Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Images of Wikipedians (2nd nomination)

Wikipedia:Images of Wikipedians

Procedural listing. The first MfD for this page (originally titled Wikipedia:Facebook) was speedy closed as keep after less than two hours, and unanimous consensus at deletion review was to "overturn and relist". So here we are. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Original nomination was:
Delete - Wikipedia is not Facebook. Page contents are nn, irrelevant, imagecruft. Page is a potential privacy issue, especially considering anon IPs are adding people without their knowledge or consent. Nobody of consequence 02:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This does not belong in the Wikipedia namespace and is a potential minefield. How can we ever be sure that the person on a picture actually is the user it is associated with? And if it is, aren't we giving ammunition to ill-willing people? We can't assume good faith when it may have real world implications. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete pointless, I would say; how does this improve the wiki? These can just be put on individual user pages. We are not a social networking site. David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Useful for meetups. Help establish a sense of community. - 211.30.71.131 04:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Perhaps categorise to a userpage (not image) category, something like Category:Wikipedia users with photos of themselves will address some of the privacy concerns. It would prevent people sneaking in images without the user's knowledge, since inclusion of the category will be controlled by the user themself. Sadly, the admins who appear to be for keeping this page have resorted to removing deletion tags more than once. [1] [2] Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • After trying to edit the page a couple of times (to get rid of IP additions), I'm strongly in favour of delete and convert to category. Even if this page is kept it is already slow to load as it is now. If people keep adding their photos here it will bloat this page, so it will eventually have to be split into multiple pages, making policing even harder. A category doesn't have this problem. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 03:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Let me get this straight. You believe that it would be easier to police a category than it would a single page. I don't suppose you've ever tried to watch a category? Let me tell you, it's far easier to revert edits on a page than it is to revert on category. To revert on a page, press "undo" or "rollback". To revert on a category, you first must determine that someone has been added incorrectly (you can't watch changes on a category!) then you must edit the image and then revert the category markup. In other words: it's not as easy as watching a page/pages of images. - 211.30.71.131 04:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
      • "you can't watch changes on a category..." - yes you can, using Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:XYZ. If it works for Category:Living people (and we have a link to Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Living people in the Recent changes banner as a testament of its usefulness!), why won't it work for Category:Living editors? Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Won't work if the user's image is on Commons. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
          • It would still work (if the category is an image-tracking cat; I proposed a userpage-tracking cat but either type is fine) - the image page that contains the category would have to be created here and thus can be tracked for changes like local images. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 14:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• I've thought this over for a little bit, and I'll have to conclude that I support deletion, since doesn't help the encyclopedia in some way, and can be considered a privacy issue. The speedy keep for the last MFD is unwarranted. O₂ (息 • 吹) 02:09, 16 November 2007 (GMT)
• Rename and keep, as per what I did last time. Hello? I moved it to a different page, made it permanently semi-protected to address the issue of privacy concerns and have a permanent watch on it to prevent abuses! And it does help the encyclopedia as it helps us keep a sense of community. It's been very useful to us for many, many years. I'm going to let all those with pictures on it know about the MFD, which I feel is only fair as they all contributed to it. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You may have semi-protected it and watchlisted it, but I notice you haven't done anything about recent anonymous additions. Chick Bowen 02:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - this page promotes community spirit, provided it is used correctly. Permanent semi-protection should be applied however, and time taken to sift through the history and take away any anon additions. It may be best to delete without prejudice to a new page being created and better patrolled, something I'm personally willing to do. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, if... as per Awyong and Ta bu shi da yu, a system is in place to prevent images from being included that aren't on the user's page. This does help foster a sense of community, putting a human face (sort of) on both names we know and names we don't normally due to different editing interests. It reminds me that there's more to Wikipedia than the same ten people I see all the time in my areas of interest. If someone has uploaded their photo to a user page, then its appearance here is no invasion. However, it is important that this page not be a tool for "outing" people, hence the need for some degree of control. --Karen | Talk | contribs 02:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Many a new/young user are told not to use their user spaces as MySpace or Facebook clones because, they are told, "Wikipedia is not a social networking site", but here we have a page that tries to do just that. Either we have a social networking/community side to WP or we don't. If people want images of themselves on view let them do it on their user page, that's what it's there for. ---- WebHamster 02:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Worst offender of self-promotion, if there ever was one. Entirely pointless and doesn't contribute to Wikipedia. --Farix (Talk)
