0-0-0-Destruct-0

AMA Case

I'm sorry that no one has responded to your case yet, but maybe you should try WP:3O. That's the place to ask other editors for their opinions on matters of content. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, thank you. I just needed a realistic estimate of how long to wait. The form I filled out said 5-7 days, but I assumed that was overly optimistic. Due to what's transpired on the page in question's talk page, I believe my situation needs an AMA. I'd rather wait and refrain from editing the page in question in the meantime. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 00:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

AMA Case

Hi there, sorry we took a while getting to you but I've taken up your case in AMA regarding Taylor Allderdice High School and the edits regarding the 70s drug culture there. So I can get a gauge on what you expect from the AMA process, what particularly would you like to see from my assistance? •Elomis• 07:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my case, and for contributing this kind of work. I would first like to ensure with you that my intentions and the contributions I've tried to make to the page in question comply with WP policy. If so, I would like you to do whatever you can to influence the other editors, in particular ChrisGriswold, to engage with me constructively and in good faith. Others have been curt and dismissive, and don't substantiate their objections. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 08:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your message, we'll talk on your page if you like and I'll add it to my watchlist so I can keep track. I've had a look at the talk page of the article and what's been going on and it seems that you've been more than civil and sensible. Unfortunately from time to time there's a precedent on Wikipedia that if you ignore someone they may well go away and I get the feeling this might have been what has happened here.

So we can get started, how is it that you know about the drug culture at the school? Is it personal experience? Reason I ask is that the explanation of it seems pretty concise and it comes across that it seems like it was a notable part of the schools history but I'd like to get a grip on where the info came from precisely. In regards to the 'undue weight' part of Wikipedia policies I think you make an excellent point that anything added to a stub that isn't something normally in a stub is likely to be weighty but I don't think there's a problem with that here.

The undue weight policy is not designed to guard against a historical attitude being on a school article, it's more designed to advise people against (for example) adding a paragraph of information about a famous politician's pets to an otherwise stubby account of the politician. Their pets are probably not that important and with a whole paragraph about fluffy they over-represent that part of them.

First thing to look at is the reliability of the source of the information, then how much of it should be included. I am going to start by dropping a note on the talk pages explaining why I personally think a school newspaper is an ok source for this, then come back and chat some more about how much of it is relevant and what weight it should be given. •Elomis• 22:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll answer everything you ask above, but first I'd like you to work things out with me on my talk page before jumping in at the page in question. I believe the other editor, ChrisGriswold, greatly desires to keep my material from the page in question, so I'd like to make extra sure that I've dotted all i's and crossed all t's. Secondly, before we take up the substantive issues you refer to, ChrisGriswold's last justification in his edit summary for deleting my edits was that I violate copyright. He alleges lots of other things (mostly on the talk page), some of which are contradictory, but if I'm infringing copyright then I have no basis to add my material, and all other points are moot. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 22:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

ChrisGriswold's allegation of copyright infringement

The supporting documents, the high school newspaper the Foreword, are online at http://static-169-229-215-122.comlit.berkeley.edu/repository/, which is clearly a web site at the University of California in Berkeley, California, U.S. (UCB). UCB has long been a world class research institution with a solid and renowned reputation. Please see http://www.berkeley.edu. Before placing a document online, the UCB librarian, who is a professional trained in these matters, makes a determination as to the document's copyright status to ensure compliance with U.S. law. UCB provides a mechanism for anyone who disagrees with the librarian's determination to object, to allege copyright infringement on the part of UCB, to allege noncompliance with the U.S.'s Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and to have the situation reviewed by University of California (UC) legal authorities. UC posts contacts at http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/copyright/campgroup.html. The correct contact is the DMCA Designated Agent at the Berkeley campus, who is currently listed as Karen Eft. I claim the above facts suffice absolutely to support the copyright compliance of all the online documents. We don't have the option to engage in wikilawyering. UCB has signed off on these documents, and if ChrisGriswold believes I or UCB are not in compliance with copyright law, he needs to convince UCB to overrule the librarian's determination, and the mechanism to do so is easily accessible to the public via the email, telephone, and snail mail contacts provided. So I claim copyright infringement can not be a legitimate basis for reverting my edits.

That said, I can offer an opinion as to the librarian's reasoning. The ASUC Legal Clinic (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~slc/) vetted this opinion in their case report of December 5, 2006. I have a hard copy. The high school newspapers online are my scans from the originals, which are property of UCB and listed in one of its online card catalogs. Each of the documents was published between 1976-1980, inclusive. None of the documents bears any copyright notice or any statement as to the reservation of rights of any kind. In that case, according to 17 USC 405, which is at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000405----000-.html, (and also see http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm and http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#noc) works published before March 1, 1989 that do not bear copyright notice throughout most of the copies, and did not make an effort to correct that omission within five years of publication have entered the public domain. In fact, works published before January 1, 1978 without copyright notice have been public domain since their publication, and had no chance for to perfect any copyright claim retroactively. The librarian probably concluded that there is no basis to believe that any of the authors in the paper's bylines successfully perfected any copyright claims within five years, by 1985. The librarian probably also concluded that this was not a work for hire, as high schools don't pay their students to write for the school newspaper; therefore the high school itself never had any copyright claim over the online material, and so could not have perfected any copyright claims. If a person objected that these facts can't be proven absolutely, they could bog down the discussion forever with bad faith gainsaying. Such wikilawyering would be against WP policy and all discussions would bear no legal weight. I claim we have to rely solely on UCB's approval, as must ChrisGriswold, or anyone else. At this point, anyone with concerns has to take them outside of WP, ultimately to UCB's DMCA Agent, since UCB has published, and is currently publishing, this material at http://static-169-229-215-122.comlit.berkeley.edu/repository/. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 23:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about the copyright infringement argument, it's a red herring and we can get this resolved without bringing it up, you did the right thing discussing this on your talkpage rather than the articles talk page as Chris may have taken it is an opportunity to get more heated up about the issue seeing you taking it so seriously (WP:BEANS). •Elomis• 01:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. (WP:BEANS) is sensible. I was anticipating previous objections being re-raised, but I'll assume the other talk page is on a good faith footing from this point forward and I won't do the beans thing. Since this talk page, by the way, is viewable by the world, I have to proceed under the assumption that interested parties are aware of everything said here. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 01:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm convinced about the copyright. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

