training Command, 17 October 1949 – 17 July 1957
 * 85th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, 1 November 1952 – 1 July 1959
 * 1731st Air Transport Squadron, 1 June 1952 – 8 November 1956
 * 11th Aeromedical Transport Squadron, 8 November 1956 – 30 September 2003
 * 73d Troop Carrier/Military Airlift/Aeromedical Airlift Squadron, 16 November 1957 – present
 * 3310th Air Base Group
 * Later 1405th Air Base Group, 1 October 1957 – 12 January 1966

 * Headquarters, Air Weather Service, 23 June 1958 – 15 October 1997
 * Headquarters, Air Force Communications Service, 15 January 1968 – 16 July 1970
 * Headquarters, Military Air Transport Service, 15 January 1958 – 1 January 1966
 * Headquarters, Military Airlift Command, 1 January 1966
 * Re-designated: Air Mobility Command, 1 June 1992 – present

 * 932d Troop Carrier/Military Airlift/Aeromedical Airlift Group/Wing (AFRC), 11 February 1963 – present
 * 375th Airlift Wing, 12 January 1966 – present
 * 126th Air Refueling Wing (ANG), 31 July 1999 – present
 * Eighteenth Air Force, 1 October 2003 – present
 * Scott Composite Squadron Civil Air Patrol

Based units
Flying and notable non-flying units based at Scott Air Force Base.

Units marked GSU are Geographically Separate Units, which although based at Scott, are subordinate to a parent unit based at another location.

United States Air Force
Air Mobility Command (AMC)
 * Headquarters Air Mobility Command
 * 618th Air Operations Center
 * 618th Air Communications Squadron
 * Eighteenth Air Force
 * Headquarters Eighteenth Air Force
 * 375th Air Mobility Wing (Host Wing)
 * Headquarters 375th Air Mobility Wing
 * 375th Comptroller Squadron
 * 375th Operations Group
 * 54th Airlift Squadron – C-40C Clipper
 * 375th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron
 * 375th Operations Support Squadron
 * 458th Airlift Squadron – C-21A Learjet
 * 906th Air Refueling Squadron – KC-135R Stratotanker
 * 375th Communications Group
 * 375th Communications Squadron
 * 375th Communications Support Squadron
 * 375th Medical Group
 * 375th Aerospace Medicine Squadron
 * 375th Dental Squadron
 * 375th Medical Support Squadron
 * 375th Medical Operations Squadron
 * 375th Mission Support Group
 * 375th Civil Engineer Squadron
 * 375th Contracting Squadron
 * 375th Force Support Squadron
 * 375th Logistics Readiness Squadron
 * 375th Security Forces Squadron

Air Combat Command (ACC) Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) Air Force District of Washington Air Force Field Operating Agencies
 * Cyberspace Capabilities Center
 * Sixteenth Air Force
 * 67th Cyberspace Wing
 * 567th Cyberspace Operations Group (GSU)
 * 835th Cyberspace Operations Squadron
 * 837th Cyberspace Operations Squadron
 * 557th Weather Wing
 * 1st Weather Group
 * 15th Operational Weather Squadron (GSU)
 * 635th Supply Chain Operations Wing
 * Headquarters 635th Supply Chain Operations Wing
 * 635th Supply Chain Operations Group
 * 435th Supply Chain Operations Squadron
 * 436th Supply Chain Operations Squadron
 * 437th Supply Chain Operations Squadron
 * Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center
 * Detachment 9 (GSU)
 * US Air Force Bands
 * The US Air Force Band of Mid-America (GSU)
 * Air Force Manpower Analysis Agency
 * Operating Location - Scott (GSU)
 * Operating Location - USTRANSCOM (GSU)

