Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Nrcprm2026|James S.

Initial voluntary pre-mediation settlement was breached by plaintiffs

After our initial attempt at mediation (before any mediator took the case) was voluntarily settled, the plaintiffs removed and obscured several passages, including those supported by the peer-reviewed medical and scientific literature, in contravention of [our settlement agreement]. --James S. 17:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediator resumed mediation after re-referral to ArbCom

The mediator has resumed mediation activities after bringing this case back to the ArbCom. --James S. 17:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

James S. has not made legal threats

The following alleged evidence of legal threats is cited below:

1. [2] "I am not suprised that you refuse to reveal your identity, because if you did, your attempt at disclaiming diagnostic activities would not keep the gross scientific, medical, and ethical misconduct apparent in your edits from reflecting directly on you and potentially endangering your professional standing."
2. [3] "If you think you can make general diagnostic statements, expressing your opinion of the medical condition of tens if not hundreds of thousands contrary to peer-reviewed research, and not run afoul of professional misconduct regulations, then I would like to know why. M.D.s are frequently charged with just such misconduct. It is no wonder that you refuse to associate your name with your edits."

(emphasis added)

These statements make it abundantly clear that (1) I did not know at the time whether a legal case could be made because I said that Dr U's edits could only potentially damage his professional standing, and (2) I asked him if there was any reason why his edits would not run afoul of professional misconduct reguations. I assumed that if he is really a physician that he should know. --James S. 03:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

DV8 2XL has been preparing a source-scrubbed version of Depleted uranium while mediation and arbitration has been ongoing

Depleted uranium/Temp

Please see diff here. --James S. 14:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

DV8 2XL continues to source-scrubbed Uranium trioxide

DV8 2XL repeatedly removed peer reviewed references from Uranium trioxide, and continues to do so: DV8 2XL attempted to revert away the link to the text of a peer-reviewed scientific reference and then blanked the article's talk page except for a personal comment. --James S. 17:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

TDC violated his ArbCom parole by reverting source-based research from Depleted uranium

TDC violated the conditions of his arbitration committee parole by reverting Depleted uranium twice in one day, and in the process removing several statements supported from the peer-reviewed medical and scientific literature: Conditions of parole, first revert, second revert. --James S. 05:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Dr U admits reverting to TDC's source-scrubbed versions

Dr U has admitted (diff) to removing several statements supported by the peer-reviewed medical and scientific literature, and citations thereto, from depleted uranium and related articles by reverting to the source-scrubbed editions of parolee TDC. Original diff here. --James S. 17:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Dr U has claimed to be a medical doctor on the first line of his user page since August 14, 2005, through the present

diff --James S. 03:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

During mediation, Dr U compared the use of poison weapons with falling in love

After the mediator requested mediation questions, I submitted this one:

May any formal comparison can be made between the tactical advantages and the strategic drawbacks of DU until the congenital malformation incident rate trend is known?

In response Dr U added a number of questions, including this one next in sequence:

Can a man or woman tout the advantages of a significant other, when it is not known if the relationship will later end in divorce?

Dr U later withdrew that and two other questions after DV8 2XL asked why they were relevant.

This was, for me, one of the most disturbing parts of mediation, second only to questions concerning mediator neutrality. --James S. 08:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

DV8 2XL continues making personal attacks

diff --James S. 17:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

DV8 2XL continues unsupported reverts against peer-reviewed evidence

diff1 --James S. 17:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

diff2 --James S. 18:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

DV8 2XL makes continued personal attacks before and after removal of all mention of uranyl oxide gas and supporting citations from Uranium trioxide

diff of 11:15, March 23, 2006: Your babbling gibberish James. It's over. --DV8 2XL 19:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

diff of 08:19, March 24, 2006, by DV8 2XL: Removed disproven gas section and non-relevant links

--James S. 18:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Further subsequent personal attacks: diff, different diff. --James S. 23:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Another one. --James S. 13:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

DV8 2XL pretends good faith, supporting a motion to dismiss based on apparent good faith resolution, all the while making personal attacks on user talk pages