• Keep It's harmless. It's nice to see the many contributors.—trey^{omg he's back}_{Forrmerly Know As TREYWiki} 03:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All arguments against BAD uses for these images apply also in userpages the same way, so actually there's no other reason. Delete these and delete any other similar images(faces) everywhere on this wiki and in Commons:Commons, but that's not possible--Andersmusician VOTE 03:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There is a big difference between being a social networking site and something like this. Renaming it will avoid a lot of confusion. In the end, I think using a category for the images would be a better idea, for technical reasons, but I'm supporting keep to ward off a slippery slope. No worries, people, Wikipedia:Esperanza isn't coming back. -- Ned Scott 03:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'd also like to add to my statement that putting a picture to some of the users names can be really helpful in cooling down a heated discussion. More than once I've gotten worked up with someone over some debate, came across their userpage, and saw a picture to remind me that there's a real person there. Having seen pictures of people before something gets heated helps too, even with those who don't upload a picture. -- Ned Scott 04:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Rename and keep: it doesn't do any harm. Furthermore, Wikipedia is a community, and if members of that community want to show the rest of us what they look like, what's wrong with that? However, calling it a "facebook" obviously has connotations with another website, so calling it "Images of Wikipedians" is a much better idea. --RFBailey 03:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - A) It's really a stretch to see how this helps build a free encyclopedia anyone can edit; B) I agree with the privacy concerns; and C) IMO if an article needs to be permanently semiprotected to retain its legitimacy, it doesn't have much (legitimacy). Permanent semiprotection makes it a de facto private club, which is a poor example of community. Anchoress 03:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Helps build community, which Wikipedia is often sorely lacking, and is harmless. --David Shankbone 03:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - As per Anchoress and WebHamster's points. I consider it nothing more than a blog for a clique, and can be easily abused. Awyong's suggestions regarding making it a category page has merit. --健次(derumi)^talk 03:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Serious risk of privacy violations, at a time when there is heightened awareness of the hazards of providing too much information about one's self here. Makes a nice convenient place to find photos of people to subsequently ridicule outside of Wikipedia for those who are so inclined. No evidence that every single photo was added by the specific user - Seth Finkelstein's name doesn't appear in the history, for example - and it seems the rule of thumb is that only the person depicted has the right to remove the picture. Well, if they didn't put it there in the first place, how can they remove it? Risker 03:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no encyclopedic value. Dubious content. Privacy issues - Alison ^❤ 03:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful for collaboration, sense of community. Helps you know whom you are dealing with, or at least what they want you to think they look like, self-image really. If you've ever talked to someone over the phone when you know what they look like and when you don't, you'll know how much of a difference that makes. If we can have our image on our user page - and many do - it seems counter-intuitive to say that we can't have a collection of such images, all voluntarily added. It's not a privacy violation if we choose to reveal it; or would you ban people from using their pictures or user names? If for whatever reason the add doesn't appear in the history, the solution is simple, ask the Wikipedian - hey Seth, is this you? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 03:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment How can any user here seriously raise privacy concerns? There's only one way we can get these images, and that's if the user specifically uploads them so that their face is associated with their Wikipedia account. You don't get to make that kind of judgement call for someone else, or else we'd be blocking people for using their real names, such as myself. -- Ned Scott 04:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Seth Finkelstein's photo was originally uploaded by another editor to accompany the article about him, which has since been deleted. As well, several photos have more than one individual in them, and there is no evidence those other people consented to their photos being on Wikipedia or used in this way. Risker 04:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• The problem with that argument is that anyone can use these photos for just about any reason. The problem you point out is hardly limited to this situation. However, since it is on the project namespace, there's nothing stopping us from setting criteria that asks people to only add pictures of themselves, which actually makes the issue less problematic than if these photos were being used somewhere else on the internet. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - innocuous fun page, plus the individuals decided to upload their pictures to Wikipedia. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 04:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Regardless of privacy concerns, the same purpose could be served by all these users putting their pictures on their individual user pages. WP is not a social network. Noclip 04:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Better go delete Wikipedia:Meetup then. - 211.30.71.131 04:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC) (This anon account is being used by User:Ta bu shi da yu)