Air National Guard (ANG)
 * Illinois Air National Guard
 * 126th Air Refueling Wing
 * Headquarters 126th Air Refueling Wing
 * 126th Operations Group
 * 108th Air Refueling Squadron – KC-135R Stratotanker
 * 126th Maintenance Group
 * 126th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron
 * 126th Maintenance Squadron
 * 126th Maintenance Operations Flight
 * 126th Mission Support Group
 * 126th Civil Engineer Squadron
 * 126th Force Support Squadron
 * 126th Security Forces Squadron
 * 126th Logistics Readiness Squadron
 * 126th Communications Flight
 * 126th Medical Group

Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) Civil Air Patrol (CAP)
 * Twenty-Second Air Force
 * 932nd Airlift Wing
 * Headquarters 932nd Airlift Wing
 * 932nd Operations Group
 * 12th Operations Weather Flight
 * 73rd Airlift Squadron – C-40C Clipper
 * 932nd Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron
 * 932nd Operations Support Flight
 * 932nd Maintenance Group
 * 932nd Maintenance Squadron
 * 932nd Maintenance Operations Flight
 * 932nd Aircraft Maintenance Squadron
 * 932nd Medical Group
 * 932nd Aerospace Medicine Squadron
 * 932nd Aeromedical Staging Squadron
 * 932nd Medical Squadron
 * 932nd Mission Support Group
 * 932nd Civil Engineer Squadron
 * 932nd Force Support Squadron
 * 932nd Logistics Readiness Flight
 * 932nd Military Personnel Flight
 * 932nd Security Forces Squadron
 * 932nd Services Flight
 * Tenth Air Force
 * 960th Cyberspace Wing
 * 960th Cyberspace Operations Group
 * 42d Cyberspace Operations Squadron (GSU)
 * Great Lakes Region
 * Illinois Wing
 * Group 1
 * Scott Composite Squadron (IL-205)

United States Army
Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC)
 * Headquarters Surface Deployment and Distribution Command
 * Transportation Engineering Agency

Department of Defense
United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM)
 * Headquarters United States Transportation Command
 * Joint Operational Support Airlift Center

 Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)
 * DISA Global Operations Center East

Geography

The residential part of the base is a census-designated place; the population was 3,612 at the 2010 census.

According to the United States Census Bureau, the base has a total area of 9.7 km2, all land.

Demographics
As of the census of 2000, there were 2,707 people, 682 households, and 662 families residing on the base. The population density was 721 PD/sqmi. There were 715 housing units at an average density of 190.4 PD/sqmi. The racial makeup of the base was 78.9% White, 13.5% Black or African American, 0.3% Native American, 3.0% Asian, 0.1% Pacific Islander, 1.8% from other races, and 2.4% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino people of any race were 4.1% of the population.

There were 682 households, out of which 78.0% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 90.5% were married couples living together, 4.3% had a female householder with no husband present, and 2.9% were non-families. Of all households, 2.8% were made up of individuals, and none had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 3.83, and the average family size was 3.90.

On the base the age distribution of the population shows 44.7% under the age of 18, 7.8% ages 18 to 24, 40.6% ages 25 to 44, 6.6% ages 45 to 64, and 0.3% were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 22 years. For every 100 females there were 100.2 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 99.2 males.

The median income for a household on the base was $51,290, and the median income for a family was $52,258. Males had a median income of $39,289 versus $24,674 for females. The per capita income for the base was $15,421. About 0.9% of families and 1.5% of the population were below the poverty line, including 1.9% of those under age 18 and none of those age 65 or over.

Light rail
Shiloh–Scott station links Scott Air Force Base with direct trains to downtown St. Louis on MetroLink's Red Line. One-ride and all-day tickets can be purchased from vending machines on the platforms. MetroLink lines provide direct or indirect service to St. Louis, the Clayton area, St. Louis Lambert International Airport, and Illinois suburbs in St. Clair County.

