Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence

Evidence page layout
Hi, and , my understanding, when this was last discussed, is that clerks would stop copying over comments from requests for arbitration. This first started a few months ago. It makes evidence pages harder to read, in part because we can't easily see who has submitted evidence. Can those "preliminary statements" be removed? SarahSV (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * there has been ongoing discussion about the layout. I will seek clarification and get back to you as soon as possible. Amortias (T)(C) 20:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I've been trying to find where I last saw this discussed on-wiki, but I can't find it. I seem to recall several editors turning up to say yes, please, stop doing this, and clerks agreeing to stop. I'm writing this from memory, so apologies for the lack of precision. The problem is that the evidence page becomes swamped with non-evidence from people who had no intention of taking part. SarahSV (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * there was a discussion you initiated here during the Kevin Gorman case. It may be helpful to work back from there (I didn't read the whole discussion) and may be able to shed some light on the subject. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you, that's very helpful, and it has given me the link I was looking for to the edit that changed the template.


 * It was changed here in June 2015 by to add "preliminary statements," meaning the comments people add to the RfAr. Can that change to the template please be rolled back, so that the evidence page is confined to evidence submitted after the case has opened? SarahSV (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * wrote in that discussion, in December 2015: "I've finally wrangled unambiguous approval to amend the current case to get rid of all that preliminary statement clutter on the Evidence page." SarahSV (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * To answer this directly, while I got the go-ahead for that particular case, when I suggested to the Arbs that we also use that as a template for future cases, there was some opposition raised and the discussion petered out to nothing. I still think it's better to not have that clutter, given that it should be available elsewhere, but it's not my call to make.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC).


 * In practice, the preliminary statements have either a) been placed on the Evidence page or b) been placed on the Main case talk page. In my experience, the decision has been left to the drafters of the specific case so I'll just ping them here,, and , in case they have a preference.  Liz  Read! Talk! 21:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The way we've been doing it for the past half year or so is to do what the drafters say when the final authorization to open is given (usually with the names of drafters, timetable, special rules, etc.). If there is no specific direction, we usually default to having them on the /Evidence page per procedure. We asked ArbCom to provide a final resolution of the issue in December, but it was deferred to the 2016 ArbCom and then eventually forgotten (understandably, considering how much they have on their plate). Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 21:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * and, I'm hoping we can reach an agreement that this change to the evidence template be rolled back, so that copying over RfAr statements is not the default. It's not only an aesthetic issue. These statements make the evidence pages harder to read. It's hard to see who has submitted evidence, who is taking part in the case, and what new material has been posted. That means it is easier to miss evidence, and that's bad for cases, so this is something that affects everyone. I'm pinging as a former Arb who expressed a similar view. SarahSV (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well,, I personally agree. Other than what you've argued, which I completely agree with, it also requires a substantially higher amount of clerk time to copy-paste statements by user. However, we're still waiting on word from ArbCom regarding this; we can't change something they asked for without their approval. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 22:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . Yes, I can see that it would involve extra work. As I recall, the argument was that it encouraged people who made statements to get involved, but I would say we shouldn't want people to get involved unless they have solid evidence. The preliminary statements often involve nothing but hundreds of words of "please take this case." SarahSV (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten about this discussion and I think it did indeed slip through the cracks. IIRC the argument in favor of putting statements on the evidence page was that it decreased repetition and increased participation, and that it was easier for arbs to read if everything was on a single page. I had intended to quantify the participation question before forming a preference but I never got around to it. In the absence of actual data, I weakly prefer putting the preliminary statements on the case talk page, but want to wait for the other drafters to weigh in. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I think of it, my first first choice was to have each case request on its own subpage and leave the preliminary statements on the subpage when the case opened and the rest of the case pages were created. But that creates concerns that it's harder to follow case requests by watchlist that way. I still think that means some people are using their watchlists wrong ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not consider preliminary statements to be evidence in the proper sense -- many times statements are opinions, comments, etc. I prefer them on the case talk page, where they can easily be read, but leaves the evidence page clear for actual documented evidence. There's a huge difference in purpose between the two types of submissions. Courcelles (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Courcelles, and while the preliminary statement may in fact be the evidence that was to be submitted, there is no reason that someone can't copy/paste their preliminary statement onto the evidence page. However not all preliminary statements include evidence, and not all people who created preliminary statements will participate beyond that stage. Where they should be put, I don't know, but I don't care for the current set up. And yes this just fell through the cracks, and is something that should be hashed out. --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Got pinged, so here's my view - it would be a big step forward if the Committee abandoned the recent practice of pasting the case request posts onto the /Evidence page:
 * It's not Evidence : As mentioned above, not everything in people's case request comments is "evidence." Some is idle chitchat, some is out of scope for the Committee, some is hatted disruption. While the Committee is capable of weeding out the irrelevancies, it makes the case harder to follow for others and misleads editors about what the focus of the case might be;
 * It confuses and annoys : Many editors are comfortable with adding material to case request pages, but would run a mile before becoming part of the case itself. Transferring their case request posts to the /Evidence page is at best unsettling for people, and at worst makes them unwilling case participants. Ever since this practice started there has been confusion and irritation about people feeling they have been made parties to a case that they only commented on in passing on the request page;
 * It encourages word limit gaming : Pasting the case request comments onto the /Evidence page encourages some people to game the word limits by using the case request page as a deliberate supplement to their actual /Evidence contribution; and
 * It saps the will to live : Lastly, this current practice means every case starts with a massive and often irrelevant wall of text, which slows the process of untangling the key issues and makes it harder to follow when new material is added..
 * For these reasons I urge the Committee to abandon the current practice and go back to where we started a year ago. Remove case request posts from /Evidence and either place them as an entirely hatted section on a case talk page, or leave them out entirely. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. It' terribly hard to read. Peter Damian (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Case request posts don't belong on the evidence page, for the most part. APerson (talk!) 17:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * , thank you for removing the statements from the evidence page, and thanks too to the committee for agreeing. SarahSV (talk) 05:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