the AMA case, continued

To answer your questions above, I am an eyewitness to the school's drug culture and general goings on from the mid 1960's to the early 1980's.

Of course, I am following the latest discussion on the talk page in question. When I'm confident the others will engage with me constructively, I would like to participate there again. Your view that the school newspaper can't categorically be excluded aids my position; I would further claim that the quality of the source ultimately rests with readers who examine it for themselves, which is why I had it put online. Even so, if the need arises, I have a substantial argument to make as to this high school newspaper's particularly distinguished quality and professional standards as recognized by respected outside institutions. Also, all three of the other editors have alleged the online documents' unreadability, and I would ask you to referee that if it comes up again. I'm happy to rescan any pages since the quality of the online repository is a worthy goal in itself. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 01:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, eyewitness stuff on Wikipedia almost never works and shouldn't. The Wikipedia policies say that if you were eyewitness to something odds are others were too and it's probably documented somewhere. Also be careful with the school newspaper, we can't really treat it any differently to any other school newspaper in that it can be used as a source for the school itself but we can't put any more weight on it than we would on any other school newspaper about any other school (maybe with the exception of a school of journalism's newspaper?). Have you seen my latest statement on the talk page regarding the compromise? I know it may be less than what you would like to see, but it's more than what the others do and I think it makes a good half-way point. If it is acceptable to the others it can even be built on carefully moving forward. •Elomis• 05:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Contacting me

You said in a previous section that everyone can read what is posted here. This is true, if you would like to tell me something privateley use this. •Elomis• 06:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I emailed you. I also checked the box indicating I should send a copy to myself too, and I can see that WP's email system is not instantaneous. Let me know if you don't get the email. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 15:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Steve block's latest objection of original research contradicts his earlier claims that this stuff is common knowledge (which he stated before the AMA case), and that it's trivia. I think he's kitchen-sinking here, and I find it curious that he's articulating objections ChrisGriswold lodged before the AMA case, but ChrisGriswold--whose track record of incivility on the talk page he may suspect could erode his credibility--does not himself weigh in. Since I think Steve block is now showing bad faith, I'm going to hold off participating on the talk page. But please let me know if you think differently.

I still haven't received my copy of the email I sent you earlier, but I think it's important for you to see it before answering Steve block. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 16:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

AMA

Hey mate.

I've put more comments on the article's talk page and I think I've got your points across without any incivility coming out and maybe with as much maturity and common sense in the discussion as possible. I don't know if there is much more I can do. If I've got your argument across on your behalf and the consensus among others is that it is still not worthy of inclusion, you have the choice of arbitration or perhaps now the other editors see your points clearer and you may be able to hash something out with them. Is that acceptable or is there some other way in which I can help? •Elomis• 03:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

requesting AMA to continue participating

I can see you exercise a lot of patience and tact on the other talk page. I truly hope the others maintain that when I return there. I was really hoping you'd wait until receiving my email before answering Steve block. I assume you didn't receive it because I never received my copy. I would like you to stick around to do two things: 1) advise me when to re-participate, and ensure that the other editors engage with me in good faith when I re-participate back on the other page. I'm counting on their knowing that someone outside is watching to ensure their good faith. 2) Assist me, if need be, in coming up with a solution that will stand the best chance of prevailing in arbitration.

Sure, if you being re-participating (which I am sure you can do now) I'll ensure that everyone keeps it friendly. You'll often find that just the presence of someone else will do the trick in keeping things civil. No I didn't receive the email, something must have been screwy.

1) - Give it a shot now, I'll be watching and ensuring everything will be even headed.

2) - I'll be able to assist you putting your point further but keep in mind your case is no the thickest I've ever seen. Only things which are verifiable are generally permitted, and while some of your material that you want included is verifiable to an extent, a lot of it isn't and I am doing a lot of explaining how it is interesting and harmless to have it included despite it not being neccessarily 100% in keeping with the guidelines. I suggest you avoid arbitration, I get a feeling you wouldn't like the result.

In my email I said "For the most part, I think your compromise captures the spirit and scope of what I wanted to do. I'd like to see ChrisGriswold weigh in since his style of objecting is more spirited than the others.

Yeah so would I, I'm going to put a note on his talk page to see if I can't get him to participate.

