Talk:Waldorf education/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Off Topic Thought and OR

Just a quick thank you to everyone for really trying here. I read through a bunch of the arbcomm stuff yesterday (thousands of kilobytes of the most awful tenditious arguementation, punctuated by incivility and personal attacks), and am really glad that editors are on their best behavior now. --Rocksanddirt 19:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The Arbitration eliminated the major source of incivility during seven months (another, "rationalist "outside commentator), if only after almost unlimited patience with it, and it took doing a second review to come to the final decision. Thebee 20:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(Completing incomplete comment on 3 Aug.:) It may explain the difference in the tone of the main part of the discussion before and after March this year, when Pete was banned. Thebee 11:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

hmmm, maybe. though from the talk pages in the year prior to the first arb hearing...there was plenty from others as well. --Rocksanddirt 21:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Just because a single individual paid the ultimate wiki-price for his misbehavior, it would be wrong to go forward pretending that a single individual was "the" major source of incivility. This is especially so, considering that other major sources of incivility likewise benefitted from the arbcomm's patience...and survived to write another day. There was plenty of blame to go around. I am glad Rocksanddirt, that you have come to know a gentler atmosphere than I knew when I was more active here. Cheers! - Wikiwag 13:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the sanctions are temporary, if he shows a willingness and ability to move beyond the behavior that gave the arb comm really no other choice. Even a slight bit of help on that user's part would have engendered a very different set of outcomes. My view is that it comes from a problem that this topic has generally and that is to many single purpose editors. Everyone would be better off if they also edited other topics. The hardish core anthroposophists could do what Stiener advocated, think for yourself and tell others about it, apply the spiritual nature of the universe to the topics that try to hide from it. --Rocksanddirt 23:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well said! - Wikiwag 10:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Bee, it is unbelievable that you go on spending your time this way. It is months later and you come to this page fussing over your own remarks attacking Pete - here you are months later copy editing your attacks on Pete, refreshing links to your attacks on Pete, reminding anyone who might not know of what you think of Pete, updating your web site with newly edited remarks about Pete, who is long gone. The phrase "get a life" comes to mind. (Better put that on whatever list you keep on me!) It's unreal that you hate critics this much. Will a day come that you decide to try to consider what critics say about Waldorf and anthroposophy, rather than strategize how to humiliate individuals in public?DianaW 02:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

On

"updating your web site with newly edited remarks about Pete"

The last time I made an edit of the content of the [External link redacted] of some of Pete's "contributions" to the discussions here at Wikipedia last year was in December, last year.

Thebee 07:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable! You even use this conversation as an excuse to link once again to the sordid little lists on your website. We need a counter that would make a little ding! noise every time you add a link to one of your own web sites on wikipedia. It's getting to be like the McDonald's claims, 1 billion served . . . You go through your own remarks MONTHS later, and change phrases like "Pete was aggressive" to "Pete was incredibly aggressive." Newsflash Bee: It's over. Continuing to copyedit the Pete story now is not making you look rational.DianaW 13:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Bee: I have removed the link on Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#External_links grounds. This so-called temporary page is a year old and has far outlived its usefulness for anything taking place here. Moreover, as a stand-alone, static page, it is far more likely to endure indefinitely on the Net. Pete's gone. It needs to come down.

Diana: Please stop the personal attacks. - Wikiwag 13:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Diana:

You go through your own remarks MONTHS later, and change phrases like "Pete was aggressive" to "Pete was incredibly aggressive."

Wrong again, Diana. I have neither (never) written "Pete was aggressive" at the page you refer to, nor changed it to "Pete was incredibly aggressive" as you state. The remark "Pete K, you are being incredibly aggressive. Please stop attacking editors." was made by the editor Connor K. to Pete on 5 october last year. "incredibly-aggressive" is just the (invisible) anchor at that point at the page, that makes (made) it possible to link to the quote of that remark by Connor K. to Pete in one discussion.