Bus
Five MetroBus Illinois lines serve Scott Air Force Base via Shiloh–Scott station:
 * 12 O'Fallon Fairview Heights
 * 17X Lebanon – Mascoutah Express
 * 20X New Baden Express
 * 21 Main Base Shuttle
 * 21X East Base Shuttle

Additionally, the St. Clair County Transit District operates the SCCTD Flyer, a flexible routing bus, on the grounds of Scott Air Force Base along with the MidAmerica Airport Shuttle connecting Shiloh–Scott station with the passenger terminal.

In popular culture
The location was featured in the 2018 film Rampage.

Scenes from the 2021 Netflix film Don't Look Up are set at Scott Air Force Base.

title: Scott Air Force Base


text:
Ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina

More than 96% of population of Bosnia and Herzegovina belongs to one of its three autochthonous constituent peoples (konstitutivni narodi): Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats. The term constituent refers to the fact that these three ethnic groups are explicitly mentioned in the constitution, and that none of them can be considered a minority or immigrant. The most easily recognisable feature that distinguishes the three ethnic groups is their religion, with Bosniaks predominantly Muslim, Serbs predominantly Eastern Orthodox, and Croats Catholic.

Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs speak the Shtokavian dialect of a pluricentric language known in linguistics as Serbo-Croatian. The question of standard language is resolved in such a way that three constituent peoples have their educational and cultural institutions in the standard varieties which are considered official languages at sub-state levels: Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian.

A Y chromosome haplogroups study published in 2005 found that "three main groups of Bosnia-Herzegovina, in spite of some quantitative differences, share a large fraction of the same ancient gene pool distinctive for the Balkan area". However, the study also found that Serbs and Bosniaks are genetically closer to each other than either of them are to Croats.

Historical background
While Kingdom of Bosnia existed, no specific Bosnian identity emerged during medieval times. In Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Ottoman rule, the population did not identify with national categories, except for a few intellectuals from urban areas who considered themselves to be Croats or Serbs. The population of Bosnia and Herzegovina primarily identified itself by religion, using the terms Turk (for Muslims), Hrišćani (Christians) or Greeks (for the Orthodox) and "Kršćani" or Latins (for the Catholics). The Christians, both the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, were organised in their respective millets, the religious communities with internal autonomy. The Catholics identified more with the Croatian, while the Eastern Orthodox with the Serbian nation respectively. For Muslims, identity was more related to the defence of local privileges, but it did not call into question the allegiance to the Ottoman Empire. The use of the term "Bosniak" at that time did not have a national meaning, but a regional one.

When Austria-Hungary occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1878, national identification was still a foreign concept to Bosnian Muslims. The new Austrian-Hungarian authorities tried to impose a collective Bosnian identity to curb Croatian and Serbian nationalism, going so far as to forbid the usage of Croatian or Serbian names in the title of cultural associations. The idea of collective identity was met with opposition from the Croat, Serb and Muslim elites, and was accepted only by a small number of emerging modernising Muslims. The Christian elites in Bosnia and Herzegovina accepted Croatian and Serbian identities as their own, which resulted in a rapid rise of Croatian and Serbian nationalism in the country. The Muslims on the other hand, gathered around their religious and landowning elites, requesting religious autonomy. The Austrian-Hungarian authorities eventually started to accept and later favoured such consolidation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

After World War I, Bosnia and Herzegovina was incorporated into the newly established Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later renamed to Yugoslavia). The Serbs, Croats and Slovenes were the constituent ("old") nations. Although the new government changed the power dynamic among the ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the communitarianism inherited from Austria-Hungary remained dominant. This was especially evident in the voting patterns. The same situation was present in the whole of Yugoslavia, not just Bosnia and Herzegovina. Serbs and Croats voted for their respective parties, of which several existed, while the Muslims voted for just one, the Yugoslav Muslim Organization (JMO). During the reign of King Alexander I, a modern single Yugoslav identity was unsuccessfully propagated to erase the particularistic identities. Serb and Croat populations in Bosnia and Herzegovina saw Belgrade and Zagreb as their national centres, while at the same time, the conflict between the two groups deepened. At the same time, the decline of the Muslim elite caused an identity crisis among Muslims. With Croatian and Serbian nationalism competing for their inclination, they instead found refuge in national indeterminism or Yugoslavism. In 1939, the Serbian and Croatian political leadership agreed on the partition of Bosnia and Herzegovina, creating the Banovina of Croatia. After its creation, the leaders of JMO and the Muslim religious elites created a movement for the autonomy of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