I do have to say, though, that your decision to keep what the principal said and the modified school motto over the citations from the newspaper concerns me because, although they're true (I'm a witness), they're undocumentable. They do succinctly capture the whole idea I was trying to convey, but even if all parties accept them now, what rebuttal can there be to someone who deletes that stuff in the future? There may be a need to cite actual words from the newspaper. The classified ads' showing drug related humor for four straight years would be an unfortunate fact to lose, though I understand citing four years worth of one-liners isn't the solution. I've found at least one pro-drug op-ed too. If people want to lose the undocumentable facts, I would then insist on citing at least one of the classifieds as being typical, then providing references for the other ones as well."

Classifieds are a terrible source. Because anybody can pay to have anything put in a classified ad they are a not acceptable as references or sources in almost any circumstance. You are right that the fact that the ads themselves showing the humor is interesting and important but, and this is where it gets tricky, it would be ideal if something else documented the classified ads having this tone. Does that make any sense?

Who ensures people don't delete this stuff in the future? Not much. Like most of the Wikipedia we would just hope that people be smart enough to look at the talk page before removing it. Once consensus is reached though you can maintain the page by reverting anything that is sweeping generalisations and discuss things on the talk page further.

Of course, Steve block jumped right on the undocumentable principal's comments. Is it better to push the case to keep the principal's comments, or go with the documentable citations from the newspaper?

If you mean by the documentable citations from the newspaper, the classified ads, then the principal's comments. They are undocumented, unreferenced and uncited but there's a chance people will agree that it can be included under WP:IGNORE whcih talks about how under certain circumstances it is better to include something unreferenced because of how interesting or notable it is, than have something excluded because it's not referenced properly.

Perhaps I'm confused, but you and Steve block seem to agree that the drug-related stuff from the newspaper only occurs in isolated cases. But in the passage they deleted, I had citations from issues of the paper spanning from 1978-1980, and I have found more from 1976. This isn't isolated stuff, consistently appearing in the paper for four years running, perhaps more. I didn't only cite classified ads, but an op-ed and an article too. And there are more. The passage can provide footnotes referring to the correct page and number to refer the reader even if the passage doesn't quote each one. In this case, the other users object that the passage doesn't provide enough documentation; at other times they object I provide too much. They say I'm providing original research, then they turn around and say the same passage states something every high school has in common. That's what I mean by bad faith: professing contradictory principles to achieve a goal indicates there's some unspoken principle underlying the desire, some sensitivity I've touched on that the others can't acknowledge because there's no legitimate WP principle to cater to their personal sensitivities. So they hide behind a mountain of rule books.

Yeah I am not sure where he's getting that from but there seems to be an attempt to pin this down to an individual year, even late in that year (1978). In regards to bad faith I think you are largely correct but maybe mislabelling it a little, it's not so much bad faith, it's mildly humorous but regrettable desperation. I alluded to the fact on the article talk page that the attempts at getting the reference material seen by consensus as illegal under copyright law was absurd and it wasn't neccessary to run from pillar to post making up rubbish to get the material excluded, that we can discuss this like grown-ups. When you continue participating I'll be keeping a particular eye on people desperately throwing facts (or 'facts' if you get my meaning) in to get the material excluded. But again, remember this is really an uphill battle.

Steve block also says "I'd also argue that we don't generally allow trivia sections within articles either" but the notable alumni currently take up half the article, and isn't this information trivia? This is where it hurts my position to label it trivia. I think it should be entitled what it is, once we determine what it is.

You are both right. There is a guideline which doesn't disallow trivia (he is exaggerating) but advises against it largely because it encourages people sometimes to put material into the trivia section lazily rather than add it intelligently to the article. If we have trivia sections everywhere, editors looking at pages wont read an article and decide how to work their contributions in, they just treat the trivia section as the fact-lett repository it becomes a disorganised main version of the article. That said the alumni section is yes, trivial, it doesn't really work into the rest of the article, it's just a collection of information.

In the paragraph where Steve block writes "A student newspaper is also not published by the school..." he goes on to speculate about the contents of the paper, disclaimers it might contain, etc. But the documents are online. Not just the citations, but the entire context for each of my citations can be viewed by anyone in the world who can view a pdf file. You let him off the hook, but it's important that the other editors start acknowledging the presence of the documents. More worrisomely, ChrisGriswold flat out declared the online documents unreadable. This is untrue, and easily fixed if even remotely true, since I can rescan anything people believe (in good faith) requires it. I fear if you leave the page, I will face bad faith shenanigans, like people falsely declaring things unreadable just to stonewall.

I'm not 'leaving', just getting towards the end of what an AMA is capable of (but I am not there yet). I've tried several times to point out to him that a student body is a school, but he's not having any of it.

Towards the bottom, you state "If you guys really, really see this as being as irrelevant as you seem to then it may need to be left out which is regrettable." I'm concerned this invites people to substitute stubbornness for sound reasoning. I wish you hadn't indicated you were pulling out before I re-participated. At this point, I'd like to return to the talk page and engage with Steve block without having to face ChrisGriswold's disruptiveness. So I'd like you to remain, as a sanity check for all involved, as someone who is working on the page with us for a while longer. If it's not going well, then I'd at least like to work up the passage independently with you so that it can weather arbitration. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 05:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I wasn't indicating I was pulling out and I don't think the others took it that way, come back onto the talk page. I'm going to see if I can get ChrisGriswold to chat as well and I think I'll be able to keep it grown-up. It's amazing how people won't throw tantrums in front of strangers sometimes :-)

•Elomis• 06:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

One more thing. Steve block wrote "This is baldly original research. We cannot infer anything from the publication of the paper, we must trace it to reliable sources. This source does not substantiate the claim being made here, since we have no source which demonstrates that the administration were complicit in publishing the article." You agreed with him, but does the school's representing itself as the corporate author of this publication substantiate my claim that "the very fact that the administration allowed the paper to publish the kind of content I cite is itself evidence of that admnistration's benign attitude toward the students' drug culture"? The school is listed as the corporate author at the University of Pittsburgh library where the paper is archived on microfilm. The WorldCat (http://www.oclc.org/worldcat/) entry for the school newspaper I cited from reads:

I didn't agree, I backed off a little. I mentioned in several places that I felt the school didn't exercise a right of veto that it almost certainly had and this meant it was complicit.