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Nobody of Consequence 16:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I have personally found this page useful for relating to other editors. It is inspiring and edifying to see this (somewhat) diverse cross-section of humankind contributing in parallel to a single project. Reminds me of Family of Man. I do not believe there are significant privacy concerns; however, to alleviate any that might exist, it might be useful (and a reasonable compromise) to establish an informal rule that entries added without the explicit consent of the entry's subject may be reverted. Gracenotes^T § 04:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Ned shortly above. You upload a photo of yourself, you upload it under a free license and it can be placed wherever. You must upload of your own volition, and thus no privacy being violated that is out of your control. In the matter of someone uploading a picture of you without your consent, well, if they own the image, it's their prerogative I suppose. Ask if they will delete it nicely, or IfD it if it's that big of a deal. The fact that it's on this page doesn't do heaps of more damage if the image already exists. As for the lack of encyclopedia development, I understand that argument. However, it's one of the more established (2004) and fun of pages like this (of which there are myraid). It's kind of cool to see the faces behind some of the editors here. I see no detriment to the project in keeping this page, which is the criteria (IMO) for deletion of miscellaneous pages. I (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't really have a dog in this fight (I added myself but it's no big deal to me if the page is deleted), but it occurs to me Wikimedia ought to set up a place where this could be transwiki'd. Or won't that be done because it would compete with Wikicities or whatever?—Chowbok ☠ 05:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I see no really reason for deletion. My opinion is similary as Ryan Postlethwaite and Karen. --Cinik 07:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Harmless, interesting, useful. Needs policing but so do many other pages. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep almost exactly per Morven. Also, I think we delete far too many things just because we can. Orderinchaos 07:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Users have the right to put these on their user pages. Doczilla 08:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, <mount>that this was nominated in the first place, that Ta bu shi da yu (talk · contribs) was blocked for notifying editors of this discussion and that someone actually put a "NO CANVASSING O PEONS" sign at the top are all very disappointing. I would have hoped that the Wikipedia community was sick enough of drama. But I guess we can't get enough of these pointless deletion discussions. Seriously, what harm does this page do? What harm has this deletion discussion already done?</unmount> *sigh* --Iamunknown 08:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, harmless, potentially useful. Unlike MFD, doesn't stop people from writing an encyclopedia :-) Kusma (talk) 09:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Restrict to the handsome only Everyone is too ugly. Except AnonEMouse. DrKiernan 10:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: See this as well. Miranda 10:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and categorize. Currently this page contains several pictures of people who have left Wiki. For example Endomion blanked her user page in April of this year and hasn't edited since. Blanking her user page automatically removed herself from the one user category which formerly listed her. It also would have orphaned her picture, except for its use on this page. Does she care if her picture is still displayed here? Should we try to find out or should her picture continue to be displayed on this page forever just because she posted it back in 2005? Who will deal with all such problems if this page is kept? --MediaMangler 10:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral I can see the arguments that this is not encyclopedic: in a sense, yes, this is true, and we are not Facebook. However, this is in project (meta) namespace so the "unencyclopedic" argument is not that is not useful (to some). As User:Morven says, it is harmless. Also, some of the users uploaded the photos themselves anyway and the photos are released under GFDL or Creative Commons licensing. What we do need is to take an approach towards ensuring that only active users are on there, and remove inactive ones are removed per Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians and Wikipedia:List of administrators#Inactive. If the page is deleted, it may be best to list at Wikipedia:Protected titles since it may be (inevitably) re-created. Regarding the privacy argument, if they did not want to be on there (or Wikipedia) they would not have uploaded photos of themselves. The page does need policing, but then again so do many other pages in the Wikipedia namespace, as the recent edit warring at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and protection of Wikipedia:No personal attacks shows. If the page gets deleted, some users will re-create it in their userspace, as with Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. It's a tough call to decide this, and there have been many good "for" and "against" reasons given, but in the end, the nomination of this page is a controversial one for any admin to close. Feel free to read over my arguments - I hope I have given you some food for thought. --Solumeiras ^talk 11:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

