text:
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Filiocht

I've been around since about July 2003, one way or the other, and became an admin around the end of that year. Anyone with an interest in the more obscure corners of 20th century literature may have seen some of my edits.

I have no position on the performance of the existing ArbCom, and nothing I say should be taken as implicit criticism. I run on a simple platform. I would aim to follow the following basic principles:
 * Equality of respect: the same standards of behaviour should be extended to and expected of all users. Being an admin gives me no rights that are not also extended to non-admins, I deserve no more leeway than someone who has been here for 3 months. Of course, I exclude the real newcomers, who should never be bitten.
 * Wikilove: enough said.
 * Assume good faith: ditto.
 * Talking is better than blocking, discussing is better than voting. In the last resort, blocking/banning is better than letting one person drain the time, energy and goodwill of the many.
 * We're here to build an encyclopaedia, not a playground.

Beyond these, I have no preconceptions and would expect to grow into the role according to the needs of Wikipedia. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Addendum — on the question of de-admining

Above, I say Being an admin gives me no rights that are not also extended to non-admins: so, what is an admin, what is abuse of admin status, and how should it be handled?

As I see it, an admin is a user who has been given access to a set of bits of wiki functionality that other users cannot use. The chief components of this toolkit are the ability to protect, delete and undelete pages and to block users. The deal is that these tools are handed over with the implicit, but clear, understanding that they be used for the benefit of the community and the project, not the individual.

The toolkit also carries with it a heightened responsibility to adhere to such basic tenets as Wikilove, assuming good faith, the carrying out of policy, both written and unwritten, the need for consensus for any actions that may be debatable under policy or require policy. In short, the admin needs to model the behaviours that the community and project require from all users if they are to prosper.

Any admin who uses the toolkit and imagined status to impose their own POV, make a point, bully or intimidate other users, unilaterally breach consensus and/or policy, or generally act the dick are, in my view, abusing their admin role. Note that I am not restricting this to the hypothetical rogue admin who goes on a deletion spree; that one is obvious. I am more concerned with an insidious abuse of "power" to undermine the basic premise We're here to build an encyclopaedia, not a playground.

So, a fair question; how would I see admin abuse being dealt with? This is not the place to work out a complete policy proposal, so the following notes are just an outline of principles and possible procedures.

By extension of the Talking is better than blocking principle, I would argue that de-admining is better than blocking, too. De-admining means that the user retains the most fundamental "right" on Wikipedia: the ability to edit articles. The community and project also benefit from the retention of the skills and knowledge of an experienced editor. I envisage a number of set-length periods that could be applied; say 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, indefinite. For the fixed termination periods, re-admining at the end would be accompanied by a period of mentoring equal in length to the sanction period. Any abuse identified by the mentors during this period would result in an automatic imposition of the next level up sanction.

The process might look something like this:
 * Request for comment in which a significant body of opinion is that something is amiss (note that I would not impose consensus at this point because of the potential for vote packing).
 * ArbCom investigates questions of fact. Did the abuse happen? When? Where? How often? etc.
 * Findings of fact are published to the community. If the finding is that nothing untoward happened, the process closes. Otherwise:
 * ArbCom investigates circumstances. These would include the admin's previous record, any provocation by others, any statements by the admin that would indicate a negative attitude towards policy or other users or a clear misunderstanding of admin responsibilities, etc. and decide sanction.
 * Nature of sanctions and rationale are communicated to the admin and then published to the community.
 * Sanction is imposed.
 * Some time before the end of sanction, mentors are agreed and appointed and the community is informed.

Now, this may seem very legalistic and is, of course, open to much debate. However, I feel it only fair that I would spell out my approach to this difficult and contentious, but vitally important, issue in some detail. I would rather avoid a situation in which anyone might vote for me without understanding that I do have somewhat strong views on this question. I should also add that I do not see this process as something that would happen very often, but that its very existence might act to cool down potential flareups and cause all of us admins to consider our actions more carefully.

Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions and comments
Please note that it is my intention to respond to all questions with an assumption that every question is asked in good faith. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Filiocht, is your role in ArbCom going to interfere with the time you spred in improving and writing literature articles? Will you become only a bureaucrat or will you remain an editor? Cheers and all the best, muriel@pt 12:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Muriel, long time no see. I will indeed continue to edit in the world of literature and anything else that interests me, if I ever finish List of cultural references in The Divine Comedy. Thanks for asking, hope my answer does not disappoint you too much. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Not at all because after all we're here to build an encyclopaedia, not a playground, to cite my favorite candidate. ;) muriel@pt 09:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Some questions being asked of all the candidates by jguk
''Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)''

A: I'm 51 and I work in scientific publishing, as well as being a widely published poet. I also occasionally teach and give talks on literary subjects.

Q: How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time?

A: Without seeming to evade the question, as many as are needed. How long is a piece of string?

''Q: If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator.''

A: I have a lot of experience editing and creating articles, including a reasonable number of FAs, and have managed to never become involved in an edit war. I like to think that this is because I believe in achieving consensus as the primary means of defusing conflict. I think that my experience speaks for itself; however, I do not mean this in any arrogant sense. What I mean is that anyone who looks at my record as an editor will either conclude that I have handled myself reasonably or that modernist poetry is a field that is unlikely to give rise to conflict in the first place (if only!).

Q: Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under.

A: I originally edited as an anon, then as User:Bmills. That username in combination with my field of interest made it easy for others in the same field to identify me and to start requesting articles on them or on their hobbyhorses. I will admit that this freaked me out at first, but then I came up with the simple solution of changing the name. The fact that it took me so long to do so may bring my credentials into doubt. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Request from Dragons flight
Arbcom is overworked and no fun. Please review these discussions:   Come up with a short list of suggestions for ways you would endorse for improving the arbitration process. Bonus points for actually managing to create new policy. Dragons flight 07:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm reading and will get back. My longish post above, written before I read your question, may address it in some small part. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting reading! I'm one of those who believe that AfD as it currently operates is less bad than any of the alternatives on offer, so I don't have a lot to say there. Ditto (as per my comments on this page, although I would favour an increase in the size of the ArbCom.

I am concerned to see how content disputes could be better handled, and see a role for the ArbCom as a court of final resort. It is important to recognise that there is no such thing as a person without a point of view. This has to be the starting point for any discussion of content disputing and NPOV policy. To simplify, editors can be categorised into three meta-groupings:
 * 1) Those who edit in good faith but with no awareness of their biases (possibly the majority, generally speaking just need to have their biases pointed out to them).
 * 2) Editors who are aware of their biases and make a conscious effort to achieve balance in articles (the "best" editors).
 * 3) POV warriors who repeatedly attempt to impose their biases on articles (the problem group)

Bearing in mind that any content dispute is likely to involve a mix of some or all these types, how can we, as a community, best address the challenge involved? Basically, I like the idea of a bottom up approach, with editors first attempting to find consensus in Talk, focusing particularly on such guidelines as Cite sources. This is most likely to work in the absence of a type 3 editor.

If this fails, I'd suggest the creation of Administrators' noticeboard/Content mediation, where those involved in a dispute could ask for the assistance of one or more uninvolved admin to help build consensus. I am here suggesting admins because page protection and blocking may become necessary, but there is nothing to stop uninvolved non-admins from helping out. (As an aside, I personally prefer page protection to reflex-action 3RR blocks and would like to see Administrators' noticeboard/Content mediation replace Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.

If mediation fails, any or all of those involved, including the mediator(s), can raise a request for comment which may, in turn, result in an ArbCom hearing. My idea is that ArbCom would not rule on actual issues of content but rather on the behaviours of those involved. They may impose sanctions up to and including bans, but most likely order that more disruptive editors refrain form editing the article(s) in dispute. They would also rule that content inserted by such disruptive editors be verified by the other parties, with the assistance/guidance of the mediators and, where appropriate, be included in the agreed version. Editors who oppose the inclusion of any such valid content may be subject to the sanctions previously handed down to disruptive editors.

I'm sorry that this is so long-winded and that I haven't come up with any exciting new policy to win extra points, just a bunch of tentative suggestions. Then again, I need to remain true to my belief that policy can only be made, changed or broken by consensus, I suppose.

Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

How long is a piece of string?
More specifically, if you are elected, and it becomes aparent that you need to spend 30 hours per month (or you won't be doing your share, and the arbcom will slow down as a result), would you have any problems with this level of commitment?