In reply to: I am so grateful and appreciative for your edits this morning. Thank you very much. --James S. 14:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC):

diff1: Not a problem James, I know when I'm on the wrong side of an argument. I'm thinking now that some of the toxicology data you've posted elsewhere needs wider distribution, eh?. --DV8 2XL 14:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

diff2: JamesS: I will no longer soil myself by debating with this deluded crank. In my opinion his rubbish should have been reverted away with no more concern that we give to the smutty vandalism of teenage schoolboys. The spectacle of seeing several Phds dancing to the tune of that ignoramus was almost more than I could stomach; to have two other editors come out of nowhere to chide ME for MY attitude was too much. Apparently this community holds crackpots in higher esteem than those who actually know what they are talking about. I wish you luck in making that cretin see reason; I have given up. --DV8 2XL 03:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

DV8 2XL reverts to unsupported, vandalized verson of Uranium trioxide without discussing edits on talk page first

diff: reverting away nonsence crank edits back to correct version

The so-called "correct version" contains at least fourteen distinct errors of fact and simple vandalistic deletions of source-supported statements and citations to the peer-reviewed medical and scientific literature, which were all left unanswered when DV8 2XL made his latest revert.

DV8 2XL makes personal attacks in edit summaries

In addition to the evidence above, today there is this diff: Revert edits by mentally ill and delusional crank

Mediator neutrality

Please view the accusations that I attempted to "derail" mediation below in the context of at least the first of these two diffs: diff1, diff2. Thank you. --James S. 02:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

129.215/16 purports to be an expert, but is not

diff: there are no uranyl ions in uranium trioxide.... Also, the fact that under the influence of oxxygen and water ("air" isn chemists' jargon) one wil end up with (UO2)2+ has no bearing on this compound. 129.215.37.163 21:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, uranium trioxide is uranyl oxide. I hope that this is sufficient explanation of why I have been unable to communicate sucessfully with 129.215/16, and why I am no longer interested in doing so. --James S. 19:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Dr Zak has, since registering on April 4, edited only involved articles

It is difficult for me to respond to the voluminous evidence added by Dr Zak, except to say that most if not all of the diffs linked simply don't support the assertions purporting to describe them. Whatever the motivations behind Dr Zak and his sudden and lengthy contributions to this arbitration, Dr Zak registered on April 4, and has since edited only the involved articles and these arbitration pages. --James S. 15:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Nandesuka

I have no connection with the dispute in question. I could care less about depleted uranium, and know nothing at all. I come to this solely as an editor and administrator who has read some of the diffs involved.

James S. has used the threat of legal action to intimidate

The "have you stopped beating your wife?" nature of Nrcprm2026/James S's comments does not disguise their clear intent:

• [4] ("I am not suprised that you refuse to reveal your identity, because if you did, your attempt at disclaiming diagnostic activities would not keep the gross scientific, medical, and ethical misconduct apparent in your edits from reflecting directly on you and potentially endangering your professional standing. ")
• [5] ("If you think you can make general diagnostic statements, expressing your opinion of the medical condition of tens if not hundreds of thousands contrary to peer-reviewed research, and not run afoul of professional misconduct regulations, then I would like to know why. M.D.s are frequently charged with just such misconduct. It is no wonder that you refuse to associate your name with your edits. ")

James S. disrupts the Workshop page

When clerk User:johnleemk tried to refactor the page for clarity and readability, James S. repeatedly reversed his changes. There are too many diffs to list them all, but here are a sampling:

• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]

He has also complained and tried to introduce findings of fact chastising the clerk for performing his duties:

• [12]

Incivility and failure to assume good faith

James S. accuses an editor of being a sockpuppet because he disagrees with him:

• [13] - this is James removing the entire thread, presenting it rather than individual diffs because it shows the whole conversation.

Revert warring and 3RR violations on Uranium trioxide

James reverts 4 times in 24 hours on Uranium trioxide.

• first revert
• second revert
• third revert
• fourth revert

There were actually multiple 3RR violations during this time period, over various bits and pieces of the article. I've only reproduced one of them here, as an exemplar. I blocked James S. for 24 hours for this violation. Nandesuka 18:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Continued 3RR violations on Uranium trioxide

James was blocked for another 24 hours today for continued revert warring on the same article: [14]. As of this writing, no admin has (or likely will) undo the block. Nandesuka 23:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Third set of 3RR violations on Uranium trioxide

And just two days later, James earned a 48 hour block for yet another set of 3RR violations on the same article: [15] Nandesuka 04:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Hipocrite

Rudeness

In the process of this case, Nrcprm2026 ignores basic civility by walking all over a major-edit tag placed on the workshop of this page by Nandesuka 14:52, 8 March 2006 Nandesuka, after providing only 11 minutes for Nandesuka to make whatever major changes he was attempting to make 15:03, 8 March 2006 Nrcprm2026. This is rude, and done with blatent disrepect for third parties. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Disruption

Nrcprm2026 has disrupted the orderly process of this case by filling the workshop page with irrelevencies and agressively reverting attempts to clean up the workshop page to remove threaded discussion. 15:18, 8 March 2006 Nrcprm2026 Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

and 16:08, 8 March 2006 Nrcprm2026 Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by William M. Connolley

I reiterate my initial evidence at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium#Statement_by_William_M._Connolley. No arbitrators have objected to hearing it, so I'll amplify a little bit. It doesn't relate to DU at all, but it is relevant to JS's editing style (nb: to avoid possible confusion with others whose username negines with N, I'll use "JS for James S from now on).

In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium#Response_to_William_M._Connolley.27s_comment_below. N says:

I am certain that Wm. Connolley is a fine man, but his edits are often representative of spineless apologism kow-towing to those who have been documented as being paid to argue against the scientific consensus on the issue

Anyone familiar with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute will know that JS is talking nonsense (apart from the fine man bit, of course :-). Continuing:

I stand by my graphs as properly depicting trend information, and I stand by my edits to the global warming and related articles as properly sourced...

and here we have the heart of the problem: everyone is removing his graph, and his edits are unsourced, but he is completely unable to see this, and won't back down at all. To remind you: JS added, and I removed Wind produced from differences in barometric pressure has increased as radiative forcing increases the relative amount of daytime thermal expansion of air, and is also expected to continue to increase. I am not familiar with any evidence for this. JS added a ref, when pushed, and defended it with What do you have against the first Google hit on "global mean wind speed [16]. What this shows is JS completely missing the point: the first google hit is indeed about global wind speed, but nothing at all about it increasing as his article text asserts (its [17] if you want to verify this yourself, but its a bit techie so I don't recommend it. Instead, you can have Dragonsflights view or Simesas view, which back up mine). Later, JS admits that he has only skimmed the ref [18]. Earlier, JS asserts that he has read of this factoid from "multiple sources" [19] but despite that, he still hasn't managed to find one proper source. Back at global warming, JS finally admits to misreading part of the ref [20] but he revealingly says it is clear to me from first principles that wind speed and rainfall will increase too which explains the lack of refs: he has deduced, by whatever means, that wind speed *must* be increasing, and so refs don't really matter except to lean on. And then a bit later Temperature is related to gas volume. Greater atmospheric forcing means greater day/night temperature gradients, meaning more thermal expansion and contraction, meaning more wind. What exactly is made up about that? All that remains is emperical calibration, and I am still not convinced that it doesn't already exist in the cited report or one of its references (or their citators.)... [21]. JS is *making this stuff up* and repeatedly pushing it into wiki. And the bit at the end... he's not convinced it isn't in the report (though neither he, nor 3 other people who are actually capabale of reading it think it is), but thats OK because, hey, if it issn't in there it might be in one of the reports references... or failing that, someone citing the report... or someone citing one of the refs... or... well, you get the idea I hope.

Its perfectly plain that JS's edits re wind speed are *not* properly sourced. Thats not so great a crime, done once: what is annoying is having him repeadedly re-insert it (on several pages) despite it being properly removed as unsourced and wrong. He is *still* insisting in this RFA that his edits were sourced, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Which means that either he doesn't know what a proper ref is, or he is too stubborn to admit being wrong. Either of which deserves reproof.

William M. Connolley 12:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Physchim62

Mr Salsman has engaged in serious personal attacks against other editors

• [22]

Mr Salsman has disrupted the mediation process by accusations of sock-puppetry

• [23]

Yes James, I must still show why you should have known that this was not sock-puppetry; I shall do so.

Evidence presented by DV8 2XL

User:Nrcprm2026 will not recognise a consensus

Several editors have removed mention of uranium trioxide gas from Uranium trioxide as being unsupported by citations User:Nrcprm2026 keeps reverting back to verisions that do. See: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], In the process negating the views of editors User:TDC, User:Smokefoot, User:Stone, User:Polonium, User:Benjah-bmm27 and myself User:DV8 2XL all who have independently looked at the data in the available citations and determined that this gas does not form at standard pressures and temperatures. --DV8 2XL 21:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Nrcprm2026 attempted to derail mediation

Less than 24Hrs after the start of mediation, User:Nrcprm2026 began accusing the mediator of bias and suggesting that he had made false accusations. [31]

Evidence struck by DV8 2XL 21:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by DarthVader

I'm not involved in this dispute at all, but as an outside person looking in, I think that some of the claims of "serious personal attacks" presented here are a bit exaggerated.

Sorry if some of this is more comments than evidence. DarthVader 23:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

James S claims in his evidence that [32] is a personal attack. It is obviously a subjective thing, but I don't see this as a personal attack. Basically, DV8 2XL here seems to be just saying that James S is in error with the citatations and that he is wrong. I don't think that [33] is a personal attack. I agree with DV8 2XL when in [34] (which I also don't consider a personal attack) he says that the previous comment was not a personal attack.

I also disagree with both pieces of evidence that Physchim62 has presented so far. [35] is not a personal attack. Whether what Nrcprm2026 says in that piece of evidence is wrong or not, it should not be seen as a personal attack. [36] is presented by Nandesuka and is then referred to by Physchim62. Nandesuka suggests that James S claimed that Smokefoot was a sockpuppet just because James S disagreed with Smokefoot. I think that if the thread is read carefully, James S genuinely believes that Smokefoot is a sockpuppet. I don't think that James S was being uncivil about it either; he just wanted a checkuser process to be used to see if Smokefoot was a sockpuppet or not. Perhaps there is a slight failure to assume good faith, but since only certain people can use the checkuser facility, it seems reasonable that James S should be able to ask for it to be used. James S removes this part of the thread when he realises that he is mistaken, with the message: "rm mistaken section; feel free to archive instead if you want". I think that it is clear that James S was genuinely mistaken, and didn't call Smokefoot a sockpuppet simply because he was in disagreement. I would disagree also with Physchim62 that James S has disrupted the mediation process with the claims of Smokefoot being a sockpuppet. James S didn't disrupt the process at all, he just wanted to have the checkuser process run to see whether the user was a sockpuppet or not.

Obviously all of this is my personal opinion and it can be (and probably will be) easily disagreed with. I think that some of these comments should be taken into consideration. I don't think that the editors have been using personal attacks against each other. Essentially, whether or not there were personal attacks or not, it still doesn't change the main dispute. DarthVader 11:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Consulting the page No personal attacks, it has a few examples of what is classified as personal attacks and what isn't classified as personal attacks. I haven't seen any "personal attacks" in this dispute that fit into the category on that page as personal attacks. The page states that: Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks. The comments that I have seen here pretty well all fit into this category. Perhaps people here who wish to show that the evidence that they have shows a personal attack can use the no personal attacks page and classify the abuse into a category that is in the "Examples" section of personal attacks. DarthVader 11:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by 129.215/16, now editing as Dr Zak

James is unwilling to discuss the validity of his edits with others.

Note that Arbcom is not asked to consider if the edits presented in this section are valid; it is, however urged to examine the behavior of the editors involved.

Structural formula of monomeric UO₃

• [37] myself, gas phase structure removed
  • [38], myself, comment on removing the structure
  • [39] User:Stone concurs
• [40] James puts the structure back in, "almost all chemical compound articles show a single molecule in the chembox template"
  • [41] Comment left on James' talk page why the gas phase structure is misleading

Multiple reverts between myself and James ensue. No contributions to the discussion by James

Structure and bonding in the uranyl cation

Note: the disputed paragraph is found verbatim in the article on the uranyl cation

• [42] removed section on structure and bonding in the uranyl cation, edit summary "This is about the compound UO3. Put the structure of the uranyl ion elsewhere, e.g. in uranyl"
• [43] James reverts
• [44] myself, removed paragraph again
  • [45] Note left on James' talk page
• [46] James reverts
• [47] An anon (who isn't me!) reverts James

Several more reverts ensue without input to the discussion by James

Uranium(VI), hexavalent uranium, and other versions

Note for putting this into context: "hexavalent" and Uranium(VI) both refer to the same thing – uranium in oxidation state +6.

• [48] "hexavalent" changed to "uranium(VI)" by User:Benjah-bmm27
• [49] Revert by James, edit summary "replace common term for oxidation state"
• [50] revert by myself, edit summary "oxidation states are commonly given by roman numerals"
• [51] James' edit, it now reads "hexavalent uranium(VI) compounds"
• [52] revert by myself, edit summary "rm superfluous "hexavalent" U(VI) is enough"
  • [53] Note left on article talk page
• [54] revert by James, edit summary "replace structure diagram and "hexavalent""
• [55] James' edit, to "uranium(VI, or hexavalent) compounds"
  • [56], [57], notes left on James' talk page
• [58] Benjamin's edit, edit summary "removed hexavalent from brackets of uranium(VI) - you can't put anything else in those brackets, as it is a convention. Put the word hexavalent somewhere else"
• [59] James' edit, to hexavalent uranium, or "uranium(VI)" compounds, edit summary "this is health and safety information, it's not supposed to be abbreviated"
• [60] edit my myself, to "hexavalent uranium", edit summary "James prefers "hexavalent". PLEASE DISCUSS BEFORE YOU REVERT!"
• [61] James' edit, to "hexavalent uranium compounds (called uranium(VI) compounds)"
• [62] myself, uranium(VI) moved to lead paragraph

No contribution to the discussion by James

Chemical equilibrium between UO₃ and U₃O₈

• [63] Transport reaction rewritten as chemical equilibrium by myself
  • [64] Exasperated note left on James' talk page, asking not to revert before discussion

Multiple reverts ensue, no input to the discussion by James

James misreads the literature

• [65] , evidence given by James why I am not qualified to comment on the subject matter

In short, UO₃ is called "uranyl oxide" as its formula can be written (UO₂)²⁺O²⁻. The product that eventually results from weathering of uranium is U₃O₈, pitchblende.

This is intended as evidence of James' misreading the literature, as also remarked on by William in his evidence section. Arbcom is not asked to comment on the science, is it however urged to examine the way that the participants engage with it. 82.41.26.244 11:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC), that is 129.215/16

James' editing put off several editors off uranium-related articles

James' style of engaging with others caused several people to stop editing articles related to uranium

• [66] (Smokefoot)
• [67] (DV8 2XL)

Both Smokefoot and DV8 are respected editors in the field of Chemistry

James has called good-faith editing vandalism

James has repeatedly denounced efforts to remove irrelevant content as vandalism

• [68], edit summary "rvv; partial protection requested from Arb Com"
• [69], edit summary "rvv; note further evidence supporting partial protection"

This refers to the removal of a section "Combustion products of uranium"

• [70], edit summary "rvv several errors, e.g., "elimination" is a pharmokinetic term meaning "from the body" not "from the lung" -- solubility isn't even equibalent to translocation"

This refers to the removal of a section "Combustion products of uranium" and of a section "Karyotyping" and "Urine isotope ratios"

• [71], edit summary "rvv. Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy -- even if 99% of editors start calling lung fluid solubility "elimination," that doesn't mak it true, source-supported, or suitable for inclusion"

This refers to the removal of a section "Gas vapour combustion products of uranium" and a revert to another version of a section on the gas phase structore of uranium trioxide

• [72], "my most recent edit summary shows clearly that I have been reverting rank vandalism."

James' response to Nandesuka when blocked for violating the 3RR rule

• [73], "vandalistic deletionism"
• [74], "I will continue to revert such changes as vandalism without further comment here"

This refers to an edit of mine. [75]

• [76], "Because Uranium trioxide has recently been vandalized by new users ... I request partial protection of the article"
• [77], "several instances of plain and simple vandalism"

From the arbitration workshop, referring to the above edits

• [78] "Reverting blatant vandalism doesn't count towards 3RR"

James requesting to be unblocked, having just been blocked the second time for revert warring on Uranium trioxide

Evidence presented by Olin

I have not been involved in this dispute. However, I will point out that it has spread to the uranium [79] article, which currently features a very prominent paragraph on the topic. This dispute is also discussed at WikiProject Chemistry page:[80]. Olin 21:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Christopher Thomas

I was present in the early stages of this dispute, when it was still relatively civil, but bowed out when statements started being made that I didn't have a strong enough chemistry background to evaluate.

My main point of concern is that conflicts with User:Nrcprm2026 (aka James S.) have been sufficiently abrasive as to drive another editor (User:DV8 2XL), whose edits and conduct have been exemplary as far as I can tell, into wiki-sabbatical twice (first, second). I mention this because this type of situation has been cited in the decision statements of other RFArbs as grounds for imposing remedies (albeit in conjunction with other causes). --Christopher Thomas 05:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)