--Solumeiras ^talk 11:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment And exactly what is this page? I'll tell you, it is just a photo gallery and doesn't contribute the the Wikipedia community at all. In fact, pages like this fall well into WP:NOT#SOCIALNET and any excuses to keep the page is that it "builds/contributes to the community" actually proves the point that it violates WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. --Farix (Talk) 12:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete While it's nice to put faces to the electrons I think the privacy issues override all other possible benefits. It's a big scary Internet out there and we have a responsibility to protect the community at large from it. No issue with individual users uploading pics - but we don't need a place to centralise the Internet stalker's wet dream, methinks. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep -- This page IS the Wikipedia community. Many of us have worked long and hard to create the encyclopedia and if we choose to expose to the world the fact that we're actual persons and not merely anonymous screenames, that is a small compensation for the work that's being done. And if you think it invades someone's privacy, then don't add your picture. -- Atlant 12:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Response: 1) That's what your user page is for. 2) And if someone else adds your picture...? This is WP remember, anyone can edit a page and there's no policy against someone/anyone adding an image to this page. So how does one recommend policing it? Anyone can add an image, but technically only the user who's image is shown can remove it, and even then it could be construed as vandalism due to removing an on-topic image purely because they don't want it there. ---- WebHamster 12:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Riana has made a good argument, and it's certainly a verifiable one, but people on here released them of their own volition. My argument is not a "I like it"/I don't like it argument, but a reasoned line of thinking. For some people, privacy and anonymity are not a concern, and if they wish to forfeit it, it is (for the most part) their concern, unless there are legal reasons why the content should not be on here (and that's within the purview of the Wikimedia Foundation. The "this-is-a-community" arguments are a good point too, but, in the end, it seems like no-one will be a winner in this debate - and this could end up at Wikipedia:Deletion review again and again, like Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense has done. As regards policing the article, well, the users can request deletion of their images of themselves under criteria for speedy deletion U1 "user request" and the images removed from this page. Simple as that.

In the end, if someone wants to forfeit their right to privacy, and take risks then they will do so, even if there is advice saying they should not do such a thing. Also, if any user does want their personal information hidden, the diff can be oversighted, via the mailing list. However, if it is a person under the legal age of adulthood, then pictures should be removed per the suggested policy on childrens' privacy (which has had an arbitration caseand ruling on it).It's a no-win situation here. My personal opinion is, this is a bit too frivolous but there seems to be a consensus so far to keep, so I'm remaining neutral (Abstain) on this.Apologies for the length of my arguments and my reasoning, but I was trying to help the situation. If anyone wants to discuss my arguments further feel free to use the talk page. Thanks, --Solumeiras ^talk 13:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Inclusion is voluntary and serves to help build the community. If it were otherwise, I would oppose it. Although I would suggest splitting it into separate pages - the size of this page has tripled since I added myself in 2005. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-16 14:00Z
• Keep Community building. Cary Bass ^demandez 14:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - reasonable controls are in place. If there are subsequent concerns about unauthorized pics, just add a provision that for a pic to be listed here, it also has to be posted on the editor's user page. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the virtues of purging any and all signs of community and humor from the Wikipedia/User namespace have yet to be proven, and we seem to have been doing fine in the many years we've allowed it. --W.marsh 14:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Useful for collaboration, sense of overall community (as opposed to belonging to one clique or another), and promotes community spirit. As for the potential risks of the page, I looked at all the What Links Here links to the page. This page has been around more than three years and has cause very little concern. No one even has thought of deleting this page before until now, which shows just how important this page is to the many people who have viewed this page. -- Jreferee t/c 15:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Not everything on Wikipedia has encyclopedic value, or needs to. Besides, if IPs are adding people without their consent, isn't that cause for a reversion of the edit, and not the deletion of the page? EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• That's the point, IPs don't need consent if the images are on Commons or have Free-Use licences. Per policy anyone can add an image to this page at anytime. If the image is of a genuine editor then they are not vandalising or being off topic. ---- WebHamster 15:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I don't really don't see the value in the page at all, and I believe it goes against the spirit of Wikipedia WP:NOT