Local Holdings: Univ of Pittsburgh 1-121 (1927-1992)
Database: WorldCat

Availability:     Check the catalogs in your library. Libraries worldwide that own item: 1 Connect to the catalog at your library
Find Items About: Taylor Allderdice High School (Pittsburgh, Pa.)8
Title:            The foreword.
Corp Author(s):   Taylor Allderdice High School (Pittsburgh, Pa.)
Publication:      Pittsburgh, PA : Taylor Allderdice High School,
Year:             1927-
Description:      Vol. 1, no. 1 (Apr. 1927)-; v. :; ill.
Language:         English
Standard No:      LCCN:             sn 94-42407
SUBJECT(S)
Named Corp:       Taylor Allderdice High School -- Periodicals.
Note(s):          Title from caption./ Reproduction:     Microfilm./ Pittsburgh, PA :/ Archives of Industrial Society, University of Pittsburgh,/ 1994./ microfilm reels ; 35 mm.
Material Type:    Periodical (per); Microfilm (mfl)
Document Type:    Serial
Entry:            19940830
Update:           20040210
Accession No:     OCLC:             31030797
Provider:        OCLC
Database:         WorldCat

Steve block also continues: "Reading the school's website makes it quite plain that the paper is written and edited by students, and is targeted at the student as an audience." He doesn't say what makes it quite plain that the audience is exclusively students, and the link he provides doesn't say that. What's more, the school's web site publishes a page from its newspaper at http://allderdicehs.pghboe.net/foreword/foreword-p1.shtm. Note the article entitled "Drugs' presence felt despite school effort." Is this material really as limited as Steve block claims? Doesn't the fact that the school publishes this page to the world on its web site indicate its non-benign attitude toward drugs in February 2005? 0-0-0-Destruct-0 06:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Nah it's not as limited as he claims, but I am starting to have trouble thinking of other ways of putting the point I've made several times.

•Elomis• 06:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The Way Forward

Thanks to your involvement, I believe I have a better picture as to how what I want to do fits in with the preferences of the other editors that underlie their words. Your recommendation of how to proceed makes sense to me. Here's my plan.

1) I'd first like to add a section documenting the school newspaper, citing its accolades, and student staff members who have gone on to become professional journalists. I'll provide links to the UCB repository of public domain copies for download and to the University of Pittsburgh that archives the entire first 65 years of the paper on microfilm. If you hadn't noticed, on this page above (by the beans part), and on the other talk page ChrisGriswold has withdrawn his objection regarding copyright violation, and I would expect Steve block to follow suit out of respect for UCB's determination and its provision of a complaint mechanism enabling anyone to initiate a review of that determination by UCB's legal eagles.

2) I'll then restore deleted notable alumni (plus a few new ones) I had added previously, but was relying on their presence in the school newspaper to document that they are indeed alumni. Paschmitts removed these, but I assume that was because ChrisGriswold and Steve block were both objecting that my source infringed copyright. I like the notable alumni, even though I think it's trivia.

3) I'll then proceed in baby steps to work your compromise passage (or leave it basically alone) to a state acceptable to the other editors. Steve block says in his latest comment that "there can be more movement in the discussion." He did say earlier something like that in view of your presence he would take up the role of advocating WP policy. Perhaps his extremeness was theoretical and we can agree on something practical that's truly worth having on the main page and isn't a nothing. I now think your compromise works the best because the unsourced principal's comments etc. capture in a nutshell what I was trying to convey. Perhaps Steve block will agree it's better than reporting a theme sustained documentably in the school newspaper over a four year span, sourced, but from classified ads.

The pot culture at this school, by the way, was pervasive and widespread--teachers and students, and I'm an eyewitness and a nosewitness. It was and is really very humorous. The situation is notable because the school also maintained a recognized and distinguished academic reputation throughout those years, which is not inconsistent with marijuana use, as opposed to more modern drugs, which made the situation not so humorous into the 1980's and beyond. Such claims can't be documented though until someone writes a book, or some cultural anthropologist or historian provides a study with interviews of representative parties. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 09:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I definitely think this is a good start. I was going to suggest the section about the school newspaper myself, but you beat me to it. You might want to document somewhere (being relatively new to Wiki, I'm not sure where the apropriate place is), the whole process of UCB verifying the copyright status of the papers; this would prevent future misunderstandings. Also better scans would be nice; and in order to make the information referred to more findable in the scans, maybe preparing special scans with just the masthead and the apropriate articles would help. Especially if you had references to where the entire issue could be found. (from Paschmitts)