And on this too:

Continuing to copyedit the Pete story now is not making you look rational

Wrong once again, Diana. As I've already told, I have not copyedited the page since last December, and have just linked to it here to make the difference (commented on by Rocksanddirt) between Pete's presence in and his absence from these discussions understandable, as the main differing factor between then and now with regard to the discussion climate.

Thanks, Thebee 15:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwag, with all due respect for what you're trying to do here, you may still be seeing this situation through rose-colored glasses. Look at what happened here. You may describe what I did as an "attack," and yet what was accomplished, indirectly, was getting rid of that stupid, childish list of accusations against Pete that thebee linked to here YESTERDAY. Yesterday, Wikiwag. Do you think he's going to change course any time soon? In fact, what I wrote was not an attack on anyone. It is not an attack to call to people's attention the tactics used by anthroposophists here. His posting literally hundreds of links to his own propagandistic, defamatory web sites is literally unconscionable, and I will certainly not agree not to mention it in polite company. And his childish, tantrumy insistence on calling attention to arguments from, as you noted, a year ago or more - personal arguments - and continuing to vilify someone who isn't even here anymore is unfortunately par for the course. There is no way he will stop it if he isn't forced to. You may not like my style. I've dealt with these people for many more years than you have. But you responded to the situation in a helpful way, by removing his nasty, personally motivated link. If I do that, they'll come after me - they're waiting for an excuse. So thanks.DianaW 01:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"stupid, childish" "propagandistic, defamatory" "childish, tantrumy" "nasty, personally motivated" This adds up to some heavily charged language DianaW. I wonder what sort of language you would use if you were attacking someone? Scary thought.MinorityView 01:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

bee wrote: "Wrong again, Diana. I have neither (never) written "Pete was aggressive" at the page you refer to" - also standard stuff from thebee. I don't remember which page it was written on, but I'm not imagining that you wrote this, and that you recently updated it to add the word "incredibly" to something written weeks or months earlier. You spend hours doing this sort of thing. You can say it's a "personal attack," but kind of like the libel laws, the defense against it is that it happens to be true. Maybe you didn't write it "at the page I referred to" - it was a different page. Okay. Getting the picture everyone?DianaW 01:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are the diffs. Here is thebee changing YES, the title of his offsite page on Pete (which he denies) just a few days ago - not last December – changing “major source of incivility” to “incredibly aggressive major source of incivility”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waldorf_education&diff=151627873&oldid=151626633

A review of thebee’s bizarre contributions here in the past couple of weeks shows what I am talking about. He wastes everyone's time here obsessively reliving his fights with Pete, who is not here any longer. On August 3 he added a link to his “summaries” of Pete’s many supposed crimes. Here’s the diff. He did this in response to rocks and dirt who posted a thank-you to present contributors for their civil tone. In what way was this a constructive or civil reply? This is an illness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waldorf_education&diff=149006047&oldid=148996240

On August 16, apropos of nothing – the discussion had not continued at all – he moved one word in his earlier description – just shuffled the word “major” to a different place in the sentence. I am not making this up – he is indeed copy editing his fight with Pete when Pete is not even here and no one else is talking about him. Here’s the diff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waldorf_education&diff=151585412&oldid=151576055

A few minutes later the same day, he does this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waldorf_education&diff=151592965&oldid=151585412

Again, he is talking to himself. No one is responding to this or asking him to clarify, but he feels the need to add a link to another page from the earlier fight, and correct an earlier typo. This is obsessive, bizarre behavior.