And question #2, under what conditions do you think you would step down before your term is up? – Quadell (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

First question: No, I wouldn't have a problem. Second question: if I felt I wasn't doing a good job or if I felt that the ArbCom was working against the idea of an encyclopaedia and I could not change that form the inside. Sorry for the delay, on a short (busman's) holiday. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions from User:-Ril-

 * The following questions are for each candidate, and do not specifically target you

''Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam, or on which end you should break a boiled egg)? If so, would you recuse yourself from cases centred on these?''

I am a non-practicing atheist and my politics are of the non-party kind; greenish, sceptical, wary of dogma. I think George Bush is a fool, but I would not expect our article on him to say so. In fact, if that opinion was added, I'd revert. Islam is just another religion; none of them really mean anything to me. Islamic culture has produced many fine thinkers and poets, as has Christian culture, Jewish culture, etc. None of which is really to the point of your question. I would recuse myself on cases where the value of modernist poetry was called into question. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?

I would expect any decision to based on consensus. That means acceptable to all those involved in making it, not just the majority. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?

No. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

''In the case against Yuber, it was decided by the arbitration committee that it is the duty of arbitrators to investigate, and rule on the behaviour of not only one party involved, but all of them. Do you support this decision? [if current arbitrator] Does your visible behaviour on recent cases reflect this decision?''

Yes. All actions have contexts and the actions of other parties form part of that context. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

--Victim of signature fascism 16:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Question from Marsden
Many people have noted that Wikipedia's original communitarian structure is no longer functioning very well. One editor has suggested that ArbCom is "about getting the trains to run on time," which is a reference to a fulfulled promise of Mussolini's fascist government. Do you agree that Wikipedia needs to become more orderly, and if so, do you think there are any options other than a move toward a more centrally controlled authoritarian system? Do you think that the spirit of cooperation in Wikipedia would survive such a change? Marsden 15:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No simple answer here, I'm afraid. I've been around long enough to fondly remember the days when I was familiar with all the regulars on AfD, the Pump, etc. However, I'm painfully aware that the way things worked then have not really scaled with the project. On the other hand, I suffer from a deep-rooted aversion to "centrally controlled authoritarian system(s)". So my view is that we need to avoid going down the centralisation route as much as possible. We also need to build much clearer guidelines for consensus-building. Consensus is, at one and the same time, one of the most widely used and one of the most widely misunderstood words in Wikipedia debate. I would us like to put together an agreed definition of consensus and then to ensure that all decision-making processes work to that definition. ArbCom's role would probably be mainly to rule on cases of non-consensual behaviour. Who cares if the train is late if you have good neighbours to talk to on the platform? Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Question from Ted Wilkes
Do you support the creation of a Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct as I have just now suggested at User talk:Jimbo Wales? - Ted Wilkes 18:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions to many candidates by PurplePlatypus

 * 1) How do you view the role (and relative importance) of WP:Civility in the process of building a factually accurate encyclopedia? How do you view editors who are normally correct in article namespace, but who may be perceived as rude – including to longtime, popular editors and admins – on Talk pages and the like?
 * I think that WP:Civility is a basic plank of Wikipedia, uo there with WP:NPOV, WP:AFG, Wikilove, Please do not bite the newcomers, WP:NOT, etc. Regardless of the standing of an editor, it is vital that all debate here be conducted with respect for each other and in a rational fashion, and I have generally tried to model this behaviour in my interactions with others. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) Do you have an academic background of any kind, and if so, in what field? How do you handle critiques from your peers and professors (assuming those aren’t one and the same), which may be sharply worded or otherwise skirt the edges of WP:Civility even if they are correct? Considering those professors who have recently had you as a student, what would they tell me if I asked them the same question about you?
 * To quote an answer to a question further up the page "I'm 51 and I work in scientific publishing, as well as being a widely published poet. I also occasionally teach and give talks on literary subjects." I'm not an academic, and it's been a long time since I was a student. Nowadays, most of my interaction with the academic community is at seminars I get invited to as a practicing poet to discuss my own writing or that of other poets I know a bit about. I can see where you're going with this question, but I do not see that it is relevant to my own situation. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) What are your views on the proposed policy Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct? Whether you think it should be a formal policy or not, do you believe you would generally act in accordance with it? What aspects of it do you think should not be there, or to put it another way, are there any proposals there which you can think of good reasons to ignore on a regular basis? (Please date any replies to this question as the proposal may well change over time.)
 * I have commented there and have no problem with the current proposals. I'd kind of welcome it as policy. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If you require any elaboration on my answers, please ask. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC) PurplePlatypus 08:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?
Do you support User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC))
 * No. As I see it, there are no "rights" here, only responsibilities. We are supposed to be building an encyclopaedia, not playing lawyer-games. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that with increased power should come increased responsibilities, and it is my view that the current ArbCom has made corrupt decisions, showing favoritism and issuing inequitable penalties. Consequently, I would like to know your view of the proposed Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct. --  HK   15:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions being asked by Titoxd to all candidates

 * 1) How much of your Wikipedia time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business?

 * 1) If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom delibations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?

 * 1) To what extent would those projects be affected?

Tito xd (?!? - help us) 06:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality question and Censuring questions from -Ril-
(Being asked of all candidates)

Do you believe that regardless of Jimbo Wales' own views on the matter, the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances?

As a corollory:Do you believe, regardless of Jimbo Wales' view on the matter, that a large number of signatories (e.g. 150 requesting censure against 50 supporting the arbitrator) to an RFC against an arbitrator is enough that the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community in light of their actions, and consequently for them to be forcibly stripped of their post?

''wikipedia has a policy of NPOV. Excepting straw men, have you ever introduced a substantial opinion or fact that contradicts your own political or religious viewpoint into an article on a topic of which you have strong opinions, and if you have, how frequently do you do so compared to your other substatial edits to articles?''

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 02:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion
I am asking these questions of all candidates:

1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct?

2. Are there any parts of Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.

3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?

4. Have you voted over at Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes.

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —James S. 06:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerns over personal attack templates
User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Village pump (policy):

 * I am concerned about |recent templates surviving AfD that appear to contrast with established policy. In particular, I feel that these templates are Poisoning the well when it comes for how we treat our fellow wikipedians. There are circumstances where knowing too much about one's neighbours politicises how one deals with them. This is, to an extent, unavoidable in society, but wearing signs of hate as badges on our shoulders takes what is a small problem that we can usually deal with into the realm of being damaging to the community. Already, there have been signs of people refusing to help each other because they are on different ends of a political spectrum -- this seems likely to get worse if this trend continues. Some people cry that this is an attack on their first amendment rights (if they're American, anyhow), but that doesn't apply here because Wikipedia is not the U.S. government -- it is a community that has always self-regulated, and more importantly it is an encyclopedia with a goal of producing encyclopedic content. We have a tradition of respecting a certain amount of autonomy on userpages, but never absolute autonomy. We might imagine, for example, templates with little swastikas saying "this user hates jews". I am not saying that such a thing would be morally equivalent to this template against scientology, but rather that we should aim to minimise that aspect of ourselves, at least on Wikipedia, so we can make a better encyclopedia. The spirit of NPOV does not mean that we cannot have strong views and still be wikipedians, but rather that we should not wear signs of our views like badges, strive not to have our views be immediately obvious in what we edit and how we argue, and fully express ourselves in other places (Myspace? Personal webpage?) where it is more appropriate and less divisive.

I am inviting all candidates, including Improv, to expand on this theme on their questions pages. Do you agree that this is a cause for concern as we move into 2006? How do you see the role of the arbitration committee in interpreting the interpretation of Wikipedia policy in the light of this concern? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


text:
Category:United States senators from Missouri

People who have represented Missouri in the United States Senate.

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


text:
WOXY

WOXY may refer to:

 * WOXY.com, a defunct Internet radio station
 * WOXY (FM), a radio station (97.7 FM) licensed to Mason, Ohio, United States

title: WOXY


text:
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Ilyanep

Hi, I'm Ilyanep. I've been here since May 2003. I'm an admin and a bureaucrat, and have quite a bit of experience as both. The ArbCom has gone very far in the years since it's been created, but there are still some kinks that need to be worked out, and I decided to run because I'd like to be the one to help out.