I described the part of UCB's process that I'm privy to above, in its own section. As I understand it, it's not our function to represent outside institutions here. If a reputable institution publishes something on the web with an implied or stated copyright status, that's authority enough to be cited on WP as long as we abide by the copyright notice. If an editor disagrees with what the institution did, they can object on the talk page if it's blatant, but otherwise have to take the problem outside of WP. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 04:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The question becomes, though, whether the instituition is reliable. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to try to fix any unacceptable scans--just cite file name and pdf page number. I had the common sense, of course, to look the scans over, and redo bad ones. I could have missed some, but everything I cited looked acceptable to me. Things others declared unreadable were readable to me on my junky laptop (when using the magnify button), more readable on a better computer, and most readable when printed out. They're not pretty or pleasant to read, but perfectly legible for verification purposes, and comparable to my experience with microfilm, which is also unpleasant to read, but functional. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 04:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As for findability in the online file, I feel the best thing is to scan entire documents, because that provides the full context for the citation, which is valuable information. Conscientiousness requires me to cite the correct page number in the original document, but perhaps I should also provide the page number in the pdf files since the two numbers differ (though in a predictable pattern) so that interested parties don't have to search out a needle in a haystack. So I don't think the special scans you refer to are necessary (yet), but you can extract any page from the online pdf files and isolate any part of it and put it online. Perhaps if we determine this partial extraction remains necessary, a separate folder can be placed in the repository for "snippets" that can be referred to directly for convenience. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 04:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the deleted Notable Alumni, I think (personal opinion here) that simply having the names in the school paper isn't a very good reference for them. What I tried to use in the references for other notable alumni was a reference written later in their career which refered back to the school(s) they attended. I couldn't find such references for the people I deleted. While the names are not common, they could just be students with names similar to famous people (e.g. John Smith is not necessarily the Captain involved with Pocahontas, an extreme example). I assume, as you are personally familiar with the culture of the school in that time period, that you are also personally familiar with those people as well. However, I would like to see references such as I tried to find for other notable alumni. (from Paschmitts)

I see the work you did on the remaining alumni, and I understand your view. I have a proposal, but would first like to say that I know with complete certainty that the notable Aaron Zitner and Vicky Funari (and one more I have ready to go) I cited are the same people listed in the bylines and staff of the Foreword I cited. I understand my word isn't a proper source; I'm just providing a sanity check here. My proposal goes as follows. It would be extrvagant to believe that the persons listed in the bylines and staff of the Foreword are not students at the school. So it merely remains to link the name in the paper to the person listed in the reference documenting their notability. Note that an element of doubt always remains, even (if you really ponder it) in the people you documented. It's a judgment call as to when we've eliminated enough doubt. If we can find at least two verifiably different people with the name "Aaron Zitner", for example, then that's enough doubt to require more than listing in the Foreword. Age, contradictory biographical details, etc. can reveal this. But if there's only one "Aaron Zitner", whose biograpical data doesn't contradict his potential alumni status, we allow it until we have a reason not to. I.e. if due diligence turns up a high enough possibility of correlation, we conclude they correlate. The alumni section isn't controversial and individuals can be deleted without disrupting anything the article as a whole in the event new information introduces doubt. The universe didn't shatter when you determined Jeff Goldblum's listing was an error. And how do we know that he wasn't a student for some period of time after all? 0-0-0-Destruct-0 04:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

One notable alum I couldn't include was Kathleen Marshall. She has several bylines in the Foreword, but the first name/last name combination is obviously not unique. She's the sister of Rob Marshall (who's also listed in the Foreword). See http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1240648/ for her notability. Maybe you can find verification that she's an alum. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 17:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've already added Kathleen Marshall; she was included in this PG article which I found when documenting Rob, and she already had a Wiki page, so I added her. – Paschmitts 18:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see. Thanks, that verifies that the Kathleen Marshall with bylines in the Foreword is the notable one. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 18:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I should add, by the way, that I've submitted volume 51 of The Allderdice (from 1980) to the UCB librarian to have its public domain status reviewed. If approved, a scan of this book will be placed in the online repository. There's interesting stuff about Kathleen Marshall that would make a good source for additions to her WP page. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 18:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's an interesting situation: volume 51 of The Allderdice lists two separate people named "Kathleen Marshall." They both graduated the same year, their photos are included next to each other, they are not the same person, and neither one looks enough like the Kathleen Marshall whose photo is online at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1240648/ to identify her positively. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 16:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Holy cow! Now I'm thoroughly confused. IMDB has four Kathleen Marshalls – do any of them resemble one of the KMs in the yearbook? Well the P-G article documents that at least one person named Kathleen Marshall was the sister of Rob Marshall, went to Allderdice, and went on to become a director.