During World War II, in 1941, Germany invaded Yugoslavia and established its puppet, the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), into which Bosnia and Herzegovina was incorporated. The majority of Bosnian Muslims considered themselves to be ethnic Croats at the time. This period saw the destruction of traditional communitarianism in favour of exclusive nationalisms, with Serbs being heavily persecuted by the Croat Ustaše, while the Serb Chetniks murdered Muslims as a reprisal. The communist Yugoslav Partisans emerged as the strongest anti-fascist force in the country. The Partisan movement addressed Serbs, Muslims and Croats, even though most of their activity was organised by Serbs initially. In 1943, the State Anti-fascist Council for the National Liberation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the main political body of the Partisans in Bosnia and Herzegovina, established Bosnia and Herzegovina as a distinct territory, guaranteeing "full equality of all Serbs, Muslims and Croats".

With the formation of Socialist Yugoslavia, there were six republics and five constitutive nations, adding Macedonians and Montenegrins (whose identities were not earlier recognized); the Bosnian Muslims were recognized only in the late 1960s. For the 1961 census a new ethnic category was introduced–Muslims–with which 972,954 Bosnians identified. In 1964, the Muslims were declared a narod ("people"), as the other five "peoples", but were not ascribed a national republic. In 1968, the Bosnian Central Committee declared that "...Muslims are a distinct nation". For the 1971 census, accordingly, "Muslims, in the sense of a nation" was introduced.

Decision of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina
On 12 February 1998, Alija Izetbegović, at the time Chair of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, instituted proceedings before the Constitutional Court for an evaluation of the consistency of the Constitution of the Republika Srpska and the Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The request was supplemented on 30 March 1998 when the applicant specified which provisions of the Entities' Constitutions he considered to be unconstitutional.

The four partial decisions were made in 2000, by which many of the articles of the constitutions of entities were found to be unconstitutional, which had a great impact on the politics of Bosnia and Herzegovina because there was a need to adjust the current state in the country with the decision of the Court. A narrow majority (5-4) ruled in favour of the applicant. In its decision, among other things, the Court stated:"Elements of a democratic state and society as well as underlying assumptions – pluralism, just procedures, peaceful relations that arise out of the Constitution – must serve as a guideline for further elaboration of the issue of the structure of BiH as a multi-national state. Territorial division (of Entities) must not serve as an instrument of ethnic segregation – on the contrary – it must accommodate ethnic groups by preserving linguistic pluralism and peace in order to contribute to the integration of the state and society as such. The constitutional principle of collective equality of constituent peoples, arising out of the designation of Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs as constituent peoples, prohibits any special privileges for one or two constituent peoples, any domination in governmental structures and any ethnic homogenisation by segregation based on territorial separation. Despite the territorial division of BiH by the establishment of two Entities, this territorial division cannot serve as a constitutional legitimacy for ethnic domination, national homogenisation, or the right to maintain results of ethnic cleansing. Designation of Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs as constituent peoples in the Preamble of the Constitution of BiH must be understood as an all-inclusive principle of the Constitution of BiH to which the Entities must fully adhere, pursuant to Article III.3 (b) of the Constitution of BiH."

The formal name of this item is U-5/98, but it is widely known as the "Decision on the constituency of peoples", referring to the Court's interpretation of the significance of the phrase "constituent peoples" used in the Preamble of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The decision was also the basis for other notable cases that came before the court.