being MySpace, or for that matter, Facebook. — Save_Us_229 16:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Someone NEEDS to do something about Ta bu shi da yu. He has done nothing but engage in trollish and improper behavior since this whole thing started. First, a speedy close of the original MFD out of process. Then, a violation of WP:POINT. Now he's blatantly violated WP:CANVASS and, IMO, deliberately buggered this relisted MFD up. I cannot believe this person is trusted with admin tools. If this comes out as no consensus I can guarantee I'll relist it later on until we get a proper MFD discussion, not buggered up with canvassed votes. Nobody of Consequence 16:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Informing those who had pictures there was a reasonable thing to do. However, to avoid canvassing concerns, a neutral notice should have also been placed at other locations. Restricting discussion just to MfD regulars is as harmful, if not more so, than making more people aware of the debate. Carcharoth 16:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps it should be pointed out that the MfD is not the place for this discussion, the relevant thread on WP:ANI is more appropriate. This discussion is getting long enough as it is without digression. ---- WebHamster 16:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: several people here have stated that seeing the picture of a user helps remind us that the user is a living person, an actual human being. No really? You need to see a picture to remind you? Aecis^Brievenbus 16:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think they need a picture so they can see if you look just like me. If you look like me, then I know what your motives are; if you look different than me, then you must have ulterior motives.--12 Noon 16:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I know that I personally check this facebook page before reverting any user's edit, just in case they look cool and I decide I'd rather let their edit stay... *rolls eyes* — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-16 17:07Z
• Keep with what Jreferee said. Plus, if people are concerned abour privacy issues, why upload pictures of themselves in the first place? -- Acalamari (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Appears harmless, and there are no privacy concerns. No one is required to participate. • Lawrence Cohen 18:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Further comment: let's leave the issue of privacy aside for second. Even if every single Wikipedian pictured in this gallery is here of his/her own free will, it still is a massive waste of bandwidth. Wikipedia doesn't exist for the convenience of the editors. We are not a networking site or community entertainment project. We are an encyclopedia. How does this help build an encyclopedia? And for all those who have said that this is harmless, please see WP:HARMLESS. Whatever is said there applies directly to this page as well. Aecis^Brievenbus 19:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "Wikipedia doesn't exist for the convenience of the editors" - Who said it does? A large portion of the Wikipedia namespace is devoted to making it easier for editors to edit and work together. Nobody said Wikipedia existed solely for the convenience of editors... "We are not a networking site" - see the various WikiProjects - they require a multitude of networking and community support. "How does this help build an encyclopedia" - It improves the sense of community. Whether or not you find a need for it to serve that purpose does not change how others feel on the same question. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-16 20:24Z
  • And the bandwidth argument is irrelevant. --David Shankbone 20:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As for questions of bandwidth, talk to brion. He'll set you straight. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-16 20:33Z

• How about the, perhaps more important, number of CPU cycles used (wasted?) to continually resize a page full of (unimportant?) images? ---- WebHamster 23:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I have to assume the page misrepresentatives the appearance of at least a few editors, including AnonEMouse, Cberlet, culverin, DannyQuack, Pacific Coast Highway, Two-Sixteen, Water Bottle, and White Cat, and such misrepresentation is not acceptable in wikipedia. Either that, or a lot of you are weirder than I thought. By the way, you can see me on a typical day at work here. -- John Carter (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and convert to category sounds reasonable (and more practical than current page, otherwise I'd be a "keep". WP cannot function without some sense of community. This supports that and is not an unreasonable burden or danger. Only reason I can see for a flat-out delete is WP:NOTSUPPOSEDTOBEFUN. -- -- Mdbrownmsw (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • A category can't be used, as several of the images aren't on Wikipedia, they're on Commons. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • What about a category for people with images of themselves on their userpage? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I had not even know that this was here. Now that i do, I find it useful. Some degree of personality can help the encyclopedia, and people can choose anything from complete non-disclosure upwards. The longer I'm here the more comfortable I am about such things. And for fanciful pictures likewise--we don't prohibit them on user pages. I really cannot imagine why it is any worse than having images on the user pages at all. There's only the possibility that those with pictures on their user pages may similarly not know of this, and not want them here as well--we could probably have a bot to notify them of it. DGG (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A perfectly reasonable thing to have for those who wish to use it. NoSeptember 23:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)