That’s when he stuck in the phrase “incredibly aggressive.” (first diff I gave above). This is where I popped in and said, Really Bee. No, folks, “personal attacks” from me are not exactly the big picture here. This behavior from thebee is “out there.”DianaW 01:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think what I have written above already addresses the main points in what Diana writes, but will see if I will also address what she writes at her personal Talks page. Can we archive this completely Off Topic section to make it possible to focus on the central issue here at present, the neutrality issue with regard to the article? Thebee 08:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I will admit, though, that having been the main target of the at all times more or less incredibly aggressive Pete Horror Show here at Wikipedia for the larger part of the last twelve months, with Diana as his always supporting assistent, has put a mark on the soul that probably will take some more months to vanish. Thebee 11:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Diana: All I can say is "wow." I think we can agree that I too have sufficient cause to doubt and be critical of Thebee. But the man deserves credit for taking down the page without further comment. - Wikiwag 11:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Bee: Thank you for doing the right thing regarding the external page; I honestly didn't expect that to happen and I am very favorably impressed that you took the high road on this matter. Why then, do you give merit to Diana's words by writing things like "incredibly aggressive Pete Horror Show?"

It's both sad and ironic that what started out as an off-topic praise of people's conduct has devolved into yet another display of the same kind of behavior that led to the Arbitration. I think I've demonstrated that I'm prepared to let bygones be bygones. You and Diana need to do the same so that both of your "marks" can heal. Sincerely, - Wikiwag 12:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Can we archive this completely Off Topic section to make it possible to focus on the central issue here at present, the neutrality issue with regard to the article? Yes, please. Merci --EPadmirateur 13:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

He wants it archived because it's all embarrassing and all true, documented with diffs. No, he hasn't replied at my talk page. It "marks his soul"? Please - please. I hope the rest of you are not taking this stuff from him seriously - for those who have known him for years, fighting those who dare to say anything negative about anthroposophy, or point out that emperor Steiner is wearing no clothes, is his raison d'etre, he wrote elsewhere that he devotes his life to this, and it will never stop. Claiming hurt feelings is strategy and tactics to him.DianaW 21:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be good for all of us to review the Wikipolicies that have been cited earlier: WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:HARRASS, and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. Let's focus on the editing, not our fellow editors, please. --EPadmirateur 21:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwag:

I'm prepared to let bygones be bygones.

Thanks, Thebee 10:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Diana:

He wants it archived because it's all embarrassing and all true, documented with diffs.

While I disagree with you, I won't continue this discussion beyond the following

The central points in your argumentation are based on

1. a seeming non-understanding of the difference between the title of a page on the internet, and the link to that page. At first I only linked to the page in general. Then I edited the link slightly, to refer to a specific part of the page, using an invisible target at the page. "#incredibly-aggressive" is a target at the page discussed, not part of its title. The target is not part of the title of a page. The title is what you see at the top of your browser window when you look at a page.

2. using "the Pete story" in the double sense of ambiguously referring to both my first posting on the main difference between "earlier" and "now" in these discussions, and my pure documentation of some of Pete's "contributions" to discussions here at WP, and some reactions of admins to it, and the absence of them now as explanation of the main difference between "earlier" and "now". The documentation is not a personal attack on Pete, as little as reports to NPA-boards or admins here at Wikipedia are. They are just reports, quoting personal attacks and incivilities in different forms, and categorizing them in relation to WP policies.

In your argumentation you mix up argumentation regarding what I have written here in this discussion, and long ago at the pure documentation page, not any more accessible. You argue on what I have written here as if holds also for the documentation page. It does not. I tried to restrict my comments here to my one first posting, and then edited it slightly in stages instead of writing further postings. I did this in response to following coments by Ricksanddirt and Wikiwag, not out of the blue, to make my argument clearer. Then you entered the stage, and the situation changed.

While I think I at one time here at WP offered to invite you to a dinner on me the next time I visit the U.S. if I do it, and we're in the same city at the same time, I at times feel inclined to take a rain check on that. What would you suggest?

Time for archiving this Off Topic section?