LI don't believe the idea is to trust all sources. The claims need to be verifiable. We need to have a document that verifies that the Aaron Zitner at the AP is the one from T-A. As you point out, Jeff Goldblum was on the list, and he was not actually a student. We do not want false listings because it ruins Wikipedia's reliability. Paschmitts has done a great job of sourcing alumni; to include unverifiably undocumented people would do a disservice to the work that Paschmitts has done and also misrepresent how well documented this connection is. Another thing you need to look at is how notable these people actually are. Neither of them have articles on Wikipedia, which I think cann speak for the notability issue with regard to a person.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I suggest you use the talk page to work on your compromise passage? Or do it here if you feel it would work better. Personally what made me uncomfortable was the undue weight given to what seems to be a short section of the school's history. I do find it interesting the large difference in culture between then and now. (from Paschmitts)

talk page is the logical place, and where I'd like to work on it and hold a civil discussion. I still think my claim its weight appears undue because the article is a stub. My section, and particularly Elomis's compromise aren't very big. The article is currently 33% notable alumni, and I think it would be silly to believe that the complete encyclopedic article will eventually maintain this ratio. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 04:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanx for persisting in this despite our objections. Having had my first attempt at a Userbox stomped all over (from my viewpoint), I understand how frustrating this can be. Paschmitts 15:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikimail

Hey mate, I just read your proposal via email. Wow, what a great bit of editing. I wouldn't have even worried about getting someone else's opinion for that, it really brings a lot to the article. I wish more articles had people working so hard on it and taking it so seriously, we'd have less hopeless stubs. •Elomis• 19:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request

I've made a request for mediation, since I don't see how we can move forward any further. If you agree that mediation is the best step forward, please add your signature to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Taylor Allderdice High School. You may also describe what issues you feel should be addressed in the Additional issues section if you feel I have misrepresented the issue or forgotten any. Steve block Talk 12:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've withdrawn the request since you did not consider accepting it. Instead I'm going to take this matter elsewhere. Steve block Talk 19:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you withdrew your mediation request so soon after making it. Before you withdrew the request, on the Taylor Allderdice High School talk page I had said "I'm happy to have a consensus or mediation settle matters, but obviously that will require patience." I still agree that mediation is a good idea. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 22:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I withdrew the offer because you chose to ignore it and instead amend the article to your own preferences. If you really had wanted to engage in mediation, you would have accepted the offer. Steve block Talk 16:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I attended to it closely and told you on the other talk page that I thought it was a good idea, so you have no basis to claim that I "chose to ignore it" when the facts show the opposite. I would have accepted the offer, but you withdrew it very soon after extending it. As I explained on the other talk page, you amended the article to your liking when you reverted a quality source but provided no basis for that reversion. If you want mediation for that source, that's fine, but since you provide no basis for objection the quality source should remain until you or the mediation process can show reasons otherwise. Instead, you revert without reason, and revert your request for mediation without reason. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 19:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood me, so I'll restate my reason for withdrawing the mediation offer. Had you meant to accept the mediation offer, you would have accepted it when you saw it. You did not do so. I withdrew it after you had seen it and chosen not to accept it. You preferred instead to continue reverting the article. As to your other allegations, I'm not amending the article to my liking. I'm amending it to fit Wikipedia Policy. I have no idea what source you are talking about here, so can't respond to your allegations regarding it. Best regards. Steve block Talk 19:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You first said I "did not consider accepting" your offer, but I had clearly expressed that I thought it was a good idea. Now you have changed that to say I would have accepted your offer when I saw it, but that discounts the time necessary for the consideration you earlier referred to. The mediation process says "parties are given seven days from the time of the initial request to indicate their participation." You withdrew your offer to mediate the acceptability of the source The Allderdice 51 very quickly. It's odd that you say you don't know the source I'm talking about: it's the one you requested the very mediation we're talking about now. It's inaccurate to say I "continue reverting the article"; I make changes in accordance with WP policy, just as you do. Please assume good faith. If we disagree on what that policy allows, then I think mediation is a good idea to settle the matter. I explain my changes item by item, but you do not. In the case of The Allderdice 51 you declare it invalid without providing a basis for your declaration. Until you can provide a basis, the source, which has all the earmarks of a quality source, should remain until some reason to disallow it appears, perhaps via the mediation process. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 20:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• The mediation wasn't intended to discuss the source but to discuss our takes on how the article should represent information. I am not backtracking on my claim over your non-acceptance of the mediation offer. You suggest you had indicated you were willing to accept mediation, yet you did not accept the offer placed on your talk page, which to me doesn't indicate you were willing to accept it. You stated on the article talk page that you would rather see "if we could solve our problems ourselves". Perhaps you could explain how this equates with accepting the offer? Why do I state you ignored it? If you wish to engage in a semantic argument, by all means do so, but let us at least accept that there is more than one definition of the term ignore, and that you did disregard the offer, preferring instead your own option of resolving the matter amongst ourselves. I would hope you would agree it is futile to claim you would have accepted the offer. When you had the opportunity to do so, you did not. As to assuming good faith, I think my record across Wikipedia across the last 18 months and the community's trust in elevating me to administrator status demonstrate my adherence to that guidance. You may also care to reread the guidance offered at Wikipedia:Assume good faith. At no point have I indicated your actions are inspired by malice, but rather by a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works and what it is. If you feel I have done otherwise I apologies unreservedly for any such misunderstanding, misreading or poor communication.