ArbCom was almost unanimously and rightly criticised last year for its tardiness. I believe that there has been significant improvement, but the large caseload and burnout of arbitrators still remains a problem. I promise that if I am elected, I will try to help find a way to expedite cases while still allowing time for the arbitrators to compile, read, and decide on evidence, which I find very important. I also promise to stay on for my entire term, as I see myself as a person who finishes what he started. The ArbCom has also been accused of bias in the past. I commit myself to strict neutrality in all cases, and am able to see when I can not possibly be neutral, in which case I will recuse. I don't see that happenning too often, however.

I find that complete bans from Wikipedia are nearly impossible to enforce, and go against the spirit of the project. I would support more revert-enforced bans on editing certain categories of articles, mentorship programs, and, if necessary, more topical bans. These are more wikilike than outright bans, and are a step in the right direction in searching for more innovative ways to maintain order.

In the end, I believe that we are here to write an encyclopedia, and most people here are aiming for that goal. A negative experience shouldn't cause one to leave the project. As is said numerous times around the project: if an article is let to evolve, the good will filter through. I believe the community does the same. — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  00:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Note, the reason I'm not voting for anyone else is at the top of my userpage. — Ilyan e  p   (Talk)  00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Some questions being asked of all the candidates by jguk
''Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)''

A: Well, I'm fourteen years old, as is stated on my user page. I am in 9th grade at a public high school. My current (academic) course list is:

 * English 1 Honors
 * Biology Honors
 * Band (On Tenor Saxophone -- slightly academic)
 * Spanish 2
 * Geometry Honors
 * Would have taken World History Honors, were it not for the fact that our school only allows 6 classes in a day!!!!

I also plan to apply to the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy this year. I'm told I have a good chance of getting in. — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  21:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Supplementary: I will follow Redwolf24's example and state that I got a 1270 on the (old) SAT's at age 13 (640 math, 630 verbal) and am planning to get at least 50 more points this year per subject (and a pretty good score on the new writing section). — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  23:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * (Added later) I just got this years' SAT scores...690 math/670 verbal/around 720 writing. — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  00:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Q: How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time?

A: I can't really put down an arbitrary number for you and tell you that that is enough. I think that however many hours an arbitrator needs to read the evidence, compile everything he needs, and make a justified decision is how many hours one needs. I really am willing to put in the time necessary to arbitrate fairly. — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  21:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Supplementary: I am also on every day, and plan to remain doing so. — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  23:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

''Q: If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator.''

A: I have been involved in many aspects of Wikipedia policy and article revision. For example, a great percentage of my edits are in the wikipedia namespace. I usually follow policy rulings, many of which directly affect how article revision may work. Also, as an example for article revision itself, I started a collaboration of sorts on Talk: FOX News. I have also gone around many articles and tried to work with the editors on the talk pages in order to achieve a consensus.

All this shows that I really do have the experience of an editor in addition to an administrator, both of which are necessary to arbitrate successfully. — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  21:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Q: Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under.

A: Only this one. — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  21:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Hope I adequately answered your questions. — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  21:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Request from Dragons flight
Arbcom is overworked and no fun. Please review these discussions:   Come up with a short list of suggestions for ways you would endorse for improving the arbitration process. Bonus points for actually managing to create new policy. Dragons flight 07:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't really tell you anything off the top of my head, but I'll work on it. From what I've read in those discussions before entering the election, one that stood out to me particularly (and still does) is the one proposing circuits (or a queue perhaps) of arbitrators, thus increasing the amount of seats and decreasing the workload. As for some other suggestions, I'll list some when it's not 11 PM and I don't have to go to school the next day ;) — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  04:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In addition to the above, I think the ArbCom really takes too many cases that it shouldn't. A lot of the cases need to be rejected and sent straight down to mediation, as they haven't been through all the stages yet. Also, a lot of cases end up sitting on the requests page for a month not being accepted or rejected. These need to be dealt with in some fashion. But overall, I think the idea that holds the most merit is having circuits of committee members, as this will increase the ArbCom's capacity for simultaneous cases and will most likely reduce burnout. — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  02:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Question from Tony Sidaway
''You are an arbitrator, and before you is a case in which an editor has upset a lot of people from the start. You look at his actions and you can see that the reason is that he's a prolific editor but his editing isn't quite up to snuff. His edits don't always match the style guide, but he's obviously trying his best, his good faith is clear, and his edits are useful after being cleaned up, but that requires a lot of work and some editors who do this are upset. What remedies do you propose for this situation?''
 * Like I said above, I definately would like to rule out bans from the start, unless it gets too out of hand. I'm not quite sure how such a case could have gone through RfC and Mediation and not had a useful outcome, but that's beside the point. What I would consider first is trying to get a mentor for this user. Someone who is experienced and willing to teach this user how the manual of style works and what he can do so that little or no cleanup is necessary for his edits. If that doesn't work, I would propose a temporary 'block' from this user editing the main namespace in addition to some sort of plan that might get this user to start contributing in a good manner. If no plans work then unfortunately we must go to the last resort and ban, but not for too long. Definately less than a month, maybe less than a week; simply a topical ban to get the point across. Hopefully by then, the user will understand. If not, then we may need to be more agressive. — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  22:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Form question by Snowspinner
Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The school system and being aware of politics. Period. :) — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  00:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Form Question from karmafist
Many policies contradict and overlap with each other, and then WP:IAR makes things even more complicated while making them paradoxically more flexible. When two or more policies apply and conflict, what do you do? karmafist 18:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I tend to think about what would be more beneficial to the article or Wikipedia itself (depending on the situation). Usually, such contradictions can be solved by thinking about it instead of spouting off with knee-jerk reactions. In the end, I agree with Kelly Martin when she says "Use Common Sense" — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  00:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions from User:-Ril-

 * The following questions are for each candidate, and do not specifically target you

''Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam, or on which end you should break a boiled egg)? If so, would you recuse yourself from cases centred on these?''

 * Not any particular strong beliefs. I do delve into politics, but I wouldn't call my beliefs strong or biased. I might recuse myself if I do see a conflict of interest in articles that are very politically close to home (George W. Bush not being one of them). — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  05:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?

 * I'm willing to contest their decisions if I know what I'm talking about (or else I feel akward). Therefore, I will definately do a little bit of research first on the issue if I don't know much about it. — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  05:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?

 * No, definately not. All appeal mechanisms are there for just that reason. — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  05:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

''In the case against Yuber, it was decided by the arbitration committee that it is the duty of arbitrators to investigate, and rule on the behaviour of not only one party involved, but all of them. Do you support this decision? [if current arbitrator] Does your visible behaviour on recent cases reflect this decision?''

 * I agree that all parties involved should be investigated. Nobody signed an agreement stating that they have "diplomatic" immunity. — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  05:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

--Victim of signature fascism 16:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Question from Marsden
As you probably are already aware, your age may be an issue to a lot of people. I am one of those people.

My particular concern is that, at your age, you are unlikely to have a broad grounding in the general background knowledge of (what passes for?) our culture. This potentially opens the door for others, possibly including fellow arbitrators, to foist their particular agendas upon you.

In light of my concerns about this, which I suspect others may share, how would you deal with conflicts that might be brought before you as an arbitrator on subjects about which you do not have good background knowledge? How would you keep yourself from just relying on the information supplied by another arbitrator or another person, information that might be biased?

Marsden 03:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * As with any situation, one must look at both sides of the issue. I will ask of other arbitrators opinions first (note that you said 'another arbitrator' as opposed to 'other arbitrators'). Also, I will do research just as I might do when writing an article on a controversial subject. Almost all issues can be solved with the golden center if people would just see both sides of the issue.

 * I don't see myself as an easy person to dupe. I've been through a lot of this in other Wikipedia places, as well as in real life.