Thanks,

Thebee 10:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have taken another look (god help me) and I stand by what I wrote. You did indeed change the name of the page - and to me, that counts as changing the page. You did indeed copy edit earlier remarks about Pete several times a propos of nothing in the current conversation, first on Aug 3, no one was talking about Pete except you, and then the conversation ended, and on August 16 you went back fussing around with it out of the blue. I am sure you're very correct that all your many lists on people are perfectly compliant with wikipedia formalities - it's just that I personally think it's disturbed behavior to go around documenting everything mean anyone ever said to you, keeping it on a special web site, and linking to it continually for other people to read and feel sorry for you. Boy, would I have a hell of a file if I kept logs of things anthroposophists have said to me! I've been called every four-letter name in the book by anthroposophists. I have been told where to shove things and what to shove, on several occasions, I've been called bitch, snake, harridan, harpy, trailer trash, recently over at AT I was called a "malignant lying cock sucking rat" by an esteemed anthroposophist friend of yours. But I am very happy to drop this now mrbee. I give you credit for maintaining at least a more gentlemanly facade.DianaW 00:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

bee you wrote: "While I think I at one time here at WP offered to invite you to a dinner on me the next time I visit the U.S. if I do it, and we're in the same city at the same time, I at times feel inclined to take a rain check on that. What would you suggest?" I suggest we get this straight. You offered to take me out to dinner WHEN YOU GOT CAUGHT MAKING ANOTHER FALSE ACCUSATION AGAINST ME - you claimed I was using a sock puppet here, a check user showed that I was not. I don't really need to be taken out to dinner. I'd very much prefer you not go on making things up about me, however. I'd appreciate your dropping the "hate group" crap once and for all, for instance. No, I would never go out to dinner with someone who thinks I'm a member of a hate group.DianaW 00:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

New Review of WP:NPOV

[Off Topic parts of section]:

It's an embarrassment and has almost certainly played a role in the article being called out on Wired's list of Most Shameful Wikipedia Spin Jobs in the last 48 hours. - Wikiwag 14:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

... the article being called out on Wired's list of Most Shameful Wikipedia Spin Jobs in the last 48 hours.

Sounds like an objective report by an outside, independent observer. You seem to mean the anonymous addition of the comment, that anyone on the net can add as a comment to the blog you mention, with the "anonymous" comment linking to the Arbitration review regarding Pete, that decided to finally ban him indefinitely from the editing of any Waldorf related article, after he among other things went for a knockout of the main admin arbitrator at the end of the review, and with the ArbCom in the end even banning him from commenting on any Waldorf related issue on his own user page here at Wikipedia?:

Waldorf teacher/pedagogue whitewashes criticism of Waldorf education

by Anonymous

S.N., a trained Waldorf teacher engages in an acrimonious, months-long campaign to quell and soft-peddle criticisms of Waldorf education and harass critics.

Who did you say added the anonymous comment after I told directly above, 48 hours ago, that I had not edited my documentation of some of his "contributions" here at Wikipedia since last December? How did you find the very peripheral small notice on the net? Please tell. Thanks, Thebee 16:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wikiwag, I agree with your statement "Moreover, we as editors need to abandon the tit-for-tat efforts to either demonize the movement as "harming children" or promote the method as having no flaws whatsoever." But your next statement doesn't follow from the first. Do you see the contradiction (i.e., abandon the tit-for-tat)? --EPadmirateur 17:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Bee: I'm sorry. I can't follow what you're getting at. All I know is that this very article appeared on this list that a friend forwarded to me - admittedly with a host of others. But someone, somewhere must've felt it belonged. I'm not even sure who the person they're talking about is. - Wikiwag 23:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

On Bee's comment, you may be right...and that too is regrettable; I now see that anyone at all can anonymously add to the Wired list. - Wikiwag 12:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay - I just now took a look at the "special page" - one of dozens thebee has added here over the months - where he pinpointed the location of the person who apparently added the comment to the wired blog, and the IP is in or near Philadelphia. Because thebee does not understand the concept of integrity, it is easy for him to imply that I don't have any. Here is what you do not understand, bee. I don't do anything anonymously ever, anywhere, any time, any place. There is nothing wrong with someone adding an entry on the waldorf pages to "shameful wikipedia spin jobs." It was a good thing to do. If I had known about it, I would have been glad to add an entry. I did not know about it, and it was not me who added the entry. It is your techniques that are questionable, as this one is, trying to insinuate something without coming out and saying it. Why not ask me if I added the entry? Remember that last time you were sure it was me doing something surreptitiously, and you boastfully spread word about it around, and a check-user showed that it was not me? You really don't learn as the years go by, do you? Well, this was not me either. I don't do sneaky things. I sign my name - EVERY SINGLE TIME. I stand by my views, and I don't impersonate other people. You are further confused because you apparently think there is precisely one person in the greater Philadelphia area who might have ever had a problem with Waldorf/anthroposophy, or might recognize your campaign on wikipedia for the unadmirable thing that it is? There are five Waldorf schools within driving distance of Philadelphia, and literally thousands of people who have been associated with those schools, whether as parents, students past and present, faculty, other anthroposophists. One of those schools is the second oldest Waldorf school in North America, and it is K through 12 - there would be thousands of people just at that one school in the Philly area who have had Waldorf experiences over the past several decades who could have written that entry. There is a Camphill associated with it as well.

The point? I sign my name. I'd have signed my name to the wired entry if I had written it. It's yourself you smear implying things about other people that you can't back up. Have you considered actually trying to find out who wrote the entry? It might be possible, and they might be glad to take credit.DianaW 00:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

On this one more Off Topic issue, this one opened up here by Wikiwag. Diana writes:

Okay - I just now took a look at the "special page" - one of dozens thebee has added here over the months - where he pinpointed the location of the person who apparently added the comment to the wired blog, and the IP is in or near Philadelphia. Because thebee does not understand the concept of integrity, it is easy for him to imply that I don't have any. Here is what you do not understand, bee. I don't do anything anonymously ever, anywhere, any time, any place.

I'm not the one who introduced the link in this discussion. Wikiwag did. I also did not try to find the IP of the one who added the comment to the blog, before I commented on Wikiwag's addition of the point and link in his posting. I don't quite know where you found it. This means that I also did not know that it was added from somewhere in or near Philadelphia, as you say it is.

At no time did I think or try to imply that you were the one who added it. If anything, a passing reflection was that it may have been added by Pete himself, as it describes the arbitration review, reopened by the main ArbCom member because of a zealous personal "Wanted, Dead or Alive" campaign by Pete against a young former Waldorf teacher, that he tried to introduce into the article. On the other hand, the comment seemed too meak to come from him.

As for "integrity", Henitsirk consistently uses a pseudonym for everything he/she writes here at WP. You tell below what you assume is the real name behind the pseudonym, and address Henitsirk with that name. I think Henitsirk protested once when Pete did the same thing. Why do you think Henitsirk consciously and consistently uses a pseudonym as user ID here at Wikipedia, that you don't seem to like? Insisting on pinpointing, identifying, telling and addressing the real life names and identities of users here at Wikipedia, not told by thenselves, was that not what in the end made admin Durova explicitly wash her hands of Pete, as an(other) explicit and conscious violation by him of WP policies? Thebee 07:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice that in the text below, if it is there someone (whoever put it in, preferably) remove it right away, and ask an administrator to oversight it. As a bit of advice to both bee and diana, avoid any mention of comments and activities here prior to April or so of 2007. We don't need to relive your anamosities toward each other. Both of you spend more effort on editors rather than content and it needs to stop. --Rocksanddirt 15:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Bee: "At no time did I think or try to imply that you were the one who added it." Nonsense. That's exactly what you were implying, and the special page was indeed added by *you* pinpointing the IP to Philadelphia. Do you think the rest of us are this stupid? The history of the page shows it was you making that addition.