More than layout
There is an important difference between RFA and evidence. RFA is about whether a case should be heard. My statement there is totally irrelevant as evidence to this case, indeed the only useful purpose it now serves is to remind everyone that the case was taken on an inquisitorial basis which, historically, the Committee has not had a great success with, and for which it arguably does not have mandate.

I am taking the liberty of removing my section.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC).

Preliminary statement by Beyond My Ken
Moved from evidence page.  Mini  apolis  14:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I must add my voice to those encouraging the committee to take this case. The AN/I thread is so long, so convoluted and complex, that I doubt anyone who hasn't been involved in the situation from an earlier time would be able to unravel it; I certainly couldn't. It seems to me that complicated and long-running conflicts such as this is one of the things we have ArbCom for. I strongly urge the committee to accept the case.
 * To those waiting for a conclusion to the AN/I thread: experience would say that it's extremely unlikely for there to be an admin closure with action taken. It much more likely that the thread will simply continue to grow, with nothing decided.  Although I understand the impulse to wait, and ordinarily would agree, I think in this case (about which I have no opinion one way or the other as to what the result should be), ArbCom should recognize that it's really beyond the ability of the community to reach a decision.  I urge those Arbitrators who have tentatively taken that stance to reconsider.


 * I will not be presenting evidence. My sole involvement was to urge ArbCom to take the case, in which I am uninvolved. BMK (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom not perfect?
I'm not sure how we should feel about this claim by : "...ArbCom, as imperfect as it is..." I feel about 98.6% perfect today. , how about you? Drmies (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Pldx1 "evasion from scrutiny"
Pldx1 writes:
 * Evasion from scrutiny From 2 April 2016, Wikicology's talk page threads are no more archived, but erased . Pldx1 (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