It's not mere semantics to distinguish indicated acceptance with time for consideration from willful rejection. WP's mediation system provides one week for both parties to accept a mediation offer. As I said on the other talk page, "I'm happy to have a consensus or mediation settle matters, but obviously that will require patience. In the meantime, I request we apply such patience to this discussion since it would be best, and perhaps more expedient, if we could solve our problems ourselves." What you now characterize as "non-acceptance" you previously characterized by positive choice ("you chose not to accept it"), willful disregard ("you chose to ignore it"), and a leap of faith as to my desires against what I had plainly stated ("If you really had wanted to engage in mediation, you would have accepted the offer.") And on the contrary, it is certainly not "futile to claim" I would have accepted the offer because I would almost certainly have accepted it, and gave you every reason to believe that. It looked like a good idea to me, and I immediately contacted the AMA, Elomis, about it as I am not expert with WP's mediation processes. Before Elomis could respond to me, you withdrew your mediation offer. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 23:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here. I can't see where you gave me any indication that you intended to accept the offer. I apologise that you find my withdrawal of the offer to be in bad faith. Perhaps it is indicative of the issues that face us. Steve block Talk 23:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I gave you an indication that I intended to accept the offer when I wrote on the Taylor Allderdice High School talk page, before you withdrew the request, "I'm happy to have a consensus or mediation settle matters, but obviously that will require patience." 0-0-0-Destruct-0 00:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we have to agree to disagree once again. You stated "I'm happy to have a consensus or mediation settle matters, but obviously that will require patience. In the meantime, I request we apply such patience to this discussion since it would be best, and perhaps more expedient, if we could solve our problems ourselves." At another venue. In response to me asking you here on your talk page "If you agree that mediation is the best step forward, please add your signature to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Taylor Allderdice High School." To my mind, had you wanted to accept, you would have done so. Had you needed time to think about it, you would have indicated that. Your response, to me, reads 'whilst I take the point that mediation is an option, I do not choose to pursue it at this instance, as I would prefer to sort the matter out between the two of us'. Therefore I withdrew my offer. I apologise if that reading is wrong, but perhaps your ambiguity may have caused that? Steve block Talk 00:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The unavoidable time between offer and acceptance is not the kind of ambiguity that can, in good faith, constitute grounds to withdraw an offer. Someone expert in WP's mediation policy would know that time extends to seven days. Even a non-expert would consider a matter of hours unreasonable. Your citation itself indicates my happiness for mediation, and what common sense dicated we do in the intervening period (the "meantime"). I also presumed that there'd be a wait for mediators, which time common sense dictates would be best spent solving "our problems ourselves." In any case, I am not concerned by the present mode of discussion; I hear your apologies. I am concerned, rather, by 1) your first mode of ascribing to me willful ignoring as your profferred reason for withdrawal; 2) your rather ominous gesture to "take the matter elsewhere"; and 3) your sudden consequent deletions and objections to material on the Taylor Allderdice page which had passed muster with you for weeks, and which you yourself had edited to render compliant for those weeks. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 01:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

With regards 1) I don't think there's anything more to be gained discussing it, you are aware of my position and disagree with it; 2)I've always stated my desire to widen the pool of discussion by posting appropriate pointers; 3)Material removed has never been acceptable to me, I have stated as such on the article talk page, and I have merely been editing in good faith and attempting to reach an understanding before such removals. No such understandings have materialised, so my hand was eventually forced. If the removals crystallise the discussion, all the better. Steve block Talk 09:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, you edited material that I edited that then remained for weeks. You only deleted it immediately after suddenly withdrawing your offer to mediate unrelated material. You took three coordinated actions, one right after the other: 1) Ascribed responsibility to me for your own innappropriate haste in withdrawing mediation; 2) made vague threats to me; and 3) unilaterally deleted consensus-borne material to which you were a member of that consensus only raising sudden massive objections as part of your reaction. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 15:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this is getting us. Whether you believe me or not, I've described my thinking. You are free to colour my actions as you so wish, however note that I reject them and am happy to stand by my words both here and in discussions with others over this issue. I see nothing constructive evolving from a continuation of this line of discussion. All that matters is that the article is written to the highest standards in keeping with our policies. I suggest any further discussions we have focus on any alterations to the article, and are thus best discussed at the article's talk page. I regret that you find my actions to be unsuited to your pleasure, and apologise for any limits in my communicative skills which have led to such. With respect, Steve block Talk 18:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Just like everyone else, I am entitled to civility from other editors--that's not my personal pleasure, but policy. Your coordinated, successive actions don't need to be colored; they speak for themselves: you withdrew from mediation hastily ascribing willful disregard to me contrary to my plainly stated wishes. You then proceeded to delete material arrived at via a consensus in which you played an active part and edited yourself. I'm further concerned about the incivility you followed up with by using your characterizations of me as a basis for some of those deletions, i.e., by discussing the editor not the article. I agree that all that matters is that the article is written to the highest standards in keeping with our policies, and can only recommend that you live up to that. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 23:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding this sourcing issue, you question my integrity, hardly an assumption of good faith. I apologise for not keeping up with the issue entirely, but I do have my hands busy with other matters on Wikipedia too. That said, I have already stated my reasons for the removal of text which you were supporting with The Allderdice 51, but I'll restate here; you were making an interpretation of the source. The source did not verify what you alleged. You were committing original research. I'd also state that The Allerdice is a year book and is not a reputable source, and as such is best used to source information only about itself. I would also add that The Allerdice is currently in use as a source within the article. I would also hope you would perhaps accept the possibility that I might have perhaps a little more of an understanding of Wikipedia policy and what we accept as quality sources and what constitutes original research. Your assertion that The Allerdice has all the markings of a quality source have no foundation, and the onus is actually on the person wishing to add the text to prove its validity, not the person removing it. Best wishes. Steve block Talk 22:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't specify how or where I questioned your integrity. When you accused me of willful disregard--against my twice stated views indicating the opposite--withdrew your mediation offer, and direfully declared "instead I'm going to take this matter elsewhere," I asked you to "please assume good faith." I am happy to presume, based on the reputation accorded you by others, that you have a greater understanding of WP's policies than me. I would also hope that based on our exchanges you would agree I'm intelligent enough to sift out errors of judgment to which your experience does not make you immune. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 23:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I had thought you wanted to discuss the article, but it appears I have that wrong. I'll bid you good night. Steve block Talk 23:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Your paragraph above begins by stating that I question your integrity without specifying how, to which I immediately responded. You later follow up with references to your WP reputation. I spoke to that. You don't respond. You do, for the very first time indicate something regarding why you categorically object to the reputability of The Allderdice, but very little. I think that's more relevantly discussed at the other page. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 00:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I had thought the substantive point at your end was the sourcing issue, of which I have again restated my objection. You will find the original statement of it still awaiting your rebuttal at the article talk page. I apologise for disregarding the other issues. I feel the article is the highest priority. Steve block Talk 00:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:TaylorAllderdice-Foreword-098-02.pdf listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:TaylorAllderdice-Foreword-098-02.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 20:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Please go ahead and delete it. The upload was an error on my part. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 18:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