"As for "integrity", Henitsirk consistently uses a pseudonym for everything he/she writes here at WP. You tell below what you assume is the real name behind the pseudonym" - Oh, don't be ridiculous. This is what you do - pounce on people. Do you seriously think I care what her (or his) name is? I wasn't trying to "out" her - I don't have the slightest idea who she (or he) is in real life. I just happened to notice it was "xxx" spelled backwards. (Most people who truly sought anonymity wouldn't choose such an obvious handle.) xxx could be her cat's name for all I know, or her grandmother or a soap opera character or something. Nobody's "handle" on wikipedia means anything anyway! You're just thrilled to "catch" me making some kind of mistake that you can add to a list of formal wikipedia "no-no's" in hopes of some day banning me. This behavior is is sick, sick, sick, sick. You know damn well I don't care to "out" henitsirk, you've known me for years and you know I am not the sort of person who would ever spend the time trying to "pinpoint real life identities" of other people online. It's not me who tries to trace IP's, "researches" other people online - the way you have "researched" me and repeatedly hint that you know who my employers are, etc. I am just not that sick. I have *never* done anything like that. You are taking a look at your own face in the mirror here. Not mine.DianaW 16:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't read rocks and dirt's comments when I replied above. Now I've gone and added the presumed name again. This is absurdly childish to be upset about, but since obviously other people here also genuinely feel a Bad Deed has been committed, I'll remove it. You all *do* realize that it's available in the history, yes? This is like kindergarten or something.DianaW 16:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that this link still works, this shows that it was indeed thebee who traced the IP to Philadelphia, or at least, he was the one who, after obtaining this information somehow, posted it on wikipedia. It gives a little map pointing to Philadelphia. This link was later removed from this talks page, but it is accessible if you search the history of this page. I did, in fact, first think he was accusing Pete, and it wasn't till several days later that I tried to make sense of what he actually wrote, to figure out what the little intrigue was about the wired blog - you can always tell when thebee is "implying" something - and then I looked at the link he gave. This link was then removed on August 20. I assume this link will work, since I was able to access it, but if not, if you look at the history of this discussion page on August 20, it was wikiwag who removed it, so if you look at any version of the page just *before* wikiwag's edits, you'll find it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rudolf_Steiner/Comments

I followed the link and guess what? The little map pointed to MY real life location, not to Philadelphia at all. Furthermore, this little link was originally put up in October, 2006, so it doesn't have anything to do with Anonymous at Wired. I think currently, whoever clicks on it just finds out how easy it is for someone who knows what they are doing to trace an IP address. No further thoughts on this from me. MinorityView 19:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

And yet I'm the one interested in people's real-life identities and locations etc.? I will tell you all very frankly I am quite glad this man is on the other side of an ocean from me. He is absolutely fascinated with details of critics' personal lives. It is of absolutely no import to the discussion here what city or country the individual who posted the wired entry happens to live in - even if it had been me - and the city of the blog entry's origin was posted here by thebee in order to implicate ME. He is absolutely diabolical at then turning tables and implying others have done something wrong - I'm on the hot seat now for noticing what somebody's handle is spelled backwards . . . When are you people going to wake up to the sick games that are played here by this individual, and ask him to behave or go away? It was this sort of continual fiendish scheming, manipulation, and goading that enabled him to eventually remove another editor. There is no way to work in a rational, cooperative fashion with someone this dedicated to gaming the system for the cause he believes in.DianaW 17:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Both of you are more focused on editors than content. The phrase you added regarding Henitsirk has an attacking feel to it. I also asked that someone ask for an administrator to oversight it (which means delete from the history).

Back to the real point - what needs to change regarding npov still? --Rocksanddirt 17:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake. I use Henitsirk because I've used that as a username in many other places. It's also a nickname from college. Google it, and you'll be able to find my personal blog and my comments on my friends' blogs, and from there you can see where I live. I'm not hiding. And I did call out Pete for using my "real" name once, because I didn't think it was respectful to do so without my permission and violated WP policy, not because I want to hide (if I did that, I sure picked a dumb pseudonym). Pete knows who I am, we've emailed each other many times. Can we just quit all this ad hominem stuff and just work on the article now? Henitsirk 20:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)