 * As for what you mean by our culture I'm not sure. If you mean the culture of the US, Britain, and the rest of the western world, I think it's nice to have a set of fresh eyes from (and don't worry I know quite a bit of it anyways). If you mean the culture of Wikipedia, I've been here for two years and have been heavily involved in the community. — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  05:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

At your age, you are unlikely to have a broad grounding in the general background knowledge of (what passes for?) of Zulu culture. You are probably also have little grounding in Eskimo law, or Micronesian coming of age ritual. Do you feel that would be a problem? --Victim of signature fascism 08:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Gee you know I never really thought about that. — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  17:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you support the creation of a Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct as I have just now suggested at User talk:Jimbo Wales? - Ted Wilkes 18:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems like a good idea, if it's implemented correctly, and not designed to keep the arbcom from performing its duties. The only downside I might see is that it's just another thing Arbitrators have to follow when they're busy enough already. — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  03:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Question
I'll probably end up posing this question to all whose views I don't already know:

What is, in your opinion, the proper use of WP:IAR? When, if ever, should the rule be invoked to justify administrative action? Xoloz 17:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Only when it makes sense in the situation. IAR isn't meant to be a blanket to allow admins to do anything, but if there is an obvious need [which is to be worked out by the ArbCom and the community, of course] to ignore layed down rules, it should be done. Sometimes the right thing to do is to go against the rules (in fact, I'm sure that events in history can be cited that support that), but if you always go against them what you have is an anarchy. — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  17:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions to many candidates by PurplePlatypus

 * 1) How do you view the role (and relative importance) of WP:Civility in the process of building a factually accurate encyclopedia? How do you view editors who are normally correct in article namespace, but who may be perceived as rude – including to longtime, popular editors and admins – on Talk pages and the like?
 * 2) Do you have an academic background of any kind, and if so, in what field? How do you handle critiques from your peers and professors (assuming those aren’t one and the same), which may be sharply worded or otherwise skirt the edges of WP:Civility even if they are correct? Considering those professors who have recently had you as a student, what would they tell me if I asked them the same question about you?
 * 3) What are your views on the proposed policy Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct? Whether you think it should be a formal policy or not, do you believe you would generally act in accordance with it? What aspects of it do you think should not be there, or to put it another way, are there any proposals there which you can think of good reasons to ignore on a regular basis? (Please date any replies to this question as the proposal may well change over time.)

PurplePlatypus 09:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) I think that without WP:CIV, Wikipedia would collapse into a shouting match which would get more and more ruthless. Civility is a pretty important aspect in building our ecnyclopedia. While editors should be judged on their main namespace edits as well as their relations with other editors, if they are rude when talking to other editors they should face the consequences (whatever those may be at the time). If the editor is right they should be able to explain their position calmly without needing to be rude.
 * 2) I do not have a specific academic background, as I am only just entering high school this year (see the first question on this page). However, when people sharply criticise me, I try to maintain my calm and tell the other person to calm down as well. Wikipedia may be important to someone, but it's important to all of us, and it's no reason to be rude. Generally, I try to calm down situations and bring them to an intelligent debate.
 * 3) I agree with having an understood code of conduct, but I don't agree with making it a formal policy, because formal codes of conduct tend to have a way of preventing such committees from doing their proper duties. People who are wrong in a situation may well point to such a code of conduct to pretend that they're on the higher ground and to get away from their own actions (A Red Herring argument). Most of the code of conduct is simple common sense, so I'm not sure about the usefulness of it as it is, however. Also, I disagree with a few of the points provided, and I might list them later.

— Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  17:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?
Do you support User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC))
 * It's useless instruction creep, and most of the points are covered in existing policy and common sense. I don't understand why all of these codes and bills are being pushed, specifically at the time of the election. — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  20:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions being asked by Titoxd to all candidates

 * 1) How much of your Wikipedia time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business?
 * 2) If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom delibations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?
 * 3) To what extent would those projects be affected?

Tito xd (?!? - help us) 06:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) I don't know. I honestly can't tell you, but I'm pretty sure it would be the majority of my time considering the sheer bulk of work that the ArbCom has.
 * 2) That's a tough question. I don't tend to spend a lot of time in one project or another, so I don't know if anyone would necessarily feel it that much, especially because I spend a lot of time in policy debates or maybe making minor changes to articles.
 * 3) See above.

— Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  18:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality question and Censuring questions from -Ril-
(Being asked of all candidates)

Do you believe that regardless of Jimbo Wales' own views on the matter, the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances?
 * Yes, I believe that if the community has consensus to remove an arbitrator, they should be removed. The ArbCom should not be a set-in-stone committee that is not checked at all by the community, because that would be a scary thing. — Ilyan e  p   (Talk)  03:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

As a corollory:Do you believe, regardless of Jimbo Wales' view on the matter, that a large number of signatories (e.g. 150 requesting censure against 50 supporting the arbitrator) to an RFC against an arbitrator is enough that the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community in light of their actions, and consequently for them to be forcibly stripped of their post?
 * Yes, I think that that would be reason for removing an arbitrator from their position.

 * However, I find that this is sort of a subtle attempt to get me to say that Kelly Martin should be removed from her arbitrator position. I hope I don't need to remind you that all 150 don't agree she needs to lose her admin or arbcom positions, but merely say that what she has done is wrong. This isn't a black and white issue, there's a gray area. In fact, I'm pretty sure that if you let the 150 people cool down all they'd want is an apology from Kelly which is all that is reasonable here. In fact, as of now I see no signing. Oh, and Polls are evil.
 * Although the situation may apply to Kelly Martin, her appointment is infact only temporary until these elections are held, so the point is in her case somewhat moot. The question still stands, however, in general. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 03:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In general, if we have a straightforward vote on whether or not the person should be removed, and the results turn out as such I would say the arbitrator should be removed. — Ilyan e  p   (Talk)  03:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

 * All of this is merely speculation, however, as I can't really be sure about what you're speaking but I have a hunch. — Ilyan e  p   (Talk)  03:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

''wikipedia has a policy of NPOV. Excepting straw men, have you ever introduced a substantial opinion or fact that contradicts your own political or religious viewpoint into an article on a topic of which you have strong opinions, and if you have, how frequently do you do so compared to your other substatial edits to articles?''

 * Unfortunately, I can't cite anything off of the top of my head, but I'll make an effort to go and do that within the next week. — Ilyan e  p   (Talk)  03:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So you don't do so regularly enough? --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 03:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Unforutnately I don't. Usually, I try to insert things that don't contradict any point of view (jus' the facts). — Ilyan e  p   (Talk)  03:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you see how the community would see that as quite biased editing? How do you know what you think are the facts are in fact true? How do you think that would be viewed in light of your capability or otherwise of treating cases fairly rather than being heavily biased against the side you disagree with?--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 15:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you look at my past edits, you'll find that I haven't POV-pushed and in fact, I have removed some POV pushing from articles. By just the facts I mean cold hard quantitative facts, which can be proven by a few reliable sources (and if you say that that is untrue then you're making a highly philosophical argument that no knowledge is true). — Ilyan e  p   (Talk)  21:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 02:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion
I am asking these questions of all candidates:

1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct?

 * I don't agree with a code of conduct that's formal (see #2), but I will tell you that I pledge to recuse myself if any conflict of interest is seen by myself or anyone who I respect. Most of those points are cases in which I would recuse, but I don't like a code of conduct (See answer to #2) — Ilyan e <span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:black">p   (Talk)  21:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Are there any parts of Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.

 * I don't agree with having a formal code of conduct, because it's instruction creep and it covers basic common sense. It can also be used as a basis for attacking arbitrators when it's not the right time (which is why the encyclopedia as a whole has WP:IAR). An understood code of conduct is enough as long as all parties are semi-aware of it. However, the provisions inside basically follow common sense, and I agree with most of them. — Ilyan e  p   (Talk)  21:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?

 * Again, pledge is not the right word in this situation. For all I know, I may be told some important information that may change my opinion vastly, but I can tell you that at the moment and barring any major epiphanies, I support adding seats to the ArbCom. — Ilyan e  p   (Talk)  21:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

4. Have you voted over at Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes.

 * I do recall voting on a few of the points that I felt semi-strongly about. If not, then I was planning to vote and decided that I had and didn't then :\. Let me list how I feel on the points:

— Ilyan e  p   (Talk)  21:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1: No.
 * 2: Yes, because it's simple and easy to understand for everyone.
 * 3: Yes, we can't hold long vacancies in the arbcom.
 * 4: Yes, it's a very good and well thought out idea. Perhaps change the numbers, but the general idea is good.
 * 5: No, no point.
 * 6: Ehh...I'd rather have the run-off election.
 * 7: This or #4 are a good way to go.
 * 8: Eugh...I'm not sure if I even understand that method of voting.
 * 9: I'm not sure.
 * 10: Yes, we do this on RfA and this is more important.
 * 11: Same as #9
 * 12: eh? why?
 * 13: same as #12

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —James S. 06:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, I hope I answered your questions adequately. — Ilyan e  p   (Talk)  21:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Question from Celestianpower
Boxers or briefs? --Cel e stianpower háblame 00:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a really tough one ;) I think I'd have to go with boxers. BTW, shouldn't it be hábleme? — Ilyan e  p   (Talk)  00:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The infinitive is "hablar". --Cel e stianpower háblame 11:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah but don't you want to use formal instead of informal? Either way, thanks for the little bit of comic relief here :) — Ilyan e  p   (Talk)  18:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, both are fine. Háblame is like you would say to a peer or friend, while hábleme is softer, like addressing formally or requesting something. -- ( drini's page ☎  ) 01:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Form question from Simetrical
What's your opinion on desysopping as an ArbCom penalty? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea when used properly (for example, in extreme abuse of admin powers). However, I still think it's a good idea to allow for people to run again or even force a community vote for desysopping. — Ilyan e  p   (Talk)  02:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * EDIT: some may argue that this is more of an unpopulartiy contest, but as per my candidate statement, I am of the opinion that the good filters out. We must first AGF of the community, which ties in with people opposing topical bans, etc. I think that, of course, if the user has proven they have no good faith it's pointless, but otherwise, why not give them a chance? — Ilyan e  p   (Talk)  02:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The general procedure in desysopping is allowing the user to run again at any time. If they feel they can get 80%, they could always run again immediately. Forcing a revote on the user is thus tantamount to desysopping them. What would you call "extreme abuse of admin powers"? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It would really need to be determined on a case to case basis. It's hard to say what an extreme abuse is without telling someone to Not stuff beans up their nose, and anything I would say would end up having an exception. — Ilyan e  p   (Talk)  02:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Additional Info (ArbCom & IMSA)
Copied from User talk:Nickptar: Hi, I would like to explain what I meant by that. By that I meant that for a little while I would only be able to devote time on the weekends [for the first quarter or so -- due to IMSA policies on IRN], and after that I will be able to devote time as well, but perhaps not for doing a lot of research on article namespace stuff. Either way, I'd be able to devote time to the ArbCom. — Ilyan e  p   (Talk)  01:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Addition: I'd also only end up going to IMSA in August, so I'd be able to serve 3/4's of the first year 100% of my free time if needed. — Ilyan e  p   (Talk)  01:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

secret vote
"we should have a secret vote" <-- Why? --JWSchmidt 05:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Open votes are quite scary, in my opinion. They tend to create bad blood between different voters and candidates for a long time (and comes quite close to the disendorsements disaster from last year). For example, if a candidate votes for another one, they may be voted against by someone harboring a grudge against the latter candidate. Or if the candidate votes against another one, and both make it to Arbcom, it may cause trouble. As well as that, a candidate may be voted against but then make it to the ArbCom and the person who voted against the candidate is in a case.

 * Open voting was discarded almost everywhere for a few centuries now because of these problems.

 * Also, using a secret vote with software allows us to check for suffrage of accounts easily. — Ilyan e  p   (Talk)  22:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerns over personal attack templates
User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Village pump (policy):

 * I am concerned about |recent templates surviving AfD that appear to contrast with established policy. In particular, I feel that these templates are Poisoning the well when it comes for how we treat our fellow wikipedians. There are circumstances where knowing too much about one's neighbours politicises how one deals with them. This is, to an extent, unavoidable in society, but wearing signs of hate as badges on our shoulders takes what is a small problem that we can usually deal with into the realm of being damaging to the community. Already, there have been signs of people refusing to help each other because they are on different ends of a political spectrum -- this seems likely to get worse if this trend continues. Some people cry that this is an attack on their first amendment rights (if they're American, anyhow), but that doesn't apply here because Wikipedia is not the U.S. government -- it is a community that has always self-regulated, and more importantly it is an encyclopedia with a goal of producing encyclopedic content. We have a tradition of respecting a certain amount of autonomy on userpages, but never absolute autonomy. We might imagine, for example, templates with little swastikas saying "this user hates jews". I am not saying that such a thing would be morally equivalent to this template against scientology, but rather that we should aim to minimise that aspect of ourselves, at least on Wikipedia, so we can make a better encyclopedia. The spirit of NPOV does not mean that we cannot have strong views and still be wikipedians, but rather that we should not wear signs of our views like badges, strive not to have our views be immediately obvious in what we edit and how we argue, and fully express ourselves in other places (Myspace? Personal webpage?) where it is more appropriate and less divisive.

I am inviting all candidates, including Improv, to expand on this theme on their questions pages. Do you agree that this is a cause for concern as we move into 2006? How do you see the role of the arbitration committee in interpreting the interpretation of Wikipedia policy in the light of this concern? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Campbell Barracks

Talk
A question - I've been wikifing can some please spell check the document on location names as there is variations in spellings of the same name.

Are there any Amry Group badges that can be included.

What was using this location prior March 1945 Gnangarra 23:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

External links broken
The external links are not in function any more. --13Peewit (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Campbell Barracks


text:
Talk:Visual system

Good faith edit
I quit feeling like it was all about death but hey, someone had to make it this way. More personal information about give and take and that vision exists in your mind due to Biology and the Brain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7751:160:1D1C:5C29:ED0:86C0 (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * More information about the 'vision that exists in the mind' can be found in the article Visual perception. That article is mentioned in the 'See also' section, but it deserves more prominence in this article. Apuldram (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Photosensitive ganglion cells

 * Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells are now known to be involved in conscious vision in rats.
 * There are more opsins at work in various IPRGCs than just melanopsin (no citation for that, sorry). We likely do not have the full story there yet: from what I can tell, the full complement of retinal neuron types has not been cataloged.
 * Similarly, there are about 15 axon types within the optic nerve (I've seen higher numbers in some publications). It is not known what each is for; color, brightness and movement only account for a few.
 * Humans with normal vision do seem to use melanopsin information within their color perception.

I'm not sure exactly how the article needs to change because it isn't clear that there's scientific consensus regarding melanopsin's role in conscious human vision. But there must be some consensus by now - those refs are from 2010 and 2012!

title: Talk:Visual system


text:
Remidus E. Kissassi

Remidus E. Kissassi is a Tanzanian politician and one of five Tanzanian members of the African Union's Pan-African Parliament.

title: Remidus E. Kissassi


text:
USS Patterson (DD-392)

USS Patterson (DD-392), a Bagley-class destroyer, was the second ship of the United States Navy to be named for Daniel Todd Patterson, an officer of the US Navy who served in the Quasi-War with France, First Barbary War, and the War of 1812.

Construction and commissioning
Patterson was laid down 23 July 1935 by the Puget Sound Navy Yard, Bremerton, Washington; launched 6 May 1937; sponsored by Miss Elizabeth P. Patterson; and commissioned 22 September 1937.

Pre-war
Patterson departed Puget Sound Navy Yard 26 November 1937, calling at San Francisco en route to Pearl Harbor, arriving 7 December. She returned to Puget Sound 22 December, trained in coastal waters until 31 March 1938, then cruised to Hawaii. She arrived at San Pedro from Hawaii 28 April for operations along the western seaboard and combined fleet maneuvers that once took her through the Panama Canal and into the Caribbean Sea. On 3 June 1940 she set course to patrol in the Hawaiian Sea Frontier area from Pearl Harbor to Midway and Palmyra. This duty continued for the next 18 months except for periods on the west coast for overhaul and training.

Pearl Harbor
Patterson was moored at Pearl Harbor when the Japanese carrier-based planes attacked on 7 December 1941. Her gunners sped to battle stations, opened fire, and blasted one Japanese plane out of the sky. Within an hour, the destroyermen were searching for possible Japanese submarines off the harbor entrance.

Patterson patrolled the Hawaiian Sea Frontier in the screen of aircraft carrier USS Saratoga (CV-3) without finding trace of the Japanese. On 28 December, returning from patrol, she rescued 19 survivors of merchant ship Marimi adrift for several days after having been torpedoed by a Japanese submarine.

1942
In the following weeks, her duties included convoy of reinforcements for the garrison on Canton Island, Phoenix Group, and hasty voyage repairs at Pearl Harbor. She departed 5 February 1942 bound in the screen of cruiser Pensacola for rendezvous with the Lexington carrier task group in the southwest Pacific. She rescued a Lexington pilot as air strikes were launched on the Japanese stronghold at Rabaul, New Britain, 20 February. The carriers rained devastation on the Japanese bases at Lae and Salamaua, New Guinea, 10 March, then proceeded to Pearl Harbor.

Patterson sailed from Pearl Harbor 7 April for overhaul in the Mare Island Naval Shipyard. She returned to Pearl Harbor 17 May and was underway five days later, en route by way of Noumea, New Caledonia, to join Admiral Richmond K. Turner’s Expeditionary Task Force preparing in Australia for the invasion of the Solomons. On 22 June she got underway from Brisbane for final staging and amphibious warfare rehearsals in the Fiji Islands, then set course in the screen of attack transports carrying Marines to the Solomon Islands.

Guadalcanal
Patterson helped guard attack transports 7 August as they landed Marines on Guadalcanal, later opening fire to help repel more than twenty attacking horizontal bombers. Several enemy planes fell in flames. Then Japanese torpedo planes came in and hit destroyer USS Mugford (DD-389). On 8 August Patterson gunners shot down four enemy torpedo planes while protecting the transports, but destroyer USS Jarvis (DD-393) was damaged and transport USS George F. Elliott (AP-13) was lost.

As Patterson fought off aerial raiders, seven enemy cruisers and a destroyer raced down the slot of water formed by the Solomon Islands Chain and stretching southward from the Japanese base at Rabaul. By midnight of 8 August, the Japanese task force was only 35 mi from Savo Island, having been undetected since early morning.

Battle of Savo Island
Patterson was south of Savo Island and Florida Island, with a US-Australian group of three heavy cruisers and two destroyers. To their north were the heavy cruisers USS Astoria (CA-34), USS Vincennes, USS Quincy and two destroyers. Driving rain slashed the waters between the northern force and ships of the southern force.

The Japanese task force slipped past two picket destroyers, entered Savo Sound, and ran head-on into Patterson, whose patrol task group included the Allied southern group, composed of the heavy cruisers HMAS Canberra and USS Chicago, and the destroyer Bagley. At 0143, 9 August, Patterson radioed the alarm: "Warning! Warning! Strange ships entering the harbor!" But Japanese cruisers had already launched torpedoes and opened gunfire, disabling Canberra.

Patterson repeated her warning by blinker and opened up her guns. She received a 5-inch return salvo from the enemy that knocked out her Number 4 gun, killed 10 men, injured eight others, and damaged the deck and the Number 3 gun.

Patterson’s gunners continued shooting until the enemy, flinging torpedoes, split formation, and raced northeast in a pincer movement on the northern force of three cruisers. Cruisers Vincennes, Astoria and Quincy were lost. The Japanese now sped northward for return to Rabaul, New Britain, catching destroyer Ralph Talbot in her path. Ralph Talbot fought off the attack until she took cover in a rain-squall. The Japanese suffered only minor damage to four warships in the Battle of Savo Island that cost the Allies four cruisers, and severely damaged cruiser Chicago and destroyer Ralph Talbot.

Patterson assisted HMAS Canberra and took part in rescue work before proceeding to Nouméa, New Caledonia, arriving 14 August. Patterson immediately put to sea with the Saratoga carrier task group to help guard the approaches to Guadalcanal, until a Japanese submarine damaged Saratoga, and she returned to Pearl Harbor. Patterson helped guard HMAS Australia to Brisbane, arriving 3 September. She performed patrol and escort duty off the Great Barrier Reef with an Australian-American force of cruisers and destroyers.

1943
She rescued 19 survivors of the torpedoed SS Fingal 5 May 1943, then escorted merchantman SS Pennant to Nouméa, New Caledonia, She arrived 13 May to patrol approaches to Guadalcanal in the screen of carriers Saratoga and HMS Victorious (R38). This duty was followed by innumerable convoy escort and patrol missions ranging from Guadalcanal south to Australian ports, and to the South Pacific island bases in the New Hebrides Islands and Nouméa, New Caledonia. The morning of 25 July, she joined four other destroyers in bombarding Lambeti Plantation, near the Munda air strip on New Georgia Island.

The evening of 25 August Patterson was helping guard a convoy bound from the New Hebrides Islands toward the lower Solomons. A warning pip on her radar screen brought her into action against a diving Japanese submarine. Her sonar picked up the underwater enemy, and depth charge patterns exploded in the sea. Patterson sent her last depth charge barrage on its way, and five minutes later she was rewarded by a deep underseas boom, presumably silencing the enemy. This differs from other sources which state that the I-25 was sunk less than a year later by one or more of the destroyers USS Ellet (DD-398), USS Patterson, USS Taylor (DD-468) which were involved in the naval engagement on 3 September 1943 off the New Hebrides islands approximately 150 mi northeast of Espiritu Santo. Which American ship sank the I-25 remains unknown. Patterson next escorted troop transports from Nouméa, New Caledonia, to the New Hebrides, patrolled off Guadalcanal out of Purvis Bay, Florida, Solomon Islands. The night of 24 September she helped guard an amphibious landing convoy to Vella Lavella Island, then departed to escort high-speed transports to Rendova Island. She soon turned back to Vella Lavella Island at full speed, having received word that unloading tank landing craft there were under enemy air attack. The attack had ceased by the time she reached the scene, but she launched motor whaleboats with medical and rescue parties to aid the wounded.

The night of 29/30 September Patterson proceeded up the slot to destroy enemy barge traffic. Destroyer McCalla, after ripping into radar contacts with gunfire, attempted to rejoin the destroyer task unit formation, but suffered a steering casualty and unavoidably collided into the port bow of Patterson. Three men in Patterson were killed and ten injured by the force of the collision that almost severed Patterson’s bow. The broken section parted as she slowly proceeded towards base, breaking off just forward of gun mount No. 1. Both ships entered Purvis Bay for emergency repairs, thence to Espiritu Santo, New Hebrides Islands, where Patterson received a false bow. On 3 December she put to sea, touching the Samoan and Hawaiian Islands en route to the Mare Island Naval Shipyard, arriving 22 December.

1944
Patterson stood out of San Francisco Bay 8 March 1944 with a convoy that entered Pearl Harbor 15 March. Training with fast attack carriers in Hawaiian waters was followed by similar battle rehearsals out of Marshall Island ports in preparation for the Marianas Campaign. On 6 June Patterson departed Majuro Atoll en route to Saipan with the Bunker Hill Carrier Task Group. She joined in the preinvasion bombardment of Saipan, then guarded troop transports sending in assault troops for the initial invasion of Saipan 15 June. On approach of the Japanese Mobile Fleet, she became a unit of the anti-aircraft screen around the Fast Carrier Task Force whose pilots shot down hundreds of Japanese carrier-based planes, in a series of actions known as the “Great Marianas Turkey Shoot,” before they could reach the American Fleet.

The few enemy planes that managed to get past the American carrier pilots met curtains of anti-aircraft fire from Patterson and her sister ships. The destroyer helped guard American attack carriers through 21 June as they pursued the fleeing Japanese fleet, decisively defeated in the Battle of the Philippine Sea, then turned back to help protect the approaches to Saipan. She provided night illumination fire for advancing troops on Saipan, then bombarded enemy targets on nearby Tinian Island.

Bombardment support and anti-submarine patrol continued off Saipan and Tinian until 9 August. Patterson then called briefly at Apra Harbor, Guam, en route to Eniwetok Atoll in the Marshalls. There, she joined the screen of fast carriers that struck hard at enemy bases on Iwo Jima and in the Western Caroline Islands. She participated in the bombardment of Yap Island 8 September. From there she proceeded to the Palau Islands to guard fast carriers giving direct support to the landing troops there until 9 October.

After replenishment at Manus, Admiralty Islands, Patterson made a high-speed run with attack carriers to blast enemy defenses on Okinawa and the entire Kerama Retto chain. From there the fast carrier task forces approached the Philippines to rain destruction on enemy air installations in Northern Luzon, thence proceeded to the coast of Formosa for air strikes launched 12 October. That evening and through the following day, Patterson helped fight off and destroy enemy aerial raiders that approached her carrier task group.

From Formosa, the carriers sped back to Luzon where Patterson helped drive off attacking enemy dive bombers that made a near miss on carrier Franklin. On 20 October her carrier task group gave direct air support to troops landing at Leyte to begin the liberation of the Philippine Islands. As the Japanese Fleet approached the Philippines in a three-pronged attack, 24–25 October, her carrier task force hit hard at the Japanese Southern Force of battleships, cruisers, and destroyers, struck at the even more powerful Japanese Central Force aiming at the Central Philippines, then raced north to destroy the Japanese decoy carrier task force in the Battle off Cape Enganno, 25 October. She joined in the pursuit of enemy fleet units fleeing the Battle for Leyte Gulf, then helped fight off the suicide attacks of Japanese kamikaze aircraft 30 October. She rescued men blown into the water from the damaged carriers Franklin and Belleau Wood, escorting the damaged carriers safely to Ulithi in the Caroline Islands, arriving 3 November.

Patterson helped protect attack carriers providing air cover to convoys approaching the Philippines until 9 December. She then proceeded independently to Kossol Roads, Palau Islands. There, she joined the screen of an escort carrier-bombardment task group that sailed 10 December to provide heavy gunfire support and air cover for the initial landings on Mindoro Island. For seven days the destroyer remained in the Sulu Sea, fighting off frequent suicide attacks of enemy aerial raiders that closed her carrier task group formation. There was a brief replenishment at Palau before Patterson again sailed with escort aircraft carriers, this time to support the invasion landings at Lingayen Gulf, Luzon, Philippines.

1945
She rescued survivors of the kamikaze-damaged escort carrier Ommaney Bay 4 January 1945, and survivors of destroyer Stafford and escort carrier Manila Bay the following day. She shot down a suicide plane diving on carrier Salamaua 13 January, remaining on guard for carriers in support of the Lingayen Gulf invasion landings until the 17th. She then proceeded to Ulithi in the Carolines to prepare for the impending invasion of Iwo Jima.

Patterson departed Ulithi 10 February for final battle rehearsals and staging in the Marianas, thence in the screen of escort carriers covering the amphibious expeditionary troops for the landings on Iwo Jima, 19 February. She rescued 106 survivors of the escort carrier Bismarck Sea, sunk by enemy torpedo plane attacks off Iwo Jima 21 February. The fighting destroyer remained off Iwo Jima with escort carriers until 10 March, then set course for Ulithi to prepare for the capture and occupation of Okinawa, the “last stepping stone” to Japan.

Patterson sailed from Ulithi the morning of 21 March, en route with a support unit of seven escort aircraft carriers that gave direct cover to troops storming ashore at Okinawa 1 April. She shot down an enemy suicide plane that attacked escort carrier Lunga Point 2 April and continued to guard the escort carriers as they pounded enemy troop concentrations and installations through 29 April. When her sonar gear became inoperative 29 April, she set course for repairs at Apra Harbor, Guam. She put to sea from Apra Harbor 4 June, escorting battleship New Mexico as far as Leyte in the Philippines, There she joined a troop and supply reinforcement convoy bound to Kerama Retto. By 12 June she had rejoined the escort carriers giving direct support to troops until the bitter contest for Okinawa was won.

Patterson returned to Leyte for repairs then headed for Saipan, Mariana Islands. This was her base for escort-patrol missions reaching to Okinawa, Guam, and towards the Marshalls until the close of hostilities with Japan.

Post-war
On 16 August she departed Saipan as escort for battleship New Jersey bound to Manila, thence to Buckner Bay, Okinawa. She departed Buckner Bay 8 September, touching Saipan, Eniwetok, and Pearl Harbor, en route to San Diego, California, arriving 26 September. The following day she got underway to transit the Panama Canal for the eastern seaboard. She arrived in the New York Naval Shipyard 11 October 1945.

Decommissioning and disposal
Patterson decommissioned at the New York Naval Shipyard on 8 November 1945. She remained in reserve until her name was struck from the Naval Vessel Register 25 February 1947. She was sold for scrapping 18 August 1947 to the Northern Metals Company of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Honors and awards
Patterson received 13 battle stars for World War II service.

title: USS Patterson (DD-392)


text:
Decaturville, Missouri

Decaturville is an unincorporated community in Warren Township, Camden County, Missouri, United States. It is located on Route 5 approximately seven miles south-southeast of Camdenton. The Camden-Laclede county line is less than one mile south of the community.

The community was founded in 1854 and is named after Commodore Stephen Decatur Jr., (1779 – 1820), an American naval officer notable for his heroism in actions at Tripoli, Libya in the First Barbary War, the Second Barbary War, and in the War of 1812.

title: Decaturville, Missouri


text: Category:Aviation in the Czech Republic

title: Category:Aviation in the Czech Republic


text:
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Luigi30

I'm the unknown 3rd party. Vote for me if you're disillusioned.

I think that Arbcom has become too slow and bloated in the last year. Cases are piling up and waiting months for a final verdict. People are being driven away by the inefficiency. If I am voted to Arbcom, I'd try to speed things along. I hate trolls, and like long walks on the beach. I am against banning except in extreme circumstances or for repeat offenders. I think that a first offense should not be banned for, only for problem users or extreme trolls. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 03:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Some questions being asked of all the candidates by jguk
''Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)''

A: 15, sophomore in high school.

Q: How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time?

A: To be a good arbitrator, you need to spend a lot of time arbitrating. However long it takes to make sure you've got all the facts, all the evidence, and all the truths sorted from the lies is how many hours one needs to do it effectively. And yes, I will take the time.

''Q: If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator.''

A: I've got a knack for sorting out disputes, keeping everyone happy, spotting details buried under filler, etc. Experience in doing all of the above is important for arbitration. You have to keep both sides happy while doing what has to be done.

Q: Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under.

A: None.

Request from Dragons flight
Arbcom is overworked and no fun. Please review these discussions:   Come up with a short list of suggestions for ways you would endorse for improving the arbitration process. Bonus points for actually managing to create new policy. Dragons flight 07:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Form question by Snowspinner
Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * The internet's many scams and frauds? Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 21:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Form Question from karmafist
Many policies contradict and overlap with each other, and then WP:IAR makes things even more complicated while making them paradoxically more flexible. When two or more policies apply and conflict, what do you do? karmafist 18:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Whichever policy has stood up more in past cases would take precedence over a weaker policy. I wouldn't completely discount it, however. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 21:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions from User:-Ril-

 * The following questions are for each candidate, and do not specifically target you

''Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam, or on which end you should break a boiled egg)? If so, would you recuse yourself from cases centred on these?''

 * I can't think of any strong opinions that I have, other than sunny side up. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 21:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?

 * I'll go against other administrators if I believe a decision to be wrong. I'd rather see a 6-1 than a 7-0 on a controversial decision. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 21:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?

 * Only in some cases. If there were new evidence that completely contradicted a finding of fact, of course it's with merit. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 21:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

''In the case against Yuber, it was decided by the arbitration committee that it is the duty of arbitrators to investigate, and rule on the behaviour of not only one party involved, but all of them. Do you support this decision? [if current arbitrator] Does your visible behaviour on recent cases reflect this decision?''

--Victim of signature fascism 16:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I support this. If one party was provoked by another party into doing something really stupid, than of course the second party is partially to blame. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 21:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Question from Marsden
As you probably are already aware, your age may be an issue to a lot of people. I am one of those people.

My particular concern is that, at your age, you are unlikely to have a broad grounding in the general background knowledge of (what passes for?) our culture. This potentially opens the door for others, possibly including fellow arbitrators, to foist their particular agendas upon you.

In light of my concerns about this, which I suspect others may share, how would you deal with conflicts that might be brought before you as an arbitrator on subjects about which you do not have good background knowledge? How would you keep yourself from just relying on the information supplied by another arbitrator or another person, information that might be biased?

Marsden 00:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Huh? Are you saying that I'm an impressionable youth who would be influenced by the decisions of other Arbitrators? Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 04:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

At your age, you are unlikely to have a broad grounding in the general background knowledge of (what passes for?) Zulu culture. You probably also have little grounding in Eskimo law, or Micronesian coming of age ritual. Do you feel that would be a problem? --Victim of signature fascism 09:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Question by Ted Wilkes about his Conduct Code proposal
Do you support the creation of a Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct as I have just now suggested at User talk:Jimbo Wales? - Ted Wilkes 18:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm neutral on it. I think it's got some of good ideas, good precedents, but there are a few things I disagree with, and I see no point in adding specific rules on recusals. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?
Do you support User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

 * Sure. Why not? Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions to many candidates by PurplePlatypus

 * 1) How do you view the role (and relative importance) of WP:Civility in the process of building a factually accurate encyclopedia? How do you view editors who are normally correct in article namespace, but who may be perceived as rude – including to longtime, popular editors and admins – on Talk pages and the like?

 * If someone's rude, I'll try to keep my civility, unless they are being compete idiots and refusing any sort of logic whatsoever. It's that simple. If someone's good in articlespace but bad in contact with others, that's their problem. They need to learn that they need to treat people with respect to get any back as an editor. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

 * 1) Do you have an academic background of any kind, and if so, in what field? How do you handle critiques from your peers and professors (assuming those aren’t one and the same), which may be sharply worded or otherwise skirt the edges of WP:Civility even if they are correct? Considering those professors who have recently had you as a student, what would they tell me if I asked them the same question about you?

 * Seeing as I'm not in a university, this question does not apply. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

 * 1) What are your views on the proposed policy Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct? Whether you think it should be a formal policy or not, do you believe you would generally act in accordance with it? What aspects of it do you think should not be there, or to put it another way, are there any proposals there which you can think of good reasons to ignore on a regular basis? (Please date any replies to this question as the proposal may well change over time.)

 * See my answer to this question above. I don't think it should be official, just suggested. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

PurplePlatypus 07:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions being asked by Titoxd to all candidates

 * 1) How much of your Wikipedia time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business?

 * As much as is needed. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

 * 1) If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom delibations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?

 * RC patrol probably. If I'm in deliberations a lot, I won't have a chance to revert. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

 * 1) To what extent would those projects be affected?

 * I'd have less time to spend on doing RC patrol. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Tito xd (?!? - help us) 06:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality question and Censuring questions from -Ril-
(Being asked of all candidates)

Do you believe that regardless of Jimbo Wales' own views on the matter, the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances?

 * I disagree with that. Under no circumstances should an arbitrator be removed from office by the community. There is no reason to do that, they have no more power than normal users, they just have more responsibility to make decisions. Whether or not they are agreed with is a seperate issue. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

As a corollory:Do you believe, regardless of Jimbo Wales' view on the matter, that a large number of signatories (e.g. 150 requesting censure against 50 supporting the arbitrator) to an RFC against an arbitrator is enough that the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community in light of their actions, and consequently for them to be forcibly stripped of their post?

''wikipedia has a policy of NPOV. Excepting straw men, have you ever introduced a substantial opinion or fact that contradicts your own political or religious viewpoint into an article on a topic of which you have strong opinions, and if you have, how frequently do you do so compared to your other substatial edits to articles?''

 * I have never introduced a strong opinion into an article. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 02:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion
I am asking these questions of all candidates:

1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct?

 * See my answer to this question above. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Are there any parts of Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.

 * See my answer above. The recusal guidelines seem to be adding rules to something that is solely the arbitrator's decision. They should not exist at all. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?

 * I think adding another Arbcom with an equal number of seats would help the backlog. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

4. Have you voted over at Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes.

 * I voted against making only admins eligible, for midyear elections, weak support on expanding to 24 seats, against a choice of term length, for removing sockpuppet votes, and did not vote on the other issues. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —James S. 06:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Form questions from Simetrical
—Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) What's your opinion on desysopping as an ArbCom penalty?
 * 2) How closely do you think admins should have to follow policy when using their special powers?

Concerns over personal attack templates
User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Village pump (policy):

 * I am concerned about |recent templates surviving AfD that appear to contrast with established policy. In particular, I feel that these templates are Poisoning the well when it comes for how we treat our fellow wikipedians. There are circumstances where knowing too much about one's neighbours politicises how one deals with them. This is, to an extent, unavoidable in society, but wearing signs of hate as badges on our shoulders takes what is a small problem that we can usually deal with into the realm of being damaging to the community. Already, there have been signs of people refusing to help each other because they are on different ends of a political spectrum -- this seems likely to get worse if this trend continues. Some people cry that this is an attack on their first amendment rights (if they're American, anyhow), but that doesn't apply here because Wikipedia is not the U.S. government -- it is a community that has always self-regulated, and more importantly it is an encyclopedia with a goal of producing encyclopedic content. We have a tradition of respecting a certain amount of autonomy on userpages, but never absolute autonomy. We might imagine, for example, templates with little swastikas saying "this user hates jews". I am not saying that such a thing would be morally equivalent to this template against scientology, but rather that we should aim to minimise that aspect of ourselves, at least on Wikipedia, so we can make a better encyclopedia. The spirit of NPOV does not mean that we cannot have strong views and still be wikipedians, but rather that we should not wear signs of our views like badges, strive not to have our views be immediately obvious in what we edit and how we argue, and fully express ourselves in other places (Myspace? Personal webpage?) where it is more appropriate and less divisive.

I am inviting all candidates, including Improv, to expand on this theme on their questions pages. Do you agree that this is a cause for concern as we move into 2006? How do you see the role of the arbitration committee in interpreting the interpretation of Wikipedia policy in the light of this concern? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


text:
Skomorokh

A skomorokh (скоморох in Russian, скоморохъ in Old East Slavic, скоморахъ in Church Slavonic. Compare with the Old Polish skomrośny, skomroszny ) was a medieval East Slavic harlequin, or actor, who could also sing, dance, play musical instruments and compose for oral/musical and dramatic performances.

Etymology
The etymology of the word is not completely clear. There are hypotheses that the word is derived from the Greek σκώμμαρχος (cf. σκῶμμα, 'joke'); from the Italian scaramuccia ('joker', cf. English scaramouch); from the Arabic ; and many others.

History
The skomorokhs appeared in Kievan Rus' no later than the mid-11th century, but fresco depictions of skomorokh musicians in the Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv (Ukraine) date to the 11th century.

The Primary Chronicle on skomorokhs concurs with the period. The monk chronicler denounced them as devil servants. Furthermore, the Eastern Orthodox Church often railed against them and other elements of popular culture as being irreverent, detracting from the worship of God or being downright diabolical. For example, Theodosius of Kiev, one of the co-founders of the Caves Monastery in the 11th century, called the skomorokhs "evils to be shunned by good Christians". Their art was related and addressed to the common people and usually opposed the ruling groups. They were considered not just useless but even ideologically detrimental and dangerous by both the feudalists and the clergy.

They were persecuted in the years of the Mongol yoke, when the church strenuously propagated ascetic living. Their art reached its peak in the 15th to the 17th centuries. Their repertoire included mock songs, dramatic and satirical sketches, called глумы (glumy) in Russian (глуми in Ukrainian), performed in masks and skomorokh dresses to the sounds of domra, balalaika, gudok, bagpipes or buben (a kind of tambourine). The appearance of Russian puppet theatre was directly associated with skomorokh performances.

Skomorokhs performed in the streets and city squares, engaging with the spectators to draw them into their play. Usually, the main character of the skomorokh performance was a fun-loving saucy (мужик in Ukrainian) of comic simplicity. In the 16th and 17th centuries, skomorokhs would sometimes combine their efforts and perform in a (ватага in Ukrainian, big crowd), numbering 70 to 100 people. The skomorokhs were often persecuted by the Russian Orthodox Church and civilian authorities.

In 1648 and 1657, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich issued ukases banning skomorokh art as blasphemous, their inventory was destroyed, skomorokhs fell into captivity, were pursued but actors would still occasionally perform during popular celebrations. In the 18th century, skomorokh art gradually died away; passing on some of its traditions to the  (балаган in Ukrainian) and rayoks (райок in Ukrainian).

The role of the skomorokhi in the preservation and dissemination of folklore was closely linked with their important contribution to the development of secular music, first in Kievan Rus’ and later in Muscovite Russia. Before the introduction of Christianity in the late tenth century, Kievan music was characterized primarily by ritualistic songs of worship, ceremonial (i.e., wedding, funeral) songs, and seasonal songs such as  koliadky and haivky. With Byzantine Christianity came Byzantine chant and a vigorous attempt to suppress native music because of its close identification with paganism. This attempted suppression was only partially successful, because it was mainly aimed at the more populous urban centers and left the remote rural areas with their flourishing folk music relatively untouched.

In popular culture
A skomorokh is present in the first episode of Andrei Tarkovsky's film Andrei Rublev (1966). Seeking shelter from rain, the main characters enter a barn where a group of villagers are entertained by a skomorokh (played by Rolan Bykov). The skomorokh earns a living with his scathing and obscene social commentary, and by making fun of the boyars and the Church.

title: Skomorokh