Talk:Mitch Mustain/Archive 1

This is perhaps fit for deltion unless some notability is established. --Bhadani 15:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Mitch is now a starting quarterback for the University of Arkansas. Achen00 06:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Section headers
The headings for the subsections under College career -> Arkansas have more of an artistic ring to them than an encyclopedic one. "Rise with the Razorbacks," "A turning point, and "Mustain the transferee" should all be changed to something that sounds less like chapter titles in a memoir. --Wordbuilder 02:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The headings are far too informal and of a tabloid nature.  They should be changed to a more formal and NPOV tone.  TotoHertz 06:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed the headers to more conventional and formal titles, which are also less POV. 710Sports 07:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --Wordbuilder 13:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Accept my thanks as well. Your headers are much improved over the previous ones and also describe the sections much better.  Good job!  TotoHertz 14:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

OTRS 2007072910002927
I am the OTRS agent handling this ticket, it is locked until issues are worked out via OTRS. This does not mean we agree with the current article, and that changes can not be suggested. Just please do so here first, and request permission (OTRS agents to authorize), you may not be privy to information which we have. Somitho 08:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I just got back from a weekend to see this ticket... if I am to be correct from looking at the article, there was a dispute over infobox's statement that his nickname was "The Future". That edit dates from his time with the Razorbacks (and I doubt its in use anymore at USC), I think there can be general agreement that its not necessary anymore.  I am a little disappointed that the two people who were editing over this did not take their discussion to the talk page before enacting an outside process.  Those are my two cents. --Bobak 15:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be more than that. Someone was blanking a huge chunk of the page and inserting an all-caps paragraph at the top saying something to the effect of "anyone who edits this page will be reported". I've been in email communication with this person, who claims to be his mother, and they mentioned having tried to have the page deleted and whatnot. This is likely related. Natalie 16:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It had nothing whatsoever to do with "The Future" comment.  I got the same email as Natalie and addressed the issue with the concerned parties.  The issue had actually been fully resolved the day before the article was protected.  Changes were made to the article and the version that stands now is considered completely acceptable and has taken into account certain issues that cannot be discussed on a public forum.  If you need clarification, you can email me.  Caffehamp 18:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. So it seems to do with the edits that more-or-less are covered here.  I am not clear how the information there, clearly cited by multiple sources, is problematic --if anything it seems like we're now dealing with the opposite of previous vandals who wanted to write that Mustain was the antichrist, now it seems to be trying to remove any bad mentions of people who were mentioned in the news.  I'd be curious to see the evidence proffered for the removal of that information cited to ESPN and SI --neither of which have, to my knowledge, printed retractions.  Most of that stuff negatively reflected on Nutt, anyway.  I admit, I find the fact that this information has been removed to be troubling.  --Bobak 19:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, I cannot discuss this on a public forum, so if you want clarification, directly email me. Caffehamp 19:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I emailed you a second ago :-) Just to clarify since this is the first time I've run into OTRS: do we make cases for keeping information in this subheading? --Bobak 19:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. I've never dealt with OTRS either. I know the tickets are confidential and I believe communication between the OTRS volunteer and whoever contacted OTRS is confidential as well, so we may never be directly told what the problem is. Natalie 19:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's correct. OTRS is a confidential issue that cannot be discussed on public forums.  Caffehamp 20:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If we have specific questions (that may or may not be answerable given the situation), do we ask the person who started this subsection or anyone in OTRS? My lawyer-sense is tingling (not to do or recommend anything as a lawyer, but to ask a question coming from that background).  --Bobak 20:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would imagine it's best to ask the person who's specifically dealing with this ticket. They are one communicating with the person with a complaint or issue, and they are the one charged with satisfactorily resolving the issue. I suppose if you had a general question about OTRS or how it worked you could ask anyone on the OTRS squad. Natalie 20:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already spoken to User:Bobak via email, and am happy to answer further questions on the reason it was protected without getting too specific. The protection has been lifted and issues have been worked out. It seems the current revision is acceptable (the ticket queue was backlogged, so we don't always get to them right away). Of course feel free to make changes and edit, but take into account that there are certain things which can cause harm to others directly or indirectly. Further comments can be redirected to my talk page, or email if you want to reach me directly. Somitho 06:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