That diff looks like sigmabot archived the talk posts to W's March archive page exactly as advertised. Not commenting here about the case in general, but that specific diff seems fine. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think Pldx1's meaning is that the linked diff is the last time any threads on Wikicology's user talk were archived, and that since then everything that's been removed hasn't been put in a user talk archive. (and like 50' above, I'm not commenting on the merits or relevance of that evidence, just trying to explain it) —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the citation was supporting "From 2 Avril 2016". A better wording is therefore: After, i.e. after 2 April 2016, Wikicology's talk page threads are no more archived, but erased. Pldx1 (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Aha, it makes sense now. Thanks for clarifying.  50.0.121.79 (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Announcements 4/12/16
Hi everyone. A couple updates from the drafting arbitrators: Thanks everyone! This will also be cross-posted to the main case talk page. For the drafters, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 04:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) The deadlines currently all fall on Fridays; the drafters have decided to push them back to the following Mondays so people have the weekend to wrap up. The updated deadlines are:
 * 2) *Evidence closes 25 April
 * 3) *Workshop closes 2 May
 * 4) *Proposed decision due 9 May
 * 5) Due to the nature of the case, the drafters have authorized a general extension of the word limit to 1000 words for all participants. Anyone who wishes to present more evidence may apply on (this) /Evidence talk page as usual.
 * 6) As a result of community comments and a clerks-l discussion, the preliminary statements are being removed from evidence and are being archived at the main case talk page.


 * Thank you Kevin. Someone needs to inform all of the people who received the MassMessageList announcement about the cast that the Evidence phase has been extended to 25 April, because they are all still under the impression it closes 22 April. Can you inform the appropriate person to make that mass announcement? By the way, a question, since I've never directly participated in a case: When is the deadline for evidence? Is it 23:59 on 25 April UTC? Or is it 23:59 on 24 April UTC? That is, is it Monday night or Monday morning?Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * ,, , and Kevin: Everyone who received the MassMessageList about the case deadlines now needs to receive this new deadline information, and ASAP. No one is going to see it here or on the Evidence page unless they've already posted evidence. People need to see that they have longer to research, gather, organize, and post their research. Softlavender (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The soonest I can do this is 0800 UTC tomorrow. If it hasn't been done by then I will do so. Amortias (T)(C) 19:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's probably not worth us to spam every single user on the announcement list with the updated evidence date. It's just an extra three days, and probably won't hurt anyone who didn't see it here. If anything it will be a pleasant surprise when they come to post evidence :) Kharkiv07  ( T ) 23:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To repeat, what is the point of extending the deadline if no one knows the deadline has been extended? Those three days -- especially since they are weekend days -- make all the difference in this case, which is extremely complicated and lengthy and has an enormous amount of evidence to research and trawl through and then organize and reduce to size. Are you willing to make the updated MassMessageList, or not? Please let us know, so, , and Kevin know whether they have to handle it themselves or not. Softlavender (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think a massmessage is necessary about this. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed; unless an Arb says otherwise I'd encourage my fellow clerks not to send it out. Kharkiv07  ( T ) 00:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I'd appreciate it if one of the other clerks (Amortius, etc.) let people know via message. In my opinion no one has given a rationale for why people shouldn't be informed, and I have given several reasons why people should be informed. Why extend the deadline if no one knows the deadline is extended? Especially in such a controversial and complex case? Letting people know can cause no harm and can only be enormously helpful. Softlavender (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyone who actually cares about this case has watchlisted it by now. If they haven't, then they probably weren't going to submit evidence anyway. If they haven't, but were planning on submitting evidence, and thought that the deadline is Friday, then they'll be pleasantly surprised come Friday and they find out they have 2 more days. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Heh, regarding Letting people know can cause no harm, you wouldn't believe what I've gotten from people I've notified by MassMessage about arbitration matters. They tend to get testy when given what is seen as a completely useless message; heck, people who give statements in case requests routinely are irritated when they are notified that a case is opened. Similarly to Jason, I will not be sending a MassMessage unless an arb asks us to, because there's simply no need to; the extension was announced well in advance – 10 days before the extension went into effect. If someone rushes to submit evidence before the deadline, anyway, they'll see the updated date on the case pages, mooting the entire matter. This is hardly something for the clerks to spam dozens of editors about. Thanks for your request. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 04:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * People who don't want the messages opt out (via manually removing themselves from the list or leaving a note in their Statement) -- they know how to do that and that's a fairly well-established routine by now. Again, there is no harm, and much to gain, in letting people know of the change. The fact that the deadline was changed a while ago and no one was directly alerted was an oversight -- and we have the ability to correct that now. No one has responded to the fact that nobody has seen the change in deadline unless they have already come by here (i.e., probably already posted evidence) and then happened to click on the talk page and then read through this talk-page in its entirety (the thread isn't even labeled "Deadline changes"). That's very few people, in my opinion. I don't personally understand why there is so much resistance to something that would be helpful to everyone who is involved in trying to present an accurate representation for such an extremely complex case which could have far-reaching consequences. The fact that the wordcount limit was doubled indicates the enormity of the case. Alerting people of the extra time (and extra wordcount) is not a "completely useless message" -- I'm not sure why anyone would even think that. If you don't want to do the mailing, fine (the mailings are completely anonymous lately so there wouldn't be any blowback), but please don't discourage others from doing it. Softlavender (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Please just drop it Softlavender. This doesn't help anybody. I wouldn't want to get bugged about something this trivial. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 11:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Follow up... earlier in this thread there was an important question: "When is the deadline for evidence? Is it 23:59 on 25 April UTC? Or is it 23:59 on 24 April UTC? That is, is it Monday night or Monday morning?" I've been meaning to come back to add to my evidence after discussion on my talk page. If the deadline is in a few hours rather than in over a day, I'm going to struggle to make it. So, clarification would be appreciated. EdChem (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Eek, I somehow didn't realize the deadline would happen on UTC time... 00:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC) happens in 11 hours. So some clarification would be nice. I've been assuming (but you know what happens when you assume) that the deadline is 23:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC). —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Deadline is 23:59 on 25 April (UTC). At least, that's what I meant when I wrote the announcement... ;)
 * Also related: some people ( as well as the above) have linked to a userspace subpage with formatted tables and such. We plan to make a copy of those on a case subpage for reference. This is just for tables of source/article text and similar non-narrative evidence, not a place for additional lengthy comments. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. Even more, moving User:Pldx1/Igogo Festival in Owo References to a subpage of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence would make sense: this is no more a private page. Pldx1 (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology is requesting the speedy deletion of some evidence for this case
File:Wikicology.jpg Wikicology has requested that this image be speedily deleted. I recommend that this request be declined, as this photo is a major part of the evidence in this case. Softlavender (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * He's CSD'd all of his uploads I think, IMHO the image should stay until the this whole thing is over with, Once over then it perhaps can be deleted. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * While it ought to be deleted as a copyvio, and any admin would be justified in doing so, I at least am exercising my right not to act. I have documented some of his file upload problems in an evidence statement. Thank you, Softlavender, for prompting me to get on with filing evidence. BethNaught (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it would be useful if an admin removed the CSD tag, at least until this case is entirely finished. (Plus since it is only a userspace image, it really doesn't matter if a friend took the photo; and there is no real issue with copyvio since the friend freely gave it to him to use on wiki userspace.) Softlavender (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If he didn't take it (which he didn't) then it should be deleted. The arbs will still be able to look at it. SmartSE (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. I'm going to go ahead and delete this, because it should indeed be deleted, and because that way it's obvious that the arbs and specifically the drafters are aware of this evidence. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If the image, which has been there for a year, is deleted simply because he wants to cover his tracks, this is indeed a problem for people compiling evidence. Therefore it should stand until at least the evidence and workshop phases are complete. Could someone please restore the image, or do I need to go to the trouble of filing at WP:REFUND? Softlavender (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Meh. All of us who are working on this know what the image was, where it was, and what it shows. The context where that particular image was used is more important anyway. If there's an image description that should be recorded, then someone can write it down someplace. I don't think this is going to interfere with anybody's evidence package. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Question for Wikicology

 * Moved to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop. SarahSV (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for submitting evidence about how you used to create articles. I was curious about that, because I noticed that even long articles were created in one edit, and it's hard to do that when there are lots of references. For example, see the first revision of Nitrogen dioxide poisoning.

Can you explain a bit more about how you did that (it sounds very difficult), and why you did it? You wrote something about data plans being expensive in Nigeria. I'd be interested to hear more about that, and whether editing with a phone is free. SarahSV (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * , why did you hat this? It's a question for Wikicology about something he said, and now because you hatted it, it's taking place on my talk, which isn't ideal. The evidence page is for people to post evidence; it's not for preliminary statements or discussion. SarahSV (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Question for clerks
I know that the evidence phase is technically over. However, Wikicology submitted his evidence quite close to the deadline and I have a rebuttal for one of his statements. May I post that rebuttal as evidence or is it too late? Thank you.Ca2james (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Any extensions would need to be approved by the drafting Arbitrators. I'd suggest mailing the list as the sooner its picked up on the better.Amortias (T)(C) 06:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Any further queries, coments, rebuttals, clarifications etc on evidence need to be made at the analysis sections of the workshop phase.
 * Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

For the record
Evidence is closed, but this still seems as good a place as any to note for the record that Wikicology requested by email and was granted an extension on the word limit for his evidence submission. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * For the record (at the risk of violating some protocol of which I am unaware), this is precisely typical of his endlessly repeated behavior over the past two years. He will say anything, and at stunningly overwhelming length, in the sweetest and most obsequiously apologetic and seemingly sincere and convincing terms – claiming folly, ignorance, newness, innocence, good intentions, and good work (and whatever else he thinks will get him off the hook) – in order to retain his position on Wikipedia. Yet he has never changed his behavior or tactics, in spite of being called out for it time and again, and in spite of genuine obvious knowledge that what he has been doing is detrimental to the project. He might have made these claims a month or two into his tenure here, but he certainly cannot make them again after all he has been through, all he knows, all he has been told, and all of his ladder-climbing. Wikipedia cannot turn a blind eye to repeated, serious, longterm, and deliberate abuse simply because the abuser repeatedly drowns out the opposition with a firehose of eloquent excuses and empty apologies and promises. Softlavender (talk) 05:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is probably more worthwhile put under the analysis section of the workshop. BethNaught (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood, although I'm not sure precisely where. If someone can indicate the proper location I wil happily move it. This is my first ArbCom case participation (beyond RfAR statements), so I'm unsure of many of the procedures. Softlavender (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

"I have not created any problematic article in the last 6 months and no concerns have been raised about the contributions I made during that time."
From the end of the evidence section by User:Wikicology, section "My hopes":

"I have not created any problematic article in the last 6 months and no concerns have been raised about the contributions I made during that time."

This is true, if you ignore:
 * Beacon of ICT Awards 2015, created 3 March 2016, deleted 30 March 2016
 * Olatunde Isaac, created 2 March 2016, deleted 29 March 2016
 * Timothy Ihemadu, created 18 December 2015, deleted 20 April 2016
 * Government Secondary School Usha Kadu, created on 2 March 2016 with a source about Wikicology, not about the article; this source has been removed and the article tagged as unsourced on 5 April 2016. Spot checking somewhat older contributions, I find other concerns, like a very excessive quote added in February, first tagged by CorenSearchbot and later removed by another editor.

It is clear that his assessment of his edits of the last 6 months is distinctly at odds with the evidence presented. Either he still can't see the problems, in which case WP:CIR comes into play, or he is trying to fool us. Neither situation is acceptable. Fram (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No comment on the other three, but Beacon of ICT Awards 2015 looks like a potentially legitimate creation which was inappropriately tagged for deletion. Given that Beacon of ICT Awards exists and hasn't been challenged, I can AGF that in this case Wikicology was planning to expand the list of award winners into a list in its own right which would have overwhelmed the parent article, and in these circumstances a separate stand-alone list in a subpage is fairly common Wikipedia practice (example). &#8209; Iridescent 10:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but it still contradicts "no concerns have been raised about the contributions I made during that time".

Another editor brought another example to my attention: --
 * Gibbs's thermodynamic surface, created 9 January 2016, redirected as duplicate (mostly copied) on 29 March. Fram (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

At the end of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop there is a section: Analysis of Evidences. Perhaps this is a better place to analyze what has been submitted in the already closed Evidence phase. Pldx1 (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Normally I would have rebutted it inside the evidence page, but of course when someone posts a way too long piece of evidence much too late, the chance of rebuttal becomes small. Editors named as a party who stay away for most of the titme and then post their evidence right at the end are often a sign of having something (or a lot) to hide. Any similarities with other current cases are purely coincidental, of course. Anyway, I'll repost my rebuttal there. Fram (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)