Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Evidence

message: I noticed some very similar aspects involved in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal, is there a restriction on citing it as another situation where WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and WP:DE intersected for similar reasons? (I don't want to mess up either case so I felt it would be best to ask before posting my observations.) Anynobody 08:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can discuss that case if you want, although of course the arbitrators will judge each situation on its own merits. Newyorkbrad 21:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good deal, I don't want to influence the other case; just point out that WP:COI issues aren't restricted to Scientology articles but they cause similar problems. Anynobody 21:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that the arbitrators already know that :) , but feel free to develop your arguments. Newyorkbrad 21:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume they do too, but assumption can be a mistake. Besides others may read this someday and may not know, so even if the arbitrators already know I won't be wasting my time :) Anynobody 21:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing another open arbcom case? 

message: Part of the reason I posted the evidence of my neutrality is that I have never attacked anyone on Wikipedia that I know of. When I make edits I tend to spend so much time thinking about how my words will be interpreted that I forget to spell/grammar check. (Of course when I edit a (Main)space page I am more concerned with being technical than getting a message across.)
Because I am so concerned about how I am being interpreted it has occurred to me that I may have been unsuccessful sometimes. This is why I ask for proof of attacks from Justanother so I can understand what he considers to be an attack and hopefully not repeat the same error. I have asked him several times on several pages
If I was going to accuse an editor of attacking me or pushing a particular POV I would do them the courtesy of providing evidence to support my point.make an issue of his habit of attacks, I'd be sure to at least include 1 diff:. Since I'm not, I won't include anything else on him attacking me, I'm just showing how it means more with evidence. If one wishes to accuse another editor of attacks in the process of an arbcom case can we agree that proof should be provided? Anynobody 23:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either you do or you don't, Anynobody.  This looks like sniping.  The arbitrators usually do pay attention to these talk pages.  I suggest you submit this formally or strikethrough. DurovaCharge! 01:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's inconsistent to post evidence of incivility here in the same post where you say you aren't bringing it up.  So if you want WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA to be an issue at this arbitration go ahead and post evidence.  You can pretty much assume your own conduct will be scrutinized on the same merits if you do so.  Otherwise, if you really don't want to open that can of worms, I think it would be better to strikethrough the start of this thread.  Bear in mind that accusations aren't meaningful unless they're supported by evidence and tu quoque isn't a defense. DurovaCharge! 05:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That looks better, thanks. DurovaCharge! 06:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attacks 

message: jpgordon, I take it this RFAr was accepted for the purpose of ruling on the shared corporate proxy situation. Is the Committee at all interested in expanding the case into other aspects of the behaviour of the named parties? I've been considering submitting some evidence, and making some workshop proposal, specifically with regard to the old (and, the way it looks to me, by now quite personal) conflict between Anynobody and Justanother. In May, I tried, in fact, in  to stitch up a voluntary agreement between them (also involving, but more marginally, Smee and Lsi John) to cool the situation. My suggestions, which I "spammed" identically to the four people, were rejected by Anynobody (full conversation here), though accepted by the other three. I had no power to enforce them, so it's quite tempting to try to cadge a lift off of this case in order to get some sort of ruling with teeth... But I quite understand if you guys are against expansions in general, or specifically in this case. I'm asking in advance because I don't want to waste your time or mine by offering evidence that's not of interest.  Bishonen | talk 19:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The same two editors have a quarrel that's been dragging on at Anynobody's talk page.  Jehochman and I have both tried to broker a compromise and help quell the matter, but it seems insoluble. DurovaCharge! 22:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I just tried again on his talk and got nowhere again. Anynobody has also refused 3rd party intervention on a number of occasions. He seems that he will only be satisfied if I am sanctioned in some major way and so long as that does not occur then he will not give it up; that is my take on it. --Justanother 22:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Will the ArbCom help with non-proxy related conflicts and behaviour issues?

message: I know that jpgordon was not directing his above at me but I am taking the opportunity to remove from evidence anything that I had presented on that page that is not germane to the stated issue(s) being decided here. If something appears in the "Proposed final decision" section of the workshop page that warrants this material in evidence then I will re-enter it. I would also hope that I am setting an example for others here. Said example being, please use the evidence page to support the initial issue of COFS or to support additional claims made in the "Proposed final decision" section of the workshop page. Other use of the evidence page, i.e. attacking, counterattacking, and defending self, is questionable, at best. --Justanother 14:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bishonen, you are of course welcome to present evidence to refute mine. Anynobody 07:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'd appreciate if you or someone else with access would make the information available to everyone here. Honestly I set up that ER after Bishonen deleted the WP:RFC/U that Smee and myself set up. I wanted to find out if had been wrong the whole time and Bishonen had known something I didn't as an experienced admin I tried to be as honest and neutral about what the problems I perceived which led to the deleted RFC/U were. Given the effort I put into it for the tone not to sound like an attack on anyone I'd honestly like to know which parts were especially bad/good whatever. Anynobody 07:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presentation 2 

message: I have a plane to catch but I want to quickly respond to Durova. My objection to her actions was simply in objecting to the fact that she did not send the issue back to WP:COIN after Jehochman (wrongly, IMO) suggested that SheffieldSteel take it to WP:CSN. I have already spoken on that and will not repeat myself. Personally, I have ALWAYS said, since the WP:RFCU, that COFS and the other editors from the proxy should straighten out what COI issues there may be. I had no problem with that happening at WP:COIN and, after reflection, I have no problem with it happening here. My problem was with Durova allowing it on WP:CSN without adequate prior WP:DR. --Justanother 10:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick clarification of my personal position

message: I gotta say that I am disappointed that it has come to this. Anyway, here goes:
This is interesting. This arbitration has the purpose to decide what, if any, conflict of interest issues are engendered by editors that use a proxy server that belongs to the Church of Scientology. Unfortunately, none of the principals, especially COFS, have been 'round recently. Anynobody, perhaps feeling that we'all are getting bored waiting, decided that this would be a good time to play yet another round of his favorite game, "Get Justanother". Nevermind that his spurious Justanother User RfC was deleted;  
nevermind that his subsequent sneaky "backdoor User RfC" on Justanother masquerading as an "Editor Review" on Anynobody himself was deleted as an "attack page"; nevermind that his "Justanother stalking page" was deleted; never mind that he has been warned to stop trolling Justanother. And those are just the easy finds off the top of my head.
Let's see what he has come up with this time. Hmmm, by some skewed accounting method 73% of Justanother's edits are Scientology-related. Not true but even if it were, so what? Many, if not most, editors here concentrate on their area of interest and expertise. Of course if we head it "Accounts which focus on a pro-Scientology POV increase the amount of time neutral editors must spend to properly edit related articles" maybe someone will think it means something. Now what is that next heading; "Examples of Scientologists harassing neutral admins and editors"? OK, and look, there is Justanother again. Nevermind that all he did was politely ask/inform Evula that he was going to solicit some 3rd opinions, something Evula seemed to have no problem with. Put it under that heading and maybe it will mean something to someone. And it continues with inappropriate and persistent requests for checkuser on Justanother. It continues with attempting to make Justanother the star of this show. 
As for Durova, well I am almost sorry somewhat surprised to say but she has not yet exhausted all my AGF with her and I hesitate to discuss her in the same pixelated breaths as Anynobody. Suffice it to say that her "Justanother is a hypocrite" is rather lame, with lines taken out of context and one ("evil") that she is clearly misinterpreting, a common failing on her part, I fear; at least in my experience. But my AGF for her is just that she thinks she is doing her "wiki-sluething" thing when all she is actually doing is oversimplifying a complex situation to fit her premade mold and misinterpreting the words of other editors to fit her fixed ideas. --Justanother 05:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bishonen, you are of course welcome to present evidence to refute mine. Anynobody 07:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'd appreciate if you or someone else with access would make the information available to everyone here. Honestly I set up that ER after Bishonen deleted the WP:RFC/U that Smee and myself set up. I wanted to find out if had been wrong the whole time and Bishonen had known something I didn't as an experienced admin I tried to be as honest and neutral about what the problems I perceived which led to the deleted RFC/U were. Given the effort I put into it for the tone not to sound like an attack on anyone I'd honestly like to know which parts were especially bad/good whatever. Anynobody 07:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's get Justanother?! A comment on Anynobody's and Durova's recent "evidence" 

message: The usual way to express changes of heart at arbitration is by striking through and refactoring one's statements.  When an editor deletes evidence or overwrites it with something different that affects other presentations and can render them meaningless, since those other editors' statements may specifically reference something that later vanishes from the page.  It's particularly burdensome on other named parties to move evidence to a talk page with a caveat that the material may be reinserted as evidence during the case's voting phase: should other named parties respond or not?
I respectfully request that Justanother abide by standard practice and clarify what is or isn't under challenge here. DurovaCharge! 19:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not feel it is appropriate to fill the evidence page with accusations and counter-accusations and defenses against counter-accusations and rebuttals to defenses against counter-accusations . . . ad nauseum. Especially when none of the material is germane to anything that this arbitration is addressing or that has been proposed in the workshop as a final decision. Nor do I think it helps to fill the evidence page with struck-out versions of same. I regret having followed others into playing that game and I removed my comments to a more appropriate place, here. I will not "attack" other editors by name nor defend myself from their "attacks" on the evidence page unless such attacks or defense directly relate to something that this arbitration is addressing and my "evidence" serves the purpose of "evidence", not the purpose of defamation of others or justification of self. I am sincerely tired of the cut-throat tactics of going after each other that are so common here on Wikipedia. And I rarely START such though I must admit that I respond in kind and often with vigor. I will do as you ask if a non-involved party (preferably one of the arbs) seconds you. --Justanother 19:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Examples where I've done strikethroughs of my own statements at arbitration are Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gundagai_editors#Statement_by_User:Durova and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Durova.  I hope this demonstrates that my request is made in good faith; a full read of the Gundagai case should eliminate any doubts. DurovaCharge! 20:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More with the one-sided misinterpretation of out-of-context, cherry-picked, talk space remarks, I see. Durova, are you consciously only cherry-picking those few remarks that seem to support your preconceived and prejudged notions about me? Because you make no effort to present any of the remarks from the same source, User:Justanother/writeup, that speak to the fact that I act in good faith here. Remarks like:"What we want to have in the articles is a coherent presentation of Scn and a coherent presentation of the controvery surrounding it.""Don't be afraid to have a POV; just make sure that you edit fairly and verifiably and affort others the same right.""When you go in to edit, don't cut out material that you don't like. Instead find the grain of truth that usually lies inside what you consider a misrepresentation, research that truth, and present it fairly."Durova, do you feel that you are the prosecutor and it is your job to present a one-sided view to the court? I thought that "court" was what we were NOT doing here. --Justanother 13:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for refactoring and clarity 

message: I would like to keep the above section clear for my clarifications. I think that I am entitled to this consideration as I wager that the bulk of the evidence section is about me (aw shucks, guys!)
:I know you have long maintained that anti-Scientologists have dominated the articles.  What you need to do is present evidence in support of that claim.  WP:AGF requires us to suppose that's a misunderstanding on your part unless you can demonstrate otherwise, and your unsupported arguments that Jehochman and I have acted out of bias tell me you're prone to that sort of mistake.  Either way, tu quoque is not a defense and I wonder why you didn't just put up a few pages up for article content WP:RFC last year.  If I need to present additional evidence regarding trustworthiness I can go into the details of your interactions with a respected administrator last fall.  You've made a lot of complaints about the validity of the checkuser result and attempted to shift the burden of evidence.  Well, now I've posted some and there's more in preparation. 
:What I'm asking you to consider while arbitration remains underway is that perhaps - even with good intentions - you've misunderstood the verifiability, not truth clause at WP:V and the Wikipedia is not a battleground clause at WP:NOT.  Your actions raise my eyebrow in particular with regard to WP:MEAT and I highlighted passages which relate to that.  I don't think I've hidden anything, though, unless it's to downplay your history of edit warring and POV.  You're apt to suggest that other editors possess unacknowledged bias.  Could that be true of you as well? DurovaCharge! 16:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We all have bias, Durova. This would be a good chance for you to back away from making this arbitration about me. Do you care to back away from that? I have not made it about you. I have continued to assume good faith with you but I am afraid that I have little left. Just enough to ask you nicely to please reconsider what you are doing on the evidence page. Thanks. --Justanother 17:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I prefer to wait until the dispute's main participants submit evidence and then supplement gaps in their presentations.  Since little evidence had been forthcoming and there was a motion to close the case on that basis, I've taken on a larger share of work.  My research indicates that this case has merit.  Other portions of evidence that have less to do with you are in preparation.  If you'd like to focus on opponents of Scientology, please present specifics in your evidence.  Since you were involved as events unvolded it should be quite a bit easier for you to prepare 40 links and diffs, which would provide leads for additional research. DurovaCharge! 17:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Durova, you are not addressing my request. Let me make it as clear as I can. I would like you to remove or strike out the material that you presented on me on the Evidence page. I ask you to do that because my conduct is not the subject of this arbitration. Will you please do that? Thank you. --Justanother 18:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As named parties all of our conduct is open to examination.  Your previous post hints that you would present evidence about me.  I believe my actions will hold up to scrutiny and if I'm mistaken about that I welcome correction from the Committee.  What it seems to me, though, is that your primary grievance has to do with some editors who've worked on Scientology-related articles.  So far you've provided very little by way of specifics there so the first door I went through was the one you opened.  The current shape of my evidence reflects not bias but the effort involved in reviewing several thousand edits that span eleven months, and since you're an adamant defender of WP:AGF I trust you'll need no further assurance of my neutrality before you test my willingness to follow up on both sides.  Please post your evidence of anti-Scientology POV pushing. DurovaCharge! 18:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's fairly predictable that you don't like Durova's evidence.  Your edit history shows that you tendentiously defend Scientology and pro-Scientology editors from criticism, whether that criticism is meritorious or not.  You could help your own cause if you could point to some edits where you say, "You're right, I was wrong.  Sorry about that, I've learned my lesson."  Nobody is right 100% of the time, but from the most recent 1000 edits you've made, which I've reviewed, I can't find any evidence of you showing flexibility or compromising to achieve consensus.  That's rather strange.  Jehochman  Talk 19:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply # 1) "Your edit history shows that you tendentiously defend Scientology and pro-Scientology editors from criticism, whether that criticism is meritorious or not." - It *might* "help your own cause if you could point to some edits" that support your accusation. but then again, if your ability to interpret edits and context is on a par with Durova's, it *might* not. And I can say that my next response will speak to that very point. --Justanother 19:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Reply # 2) "from the most recent 1000 edits you've made, which I've reviewed, I can't find any evidence of you showing flexibility or compromising to achieve consensus." - Great bit of "sleuthing" there, Jehochman. HOW ABOUT THE ONE OF THE VERY LAST TIMES I EDITED THE SCIENTOLOGY ARTICLE! Please see Talk:Scientology#Complete rewrite of the Scientology WP:LEAD and some following topics on that talk page. I worked with a Scientologist but mostly with a number of editors (especially User:BTfromLA) that would likely say they are critical of Scientology in a spirit of co-ooperation to rewrite the lead paragraph of the article, leading one editor to post on my talk page under the topic Thanks for your contributions and Sorry for my ignorance:"Sorry, that I mistrusted all your contributions so badly that I didn't even read some of them fully.   I think your contribution was an improvement here. I shouldn't have started arguing! As I began to contribute to the Scientology article, myself and my contributions were attacked in a highly uncivil way and I started to think in "good/bad editors" categories. I will try to be more carefull in my "do-not-assume-good-faith judgements" to editors which oppose my "POV/NPOV". Hope we can stay civil on controversial topics although we may have different POV's on this subject. -- Stan  talk 22:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Justanother, if you claim my actions are persecutory then that will open the door for me to detail your reactions to SlimVirgin.  That would demonstrate how you have a history of over-the-top responses to routine administrative action, which I would supplement with evidence of my own fairness and neutrality.  Naturally my evidence has focused on the portion of your contributions that appears to be at variance with site standards: I don't think X number of good edits gives anyone a licence to violate policy. DurovaCharge! 20:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The few times that I have violated policy I have been corrected and made corrections on my own. I could care less about bringing up SlimVirgin or anything else. Don't threaten me, please, your threats are meaningless and that one only shows me that you are on the verge of digging your hole of misinterpretation deeper. This arb is not about me; this arb is not about you. Get over yourself, Durova, and let's keep this on track. --Justanother 21:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refactor that uncivil response. DurovaCharge! 21:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically, which part do you object to? I will see if I can clarify it for you. --Justanother 21:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much everything after the first two sentences was uncivil.  The way I view this discussion, you suggested you might pursue an argument that would open the door to additional adverse evidence against you, so I informed you in advance of where that would probably lead.  You also complained that my evidence was unduly focused on you so I suggested how you could help balance things.  Common sense tells me there probably has been some anti-Scientology POV pushing in Wikipedia article space.  I've been waiting since the first COIN thread in May for you to substantiate that with any leads at all.  Arbitration is the best opportunity you'll ever have for resolving that problem, if it really does exist, but I don't do favors for people who are rude to me: from now on, if you neglect your opportunity to prove your case that's your problem. DurovaCharge! 00:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  HubcapD, I feel sorry for the Scientologists.  These articles are highly negative and once we finally convince the pro-Scientology editorsto disengage from fighting the anti-Scientologists, we should look at the neutrality of the articles and see if they can be improved.  It's absolutely amazing that we are spending so much time here when we could be fixing the articles instead.  If the other side uses dirty tactics, don't respond in kind.  Take the articles to WP:RFC and try to draw in neutral editors to help you.  You need a consensus to make changes stick.  Unfortunately, a consensus of declared Scientologists isn't a Wikipedia consensus.  Jehochman  Talk 12:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know Durova, if you could get over attacking me, you would likely see that we are saying the same thing and hold the same views (though I might say "once we finally convince the anti-Scientology editors to stop trying to have the Scientologists thrown off this site"). You have already alluded to such elsewhere. I have not entered one word of "evidence" against you or Jehochman (or have removed those that I did enter in a knee-jerk reaction) although you and he (mostly you, Durova) have both attacked me without cause on the evidence page. I really, truly think that you are miffed that I challenged you on the WP:CSN page and now you are all about "clearing your name" (which you have mentioned at least three times in these arb pages - see "I hope to clear my name of some of the accusations that have been made against me recently" above for one) and I think that you are perverting this arbitration to that end and one way that you might feel that you have cleared your name is if you have discredited me. That is why I say "get over" *it*. You just entered another whole bunch of *stuff* on the talk page. You, Durova, are the problem here. I just really really wish that someone that you respect would send you a clue and that we could get this back on track. --Justanother 13:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions/comments from others 

message: Misou, you may want to create your own section for evidence. I didn't want to be that presumptuous on your behalf so I've placed it here pending whatever you decide to do. Anynobody 07:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The abbreviation for Church of Scientology is "CoS", not "COFS". Google it. Misou 01:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this Google you speak of?  Church of Scientology (COFS) may not be the official abbreviation, but it's highly suggestive to the ordinary editor.  These articles are contentious enough.  We don't need to make choices, such as usernames, that inflame the controversy. Jehochman  Talk 16:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Misou, if you have a problem with COFS being interpreted as Church of Scientology, perhaps you could take it up with the person who changed the CofS page into a disambiguation page. Can anyone guess who it is? No peeking! Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 03:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Whatcha talking 'bout, man? Misou 01:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from evidence page 

message: Misou has made the same mistake again and posted in my section. Rather than move the comments here I created an evidence section for him. Anynobody 01:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatcha talking 'bout, man? Misou 01:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same mistake 

message: This is easier than writing a paragraph to summarize what's been going on as the numbers and diffs speak for themselves.
# of times Misou has added comments to another editor's evidence                                          	# of times Misou has been advised, asked, or reminded not to do so again
5
4  31  2 1                                                                                             	
4 (Including this one)
321
1 (There were two edits in this diff by Misou to this section  I'm counting them as one overall instance.)	1 (There were two edits in this diff by Misou to this section  I'm counting them as one overall instance.)
 Anynobody 06:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tabulation 

message: Wikiscanner: List anonymous wikipedia edits from interesting organizations. One of the predefined options is for three CoS IP ranges. (There are more IP blocks, but I haven't checked them against the list.) AndroidCat 14:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, 48 edits in Scientology related articles in more than four years. Wow! That's almost one per month!!! Which brings us back to the question. Should Scientologists be allowed to edit about subjects they know something about? Misou 17:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is about as "interesting" as the probability of edits to Mormon-related articles coming from Utah. Lots of individual citizens could be editing from those IPs on their own, as is their right.  wikipediatrix 18:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, the magical proxy server on official Church of Scientology IP addresses open to all public Scientologists when they feel like editing Wiki articles on Scientology—and not much else. AndroidCat 21:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you know this to be a fact because....? wikipediatrix 21:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which part? AndroidCat 01:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think that Should Scientologists be allowed to edit about subjects they know something about? is not the question so much as it is the straw man. It has not been proposed as a finding of fact, principle, temporary injunction, or remedy in this case. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 20:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An interesting tool for anonymous IP edit history

message: :Not really too much OR, just interesting flights of fantasy, IMHO. But you say there are 10 pro-Scientology editors on WP. Please list them, I am interested. Misou 04:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was just an estimation. The accuracy isn't too important because it would show the same results of impossibility anyway.  By the way, so higher the count of pro-scientology editors so lower the probability for my assumption(that its impossible that 5 of them edited from one proxy). The numbers I used presented you in the most positive lights possible. You really want me to downgrade this count ?  -- Stan  talk 05:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  and I also used very low estimation by general internet users and high estimations for your-freedom.net wich actually helped you and precludes the possibility to misrepresent your case. -- Stan  talk 06:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  misous objection against the comments made by Stan En