OTRS redux (Nov '07)
I know there was some confusion as to whether the previous OTRS impacts the changes I made here; as a result, I followed procedure and asked a member of OTRS to review the ticket and let me know if the confidential information affected my new additions, based on reliably sourced articles from several months after the original ticket. The answer was, these new edits I made recently do not conflict with the OTRS. As such, since the information is NPOV and just elaborates on the very interesting situation at Arkansas (which has been featured in ESPN, SI, etc) that involves the subject of the article. Bobak (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is completely incorrect. The initial complaint centered on the issue of the family of the subject of the article stating that such information caused damage to the reputation of Mitch Mustain and his family, as well as subjecting them to threats of harassment by other parties.  That still stands.  For those reasons, this information has to be removed.  Furthermore, Bobak attempts to link one set of events to another, without knowing the facts that the subject's family is aware of.  The subject, Mitch Mustain, has never spoken on this issue, due to his position, and will not speak on this issue in the future.  I have informed the Wikipedia Foundation about Bobak's attempts to put this information back in that damage Mustain's reputation, while also subjecting his family to harassment, including a statement that there are people who wish to cause physical harm, or perhaps, kill his mother.  This is unrelated to football and centers around the actions of others.  For those reasons, the initial OTRS ticket stands and this information must be removed.  -- Caffehamp (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Caffehamp, you cannot be taken as a neutral party in any discussion regarding USC. You have written to me in an email that "As you remember after the Mitch Mustain issue, I have been requested by the USC sports information department to start monitoring articles of current USC athletes and making necessary changes."  I retain the copy of this email, that is in violation of WP:COI.  Please stop.  I am getting tired of this activity.  Bobak (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have contacted the Wikipedia Foundation regarding this issue and how you have an agenda against Mitch Mustain. You clearly are not a neutral party.  You have attempted to remove what you consider to be damaging information regarding Mark Sanchez and put in your own wording, claiming it damages his reputation, yet you have consistently put in damaging information regarding Mitch Mustain.  -- Caffehamp (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no agenda against anyone, this is Wikipedia: my edits speak for themselves. I stand by my comments that you claim to be working for the USC Sports Information Department and making alterations to articles for whatever reasons that entails.  I don't see how this negatively affects Mitch Mustain, who's ability on the field (according to LA Times and other reports is quite good right now) will decide his ability to compete for the starting job in the Spring.  So, please, lets take this to the next level up --which, by the way, shouldn't require the Foundation, but under Dispute resolution, should follow Mediation and terminate with Arbitration.  I have a feeling this needs to go to Arbitration. --Bobak (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not about his ability on the field; it is about subjecting him and his family to harassment and threats of physical violence. Putting in information about people wanting to physically attack or, even, kill his mother is completely unacceptable.  According to Wikipedia, the subject of an article or someone who represents them can request changes be made to an article, or even have it removed.  This has already been done once before and it will, most likely, be done once again due to your insistence on putting information that the subject does not wish to be included.  Your statements regarding how you feel irrefutable information about Mark Sanchez should be removed and the wording changed, because you feel it damages his reputation, clearly shows you have an agenda to portray Sanchez in a positive light, while casting Mustain in a negative light.  I do not WORK for USC, but I am an alumnus of USC and I am in contact with people who work in the athletic department.  I have contacted colleagues at USC so they can inform the Compliance Office that you are attempting to harm a student-athlete's reputation and put his family at risk.  Caffehamp (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What is truly embarrassing is watching Caffehamp and Bobak slapfight over members of the USC roster across a variety of discussion pages. The notion that the controversy involving the Mustain family prior to Mustain's exit from Arkansas is somehow a taboo subject and could subject the Mustain family to danger is a lame pretext to protect Mustain's reputation from a rather humiliating episode in his career. There was nothing about the episode that would enrage a 3rd party to the point of issuing a death threat and the fact that Caffehamp claims to have had a private conversation with individuals who have credible information to the contrary is unverifiable nonsense. Mitch Mustain had his mother fight his battles like a 6th grader and everyone should be able to enjoy a good laugh at Mustain's expense. Bolsen (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.181.7 (talk)


 * As a heretofore uninvolved editor having come hither after seeing Bobak's AN/I query, I certainly won't offer many substantive thoughts before reading a bit more, but I would observe that your reading of our biographies of living persons policy is not precisely consistent with that of the community; it is certainly not categorically correct that "the subject of an article or someone who represents them can...have [an article or some portion of it] removed" and it is emphatically incorrect that "putting in information about people wanting to physically attack or, even, kill his mother is completely unacceptable" where, for instance, that information has been reported prominently/notably/significantly by reliable sources. Consistent with that and with the principle that, where BLP plainly does not entail and absent special circumstances (which, as Bobak well observes, are not, the existence of a previous OTRS ticket notwithstanding, present), the burden is on an editor seeking to remove existing content that is otherwise (at least putatively) encyclopedic to establish a consensus for removal prior to his removing, I've reverted to Bobak's version.  Lest a discussion about the suitability of the disputed content should continue amongst only two or three editors, though, a content WP:RfC or a WP:BLP/N query might be in order; either might help to establish a consensus relative to the inclusion of the disputed material, which might serve to prevent continued edit-warring. Joe (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, nobody is evil here, so the best thing is probably just to leave out the disputed text - which is of no obvious relevance to the subject's notability, which is as an athlete not as a subject of harassment - and move on. I think we should accede to the multiple requests by the subject's family and others not to include this information which they find hurtful and whose relevance is not obvious to any of us.  Yes? Guy (Help!) 22:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have protected the article (on the wrong version, naturally) while this is all sorted out, as the evil mix of slow-moving reverts (a handful a day) and biographies concerns makes it the safest option. It's set to expire in four weeks, or if we can reach a consensus with what to do here, I'll be happy to unprotect sooner. However, all-in-all, discussion is best in this situation. Cheers,  Daniel  23:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine, JzG. I just have one final question for which I'll accept any answer: is this from the original OTRS request?  My only concern is that those outside parties (i.e. the OTRS requesters) complaining about being included are now, since the OTRS request, publicly involved in the dispute (which was noted in the newer articles from this month), and that we as Wikipedia are being trapped into not including any information which has appeared in the national press (which is, summarizing all the stories: the fascinating story of how Coach Houston Nutt took a great team Arkansas team and caused it to implode; see the most recent article, from yesterday, here).  That was the whole point of confusion: because these articles are about how Arkansas seems to have allowed harassment of Mustain (if anyone reads the articles will see) by Coach Nutt's associates, they don't put Mustain in a negative light as anything other than a sort of victim of a bad coach (which he was smart enough to leave Arkansas and simply not deal with the crap there), I assumed that this was no longer a part of the OTRS issue (because it didn't have any negative word on Mustain, rather Nutt & Co, please read the sources I cite if anyone doubts this), so I asked and had a review which said it wasn't, so I re-inserted it on that good faith.  That's how we got here.  I admit it confuses me how this puts Mustain in a bad light, but I can ignore that.  Excuse how long this is, I felt a personal need to state out my position for the record, in case I am accused of pushing POV again. --Bobak (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it's not pushing a POV, but the subject and family find that content hurtful. If you want to discuss it in the article on Houston Nutt, preferably without linking the emails themselves, then that should be acceptable, as I read it, but it's better if we can cover it at one remove, so look at the independent secondary sources not the primary sources. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * All right, thanks. --Bobak (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)