Inter-ethnic relations
Serbs tend to be Orthodox Christian, Croats tend to be Catholic, and Bosniaks tend to be Muslim. Tensions between these groups were expressed in terms of religion, and religious symbols continue to be used for nationalist purposes. Fundamentalists existed on all sides; so, in regards to propaganda supported by the views of religious leaders, the Bosnian War took on some features of a "religious war." Historical stereotypes and prejudice were further established by experiences of war. On the other hand, it has been found that direct individual experiences of war did not influence the individual's measured ethno-nationalism. The situation still impedes the development of relations post-war. It has been found that ethnic civil war alone does not have a tendency to increase the abundance of ethno-nationalism in a country; though, this is context-dependent. Karin Dyrstad argues that the Dayton agreement, although intended to improve relations following the war, damaged them and segregated the country even further. Her argument lies on her finding that local policy change provides the context which determines the lasting effect that ethnic civil wars have on ethno-nationalism. So, the Dayton agreement, she argues, is the local policy change that propelled the Bosnian War into having the disastrous post-war effects on inter-ethnic relations that it did. Conversely, the pluralistic makeup of the Dayton agreement suggested it would have a beneficial effect on inter-ethnic relations within the country. Before the war, Bosnia and Herzegovina had rather good inter-ethnic relations compared to other Western Balkan states. In the years following the war, all three ethnic groups experienced a drastic increase in the prevalence of ethno-nationalism, the group with the most dramatic shift being the Serbs. This increased ethno-nationalism contributed to the deterioration of inter-ethnic relations in the country. The prevalence of this ethno-nationalism can be displayed, in part, by the finding that, upon return, almost all displaced persons moved into an area in which their activated ethnic identity aligned with that of the majority. To further exacerbate ethnic homogeneity following the war, ethnic elites were known to sometimes halt the return of displaced persons to their pre-war place of residence.

The magnitude of communal exposure to violence during the Bosnian War has continued to have significant resounding effects on inter-ethnic relations and the political system, even after twenty years. It has been found that communities that had a higher exposure to violence continue to have lower levels of inter-ethnic trust and associate more with their ethnic political party. This leads to ethnic voting, otherwise known as voting along ethnic party lines; though, the levels of ethnic voting have begun to dwindle in recent elections, suggesting the violence's effect on ethnic voting is beginning to decrease. Still, a lasting effect of this violence is that it eroded social networks that extended beyond an individual's ethnic group and diminished the probability of reforming them. Since discussions of the Bosnian War are often contained to the microcosm of an individual's predominantly homogenous social network, there tends to be an absence of opposing viewpoints, which cements ethnic boundaries based on ethnically biased collective memories. The evidence for this is strengthened by Hadzic et al.'s finding that those with social ties that are almost strictly contained to their own ethnic group also tend to have lower levels of inter-ethnic trust than those that do not. They also found that the Bosnian War led to increased ethnic homogeneity, which has been shown to influence government spending on ethnically homogenous areas in a way meant to further induce ethnic voting.

Trends in the geographic concentration of development of more ethnically homogeneous areas during the war contributed to the location of the eventual Inter-Entity Boundary Line between the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska. As a result, the differences in the ethnic makeups of the two entities are drastic; it has been estimated that Bosniaks make up around 73% of the population of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, while Serbs make up around 81% of the population of the Republika Srpska. All of these factors help to explain the extremity of political polarization along ethnic cleavages, which Larisa Kurtovic termed "ethnic hyper-representation." Hadzic et al. argues that ethnic parties are harming Bosnia and Herzegovina's development and preventing the betterment of inter-ethnic relations, as they are incentivized to withhold universally beneficial policies in order to avoid unintentionally helping out-group members. This argument is reinforced by the counteractive implications of the slogan of the Republika Srpska's governing party: "RS forever and B&H while it has to last." Politicizing ethnicity makes it a focal point of people's everyday lives, driving behavior, cognition, and their experience of emotion. In effect, this politicization perpetuates the poor inter-ethnic relations that have continued to embody Bosnia and Herzegovina since at least the adoption of the Dayton Agreement.

title: Ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina