Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence

Sam's comments

Im sorry if i'm showing my ignorance, but how are sam spade's posts about his edits remotely relevant to this RfA about IZAK "spamming"? this campaign against IZAK is starting to feel like a pogrom on the net. Xtra 23:07, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think IZAK opened the door when he said "I felt it was important for users voting for User:Sam Spade who had applied to be an admin to be aware of his positions vis-a-vis Jewish and Holocaust issues as brought to my attention by User:Spleeman at User:Spleeman/Sam Spade#Racism/Anti-Semitism and in light of my exeriences with his violent editorial treatment of the important Jew article.". If IZAK is going to use this as "justification" for doing these mass-posts, then Sam shold be free to counter that justification. -- Netoholic @ 00:22, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

Personally I'm responding to the statement made by User:The Cunctator. Sam [Spade] 00:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Netoholic:I am sorry that this needs to be repeated to you, but your "defense" on behalf of User:Sam Spade comes rather late in the day, as I have said a few times already:

The case that Netoholic mentions regarding User:Sam Spade is history, and in subsequent discussions between me and Sam Spade I had apologized to him and he had accepted my apology, see User talk:IZAK#Hi IZAK: "...it was NOT meant to be anything personally harmful to you as I do not have anything against you personally as a fellow Wikipedian and as a human being. I am sorry for any discomfort and hurt you may have experienced and I hope that we can continue a positive dialogue in the future. Thanks again for your sincere words and patience. IZAK 00:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)" acceptance by Sam Spade: "OK, I can accept that, but please do not to use slurs like "anti-semite" "bigot" or "nazi" on the wikipedia in the future. Sam 13:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)".

And if you listen to what Sam Spade is saying now, at this time he complaining about comments User:The Cunctator has made. Your haste to judgment reveals your intent is to harm (me) rather than to help (Wikipedia). IZAK 00:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Recent anti-Jewish/American comments by Sam Spade

This section is in response to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence#Evidence of Sam Spade contributing beneficially to Judaism / WWII subjects:

There are many earlier examples, but here is a choice one just posted at Talk:History of the Jews in Colonial America:

"History of Jews in the United States (under English rule) is an anachronistic title as there was no United States prior to the American Revolution. AndyL 02:20, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Change it then, so long as its not to History of the Jews in the americas, prior to their becoming the great satan ;) Sam [Spade] 02:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, this is a disgusting comment! IZAK 03:21, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)"

Is this comment (made Nov 9) in some way going to provide evidence in response to the charges made here against you in this arbitration? If not, then it does not belong here. As a side note, Sam was obviously joking. -- Netoholic @ 03:58, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Reply To Neholoc: Listen, it was Sam who chose to bring "proofs" of his "positive attitude to Jews" see "Evidence of Sam Spade contributing beneficially to Judaism / WWII subjects", so in keeping with this it is important to show that Sam continues his deliberarely insulting comments, therefore yes, it does belong here as a very fresh recent example. So you think that "Sam was obviously joking" eh, I wonder what that says about you? IZAK 04:29, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This would only be relavent if it explained your actions. Since this specific comment was made long after, it has no bearing on your previous actions at all. "I wonder what that says about you" - it says that I can read it, see his " ;) " smiley-face, and see the humor in his reference to Khomeini's famous "Great Satan" comments about the USA. -- Netoholic @ 04:38, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Netoholic, how about you STOP being the prosecutor, judge, and executioner at the same time. Just say what you have to say without pushing me or the materials around as "you" see fit. IZAK 04:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How revolting, there is NOTHING remotely "humorous" about Khomeini, the words "great satan", or anything so inflamatory at a time when the world is dealing with Islamic fundamentalism, the modern-day equivalant of Nazism, which is why I feel it is so important to take a stand against those who share or sympathize with those kind of Anti-Semitic ideologies. Or do you differ on this as well?IZAK 05:21, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are not providing any relavent evidence or explanation about the charges against you. Sam's adminship nomination only relates to some of your mass-posting. Please explain the rest, it is to your benefit. -- Netoholic @ 04:49, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

It is very relevant as it was and is Sam's attitudes revealed in his words towards Jews that lies at the core of how my opposition to him grew determined in the first place, to make sure that other Users on Wikipedia should not be taken in by his sweeet words and should be made aware of the things has said so hurtful to Jewish people. Do YOU have no feelings either? IZAK 05:21, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Um... I don't support Khomeini, I was making an extremely poor joke @ andyL, who in the past has supported Communist POV's. I was attempting to highlight the anti-american nature of Communism (I'm pretty sure I'm not anti-american, I'm part of a military family ;). The joke was stupid, and I only made it because andyL and I have had a combative / joking relationship for some time. I in no way ment to suggest that "great satan" was an acceptable title for america, or whatever IZAK thought I ment. I apologize profusely for my stupid joke however, clearly it was tragically unfunny ;) Sam [Spade] 16:03, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, it was Netoholic who decided to interpret your smiley-sign, I know that you were not the one who brought Khomeini into this discussion. As for how you dragged "Communism" into your comments I honestly cannot fathom that. The "joke" was framed in live brackets like so: [[ ]] to make it appear as if it was being dangled in the air as a potential article for some twit to write...so it was risky framing it thus: "History of the Jews in the americas, prior to their becoming the great satan", and should not have been given that (technical) recognition on Wikipedia. IZAK 23:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If thats so important, you better stop printing it all over the place! I deleted the original and apologized. Feel free to delete your copies as well! Sam [Spade] 00:25, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, what am I "printing all over the place"? So far, this discussion is happening HERE only, what other place/s is it appearing? What should I delete? If I touch anything then Netoholic may be liable to go through the roof as he is presenting himself here as a Wikipedia "purist" ad absurdum and I never know which imagined "infraction" of mine will be cited in his never-ending list of complaints against me.IZAK 02:30, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For Sam's history of Anti-Semitism

See User:Spleeman/Sam Spade#Racism/Anti-Semitism Thank you. IZAK 04:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
See also User:Spleeman/Sam Spade#Political bias Thanks. IZAK 05:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

removal of izak's response

Netoholic if you remove that, then there is no justification for sam spade's defence to remain. you apear to be approaching this in a verry one sidedand, biased and unfair manner. I suggest that you make no further amendments to this topic and allow more neutral people to deal with it. Xtra 05:10, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

IZAK's response is just more of the same attacks on Sam, with not relavance to IZAK's actions. I don't care how Sam feels about the issues - IZAK is wrong in using spam-like techniques to discredit him. This is NOT an arbitration against Sam, it is against IZAK. If Sam is a problem, then you should open mediation or arbitration and give the evidence - just not here. -- Netoholic @ 05:22, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

This is indeed an arbitration against IZAK, but it should be against Sam Spade. 172 12:40, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neto old boy, contacting 35 Wikipedia users out of the 100,000 registred users is not "spam" by anyone's definition of things !!!! IZAK 05:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That point is what the Arbitrators are going to decide. Do you dispute the other point, that it was an attempt to discredit Sam? -- Netoholic @ 05:29, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Heavens no, Sam and I get along just fine now. I just did not wish to see put him in a position of authority on Wikipedia as an admin, otherwise he is free to "do his thing" as others are free to refute what he has to say when they feel he has over-stepped the bounds of his own POVs. IZAK 05:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

vendeta against IZAK

it appears to me that on the face of it, everyone who recieves regular/semi-regular messages from IZAK want it. To stop him sending these would be to virtually shut down collaboration on wikipedia. There apear to be sinister alterier motives to this RfA. Xtra 05:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I invite you to review my full contribution history. I am not involved at all with the Israel/Judaism/etc. articles. I am just one editor who got a nasty, inflammatory note because of the way I voted in an admin nomination. IZAK's behavior in this regard is my only complaint - well, that was until he accused me of having another agenda, much like you have just done. -- Netoholic @ 05:22, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Neto, you got the (one time only) "note" because you had voted for Sam's adminship, it was meant to alert you. You were one of those 35 or so people I had contacted then. I am sorry about the fact that it upset you and I apologize to you as I have no reason to communicate with you, by now you sure ain't in my "friends" column for the future. So be it. But to make a "federal case" of it just to vent your spleen is unbecoming of someone concerened with the truth. IZAK 05:30, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that even after people (even people that agree with you about Sam) told you to stop mass-posting messages on talk pages, you are still doing it and are saying that you will continue to do it. That is why we are here and why we need the Arbitrators to decide. -- Netoholic @ 05:37, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

No, what my friends told me is to stop making "personal attacks" against Sam (and a couple of other characters) which I have tried very much to do, and rather than call them "Anti-Semites" I shall refer to their views as "Anti-Semitic" instead which is good advice I have attempted to adhere to. As for subsequent communications via their talk pages with my 30 or so FRIENDLY Wikipedia co-editors they have NOT objected to me contacting them as you can read for yourself in their supportive comments on my behalf so far. IZAK 05:43, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By SHOUTING and using lots of bold letters when you post comments saying something like "Recent anti-Jewish/American comments by Sam Spade", you are attacking them the same way as calling them "Anti-Semetic". Calm down, discuss. DO NOT try to discredit them openly by copying their or your comments all over the place. -- Netoholic @ 05:49, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Oh so what should we do? Sit down and have tea and crumpets next? Now you are telling me how to type as well. Do you give masochism lessons too? As that is what you would maybe suggest victims of hate should practice instead of actively fighting hate-speech on Wikipedia. IZAK 06:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, and I feel very sorry that any "hate-speech" happens here. But you are fighting that in the wrong way, and focusing your efforts and accusations on people who are innocent of such things. -- Netoholic @ 06:18, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Ah yes, the use of that word "innocent" reveals that you are in the "Judge" mode of the all-in-one role you imagine yourself to be of the "prosecutor, Judge, executioner" which no-one but you takes seriously. Do you think it is just me expressing a "monochrome view"? You obviously do not give much credence to the other hard-working editors I co-operate with. (Are you going to run to the "evidence" page now and write down, in an out-of-context way, every word I utter to you? Do you fear my normal use of the English language that much?) IZAK 07:00, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Posting of alerts

I've just started looking at this case and thinking about it. Does anyone think there is any Wikipedia policy which would cover posting alerts on a number of websites? At least in the quantity that IZAK has? Fred Bauder 13:55, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

I would see these as policies which should reasonably be used to justify the complaint against IZAK's use of these "alerts":
1. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox) - "Although current affairs may attract great interest, and tempt people to climb soapboxes (i.e. passionately advocate their pet POV), Wikipedia is not the medium for this."
2. Wikipedia:No personal attacks - "Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party." & "Specific examples of personal attack include ... Political affiliation attacks, such as calling someone a Nazi"
3. Wikipedia:Civility - "Where incivility here is defined as behavior that causes an atmosphere of animosity, disrespect, conflict and stress, the Civility rule states that people must act with civility toward one another."
As to whether, in general, "spamming" 30 pages is against policy, I'm not sure this has ever come up enough for it to be. I do know that the reasons and manner in which IZAK has done it is against the above policies and principles. MeatBall:ForestFire describes the negative impact of starting little "flame wars" that can erupt. -- Netoholic @ 17:52, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

If posting of alerts as IZAK does is not against policy, as POV editing is not explicitly set forth in the complaint, the only remaining issue would be personal attacks on Sam Spade. Is this correct? Also, do IZAK's comments regarding Sam Spade amount to a pattern of personal attacks or simply expression of opinion? Fred Bauder 13:55, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the comments about Sam (and now as a result of this, me) I certainly see them as personal attacks, as they attempt to ascribe an agenda to Sam, and to promote disrespect of him in the community. It doesn't even matter whether IZAK is correct or not. Even if he knew, for sure, that Sam was racist/POV/etc., it is not appropriate to continously degrade the man by spreading that information all over the place. -- Netoholic @ 17:52, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

I think, and this is just my thought, that any independent person who saw this evidence about IZAK's postings would say (in latin) "res ipsa loquitur" there is no case against IZAK. It is rediculous that this circus should continue! Xtra 21:50, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would like to repeat yet again, that I am presently not in the habit of making personal attacks against Sam Spade, our relationship now is very calm and cordial altho we are deeply divided over subjects such as Nazism and the meaning of Anti-Semitism. What transpired during the course of Sam's run for adminship has already been resolved between Sam and IZAK. The present complaint arose when Netoholic got upset that I contacted my friends on Wikipedia that a vote was in progress regardintg the deletion of certain sub-categories in Category:Terrorism, and I most certainly did NOT tell them how to vote. IZAK 23:51, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

IZAK responds to Netoholic, yet again

This section is in response to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence#Netoholic's responses to IZAK's evidence:

It's obvious that Netoholic is ready to pounce and nit-pick on anything he deems to be "infractions" but which are nothing of the sort. Netoholic has a history of such behavior which it is important to point out and his attacks agaisnt IZAK are not isolated incidents.
IZAK is not "confusing", and not hiding anything. I sign all my major changes. Any minor edits, usually spelling and syntax are ALL recorded on the history of each page for anyone to see as is normal Wikipedia practice, so it's IMPOSSIBLE to hide anything as it is.
Netholic has brought this RfA ON HIS OWN VOLITION. The old 15 Users did NOT request this RfA at all. They were out-voted and the time for their RfC had long expired. It was solely Netoholic, with Sam Spade's later consent, who impulsivley and independently without asking anyone and without first going through the proper procedure of requesting a RfM (Request for Mediation) first, jumped the gun and came directly to this RfA.
I certainly have had no reason to pick any arguments with Netoholic, but he has taken it upon himself to act as my prosecutor, Judge, and exectioner in this case, which is totally out of line by any Wikipedia standard, and then he has the audacity to claim that he is acting reasonably. Who is he fooling exactly? IZAK 02:22, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Evidence from the RFC

IZAK/HistorbuffEr - Is it really necessary to re-copy comments from the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK page? Can't you just summarize and provide links to the old page? -- Netoholic @ 18:14, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't plan to spam, just wanted to be fair and avoid quoting IZAK out of context. I'll revise my post. HistoryBuffEr 19:20, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Clarication about NPOV edits

On IZAK's evidence page, do you mean to ask for examples of NPOV (neutral) editing, or examples of POV insertions? -- Netoholic @ 21:31, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

I think finding POV edits would be relatively easy. What I want him and his supporters to do is provide examples of NPOV editing, like for example where he insisted inclusion of some well documented information which was unfavorable to Zionist positions. If, in fact, he can come up with such examples, it would be unjust to treat him a a POV pusher. Fred Bauder 22:39, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Fred: Hi, for major examples of my NPOV work on Wikipedia now please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence#Evidence of NPOV editing by IZAK as you have requested. I must also strongly object to your statement that "I think finding POV edits would be relatively easy" as I hope this does not reveal a major prejudice against me. You will NOT find me making POV edits to articles!!! You WILL find that I most prominently object to the nasty opinions espoused by Users Sam Spade and HistoryBuffer, that can only be called Anti-Semitic views -- what other word should I use to describe the hate? -- , who have left a MOUNTAIN of evidence of THEIR own horid attitudes to Israel and Zionism and I would challenge ANYONE to find some KIND and generous NPOV things they have ever said about Israel, its Jewish people or Zionism. Remember, "it takes two to tango" and ever since User:HistoryBuffer arrived on the scene about TWO months ago, we have had nothing but edit wars and strife in articles relating to Jews, Israel, and the Holocaust. Can you imagine, if a bunch of the editors working on Israel articles went over to the German or European related articles on Wikipedia and commenced the same games and baiting and edit wars that HistoryBUffer and Sam Spade engage in? But that they do it to the Jewish "section" on Wikipedia is a disgrace to the human race! Thanks for the kind and attentive ear. IZAK 13:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NPOV for Safsaf massacre, Benny Morris source, Terrorism against Israel

The statement, "I think finding POV edits would be relatively easy", can be made of anyone, including myself, who edits in controversial areas, for example I found this edit, adding a NPOV notice to an article which while unfavorable to Zionism had no dispute in the edit history and an empty talk page, after a few minutes while looking at your examples of NPOV editing. Here for example is one NPOV edit I will use as an example of NPOV editing, adding Category Palestine to Category Jerusalem. Regarding the other two, Sam Spade is not before us now, but HistoryBuffer is and will be asked to provide the same sort of evidence of NPOV editing in this area. Fred Bauder 14:01, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Fred: The article you mention Safsaf massacre relies on a quote from Benny Morris (that you cite in your additional source for it that you inserted today...BTW, why did you do that when you want to bring that as "evidence" "against" me...so I must object to what you have done in this instance as well as it shows your lack of partiality). Morris is himself a highly controversial writer who has been accused of having his own extreme left-wing POVs see Benny Morris#Criticism of Morris he was "...a member of the left-wing HaShomer HaTza'ir youth movement. In 1988, he was imprisoned for refusing military service in the West Bank town Nablus....", so to place a {{NPOV}} sign on it is correct and fair. What major discussions would you expect for what is just a one paragraph stub? Anyone is free to debate and change the issues if they want to, and you know full well that as editors not always do we have the time to enter notes on each edit we make (so your observation in this particular case is very lame as well), and as evidently the {{NPOV}} sign has been there for almost six months without controversy then maybe it says something about the presentation too, or maybe nobody cares? These events form part of a long drawn out war the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and it would be impossible to know who died in action fighting and who was not. Please note that at I also placed that same article of Safsaf massacre without making any changes to its contents into the Category:1948 Arab-Israeli War [1] as proof that I try to function in NPOV fashion all the time. IZAK 00:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As to citing the quote, I was curious to find out the source and since I did find it, put it in the article. I guess in cases like this, with eyewitness reports from two Arabs and one report from an Israeli, the best that can be done is to identify the sources of the information. There is always a residual doubt regarding any reported atrocity but as the reports multiply it lessens. What is not seen in that article is any evidence to the contrary. I guess NPOV would be to treat it as a reported atrocity and set forth the content and origin of the reports without trying to make an editorial judgement about the truth of them. Fred Bauder 12:11, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Fred: To give the Safsaf massacre a {{NPOV}} sign is less extreme and no different than the {{totallydisputed}} notice placed on the pages of:

Seems User:Mirv asks for "sources" (is that his only true motive, I wonder?) [2] [3] [4] [5] even though ALL the articles cite THREE each sources on each page, see:

So your defense of your "critique" of my placing a {{NPOV}} on the Safsaf massacre does not hold water. IZAK 18:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Netoholic's responses to IZAK's evidence

Under IZAK's section #See the following examples of Netoholic's previous POV rush to judgments and accusations:, please note that none of those quotes are authored by me, as implied, they are comments left on my Talk page by others. Also, none of them go towards explaining IZAK's actions in this case, and are really just an incoherent string of out-of-context slurs - exactly what IZAK has done in the past against anyone who shows any challenge to him. I hope the Arbitrators will see it for what it is. -- Netoholic @ 07:59, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

IZAK has changed his evidence section numberous times, which may lead to confusion. This includes inserting new comments without time/date stamping them (so as to look like they were there all along) and also changing his signed comments without noting the changes. See this example, but there are many more in the history of the page. -- Netoholic @ 01:36, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

As an additional note, I have not had any long-standing dispute with IZAK. I submitted this RFA only on behalf of 15 users who signed a statement asking for the Arbitration Committee to take firm action against IZAK. I see no reason why I along am having "evidence" brought against me which has no bearing on IZAK's actions. -- Netoholic @ 01:41, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

None of these users received a talk page message in the form you refer to. The RFC participants are - in many instances - ideological enemies of IZAK rather than victims of "talk page spamming". JFW | T@lk 17:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They don't have to have received one in order to recognize that the practice is unacceptable. -- Netoholic @ 22:58, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

14 + 1 in support of IZAK

By the way Netoholic there are 15 users, 14 plus me, right here on this page who disagree with your interpretaion, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence#Please add your view. IZAK 18:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See IZAK's further response to this latest accusation on the Talk page. IZAK 03:31, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Responses to Continued activity

(moved from main page)

November 16

This is instead an example of IZAK's invaluable role in the community. I'm sure that all of the users who received his invitation welcomed it; moreover, many of these users have already joined the forum... This is not "spamming" but rather a long-established way of rallying support for the voluntary associations that have emerged on Wiki. For example, the creators of the Wikipedia:The Business and Economics Forum sent out a number of invitations to users who had done good work on these subjects a few months ago; and, incidentally, I was not annoyed but rather honored to have received one. 172 23:55, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You aren't concerned (or annoyed) that he copied your signed comments to so many user pages? In reality, this would be a minor occurrence if it weren't for his over-use of that sort of mass-posting technique, which is at the root of the arbitration. -- Netoholic @ 00:58, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

(My response taken from User talk:Netoholic) No, I was glad to see him copy my signed comments and paste them onto the user talk pages of people whom he thought would be supportive of the goals of the new voluntary association. I encouraged him to do so [6]. To be honest, I haven't reviewed all of your evidence lately; so, my opinions may ill-informed. But based on the occasions that I had seen him employ that "mass-posting" technique, I never considered it inappropriate. Wiki is no longer a small community but rather an increasingly complex and cumbersome organization made up of scores of different networks of users. Yet, conflict is just as invasive as ever. Repeated reversions are no longer an acceptable approach to disputes; and the arbitration process is painfully slow. Rallying support is a way around of this. IMHO, IZAK's campaigns on behalf of associations like Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism and now the forum that I've started are appropriate ways of responding to Wiki's rapid growth. "Mass-postings," in that sense, may be a valid response to rise of, say, a "mass society" on Wiki. 172 01:15, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Netoholic, it seems that you are both missing the point as well as distorting it. As I have said before, I am an active user and I have about 40 other users on my list whom I consider to be my friends. If I choose to contact 5, or 10, or 15, or 25, of these people about something, and in this case it had nothing to do with "Anti-Semitism" issues, how dare you call this "spamming". Wake up man. IZAK 04:42, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Netoholic, please take note of this. IZAK has been contacting random users. He only contacts users whom he knows are likely to be receptive to the message. This is why we have talk pages to begin with. We are all peer editors, after all. And there's no way of being one without staying in touch with your peers. 172 05:17, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)