AMA -> Mediation

Hey mate. I've looked at the latest round on the talk page for Taylor Alderdice, I think this has now indisputedly got beyone what an AMA member can help you with and will need to be mediated. Do you agree? •Elomis• 23:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like mediation is the next step, though I'm not an expert with those things. But first, I'd like to get your frank opinion as to items worth pursuing and what's going on here. I consider your view (and virtually everyone's as a matter of fact) impartial, and would be happy to drop items that truly don't comply with letter and spirit. Of course, I see a lot of unsourced material on WP, but I'm not interested in getting my stuff through if it's merely a shade less bad. In the case of my original "drug culture" section, for example, I'd have been satisfied to drop it quickly and entirely if I'd known the opinion you expressed about it on your talk page. I wouldn't have asked you to fashion and advocate a compromise, but appreciate that you did with such energy and shrewd practicality. So that I can determine where I stand, I'd like to email you some questions and would be happy to get your responses from this talk page, since I trust your discretion. Is that OK? 0-0-0-Destruct-0 00:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm your new AMA

Hi, I'm interested in your case. For you to know, (I'm mostly engaged on arbitration cases, but I've allowed myself to change a bit for a while!). What I've seen and understood is that you want is a review of Steve Block's and your edits... or have I lost anything? What I see is that the dispute can be solved with a good approach.

Could you please make me a brief summary. I'll be reading the dispute, but maybe need some help with the context. Please, send me a message to my talk or an email, whatever you prefer. (If you don't want me as your advocate, just tell me and I re-request your case). --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 13:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your email discussion, which clarified the issues for me in detail. I'm happy to follow your advice and look forward to working with others who collaborate instead of retaliate. In the event inappropriate behavior returns I would like to follow through with mediation and arbitration as we discussed, and would request your continued assistance with those processes. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 13:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Informal mediation on Taylor Allderdice High School

A request for informal mediation has been made regaring a dispute over Taylor Allderdice High School that you have been listed as an involved party in. You can find this request at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-23 Taylor Allderdice High School. Please be aware that informal mediation is just that, informal, and it is an attempt to help all parties involved in a dispute reach consensus on an issue prior to escalating to more formal mediation or arbitration measures. Please indicate on either the case page or the disputed article's talk page if you are willing to accept this offer and attempt to work toward a solution. Thanks! Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• All involved parties listed on the mediation request have accepted and discussion is now underway at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-23 Taylor Allderdice High School. I am requesting a short informative statement from all parties to get things started. Please stop by the talk page at your convenience and we can be under way. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your efforts in consensus building, patience, and all-around diligence. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Thanks are due to the Association of Members' Advocates[1] and to Neigel von Teighen for his boundless patience in explaining to me how WP works. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 19:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I really like your user name

It's the kind of user name that makes you slap your forehead and go, "Why didn't I think of that!" --Hemlock Martinis 02:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, heh. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Taylor Allderdice High School

I'm a participant in the mediations Neigel von Teighen mentions. The "mediation alert" Arkyan inserted at Taylor Allderdice High School is inside the section on The Foreword[2], so I think you edited with common sense even if you didn't see the notice. In any case, I looked at your edits and I think you contributed good and sourced stuff. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 17:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Since I really learned about sourcing, which took me more than a year and over 10,000 edits to truly appreciate, I've tried to be as thorough as possible in sourcing. I'm sure that some may disagree with any particular edit of mine to an article, but I try to be really careful to show that I have a source to back it up. I hope my edits here have been helpful. Alansohn 17:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The request for mediation

Thanks for the note. My problem here is that those points were already being mediated upon, and you withdrew from that mediation. I can't see the value in another mediation on the same issues. I don't see how a new mediation will offer anything that the last mediation didn't. Steve block Talk 18:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Taylor Allderdice High School. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC).

Notability of Maxine Lapiduss

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Maxine Lapiduss, by RustyGriswold (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Maxine Lapiduss seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Maxine Lapiduss, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Maxine Lapiduss itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 14:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Gary Graff

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Gary Graff, by RustyGriswold (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Gary Graff seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Gary Graff, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Gary Graff itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 14:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Machete Ensemble

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Machete Ensemble, by RustyGriswold (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Machete Ensemble seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Machete Ensemble, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate Machete Ensemble itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 14:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)