Talk:Rob Grill

Ownership issues in this article.

68.54.62.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is sanitizing this article of any mention of Grills arrest,[1] [2] in several cases calling this information "defamatory" [3] [4] and undoing formatting for reasons unknown.[5] The given reason is this information is "info that is not appropriate in a bio.". I think the problem here is that the anon editor wants this to be a fan page rather than a Wikipedia article.

This editor has also deleted similar information from the The Grass Roots article.[6] Since that article is not a biography, I don't think it is necessary to include Grill's arrests there. However, deletion from this article is unjustified and POV. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Grill's drug bust

How is an arrest that i s amatter of public record not apprpriate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.27.121 (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The word inappropriate is not an argument for sanitizing this article. Please discuss / edg ☺ ☭ 00:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There are two standing references to Mr. Grill's former manager. One is an external link with all these details. It is not appropriate to reference a single incident in such a weighted manner to the article and biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.133.89 (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The reference is to an Orlando Sentinel article which happens to be reprinted in full on Angelo's website, so this cannot be disputed as simply an accusation by Marty Angelo. The Orlando Sentinel is considered a reliable source. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

An arrest that "is a matter of public record" may not be appropriate to include here for various reasons.

• The report of the arrest may not be true. "A matter of public record" makes it sound very official, but that's not always the case.
• The charges may come to nothing; the principle of innocent till proven guilty still applies in California, I think.
• Even if the report is true and even if the person is found guilty, the information may not be important enough to include in the article. There is a tendency to say that no matter how negative a report is, it should be in the article. The BLP policy urges caution. If in doubt, leave it out. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

What would be the basis for doubt here? Beyond simply sanitizing the article that is. As for "may not be true", this claim can be made about almost anything, but we have a source, which is the most certainty we can have that this is true; per WP:V, verifiability is sufficient. The WP:BLP policy specifies the standards for a biography are:

• WP:NPOV, which would forbid sanitizing this article,
• WP:V, which would require proper sources,
• WP:NOR, which would dismiss reasoning such as "the report may not be true, so this should be left out".

/ edg ☺ ☭ 01:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is NOT simply an issue of whether the report is true.

1) If you haven't, please read the BLP policy. 2) Is a report of a charge of obtaining painkillers illegally important enough to deserve mention in a lifetime? Celebrities are under huge scrutiny; the same report about the average person would usually pass unnoticed. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Grill subsequently went into drug treatment.[7] Are you sure this isn't worth including in a BLP? / edg ☺ ☭ 01:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps, after reasoned discussion, it might be concluded that the information belongs in the article. What I stumbled into here was not reasoned discussion, but a revert war. The BLP policy says in effect "if in doubt, leave it out". Until there is the reasoned discussion, it should be left out. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I have been unreasoned here. There's no mocking, disparaging, knife-twisting or piling on. This entire incident is kept to one sentence; details about the plea agreement are actually left out. There's no issue of undue weight here except that the article is otherwise fairly short (the fix for which would be adding more information, not removing this information, as you seemed to find necessary). / edg ☺ ☭ 02:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess what I'm getting at is: would you be willing to restore the information you removed? / edg ☺ ☭ 02:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

edg, thank you.

Just to clarify, I was not accusing you of being unreasonable. Before I became involved in this matter, the sentence in question had been inserted and removed eight or so times. That is my idea of a revert war. I don't say there was no discussion - I know you were involved in some - but it was more like a revert war than it was a discussion.

If after a reasonable discussion it was clear that charges had been laid, that they were serious, substantial charges, that they have not been withdrawn in the interim, and that the info was properly sourced, I would not object if the info was reinserted, and I might even put it in myself.

I'm not sure my point is clear. The BLP policy is that if there is doubt, the information is better left out. In the midst of a revert war, there clearly is doubt. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be pointing a finger here, but by removing this information you are iterating an edit war that you object to. And the edit war you are perpetuating "clearly is" the remaining basis for your doubt. If I were to be reasonable in this discussion, what should I be saying here? / edg ☺ ☭ 02:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Put another way: If I wish to have information removed from any BLP on Wikipedia, need I only delete it, and if reverted, commence a revert war, thereby creating "doubt"? Can I do this to get my way whenever I see biographical information I do not like? I'm sure many subjects of unflattering biographies would be glad to have this tactic available to them. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

1) I removed the information ONCE. It had been kicked in and out about 8 times before I got involved here.

2) The principle as I understand it is that under the BLP policy, the disputed information SHOULD be left out until the dispute is somehow resolved.

3) As long as you and I discuss the procedural issues, we can't deal with the substance of the matter.

4) No harm is done if the disputed info is out of the article for a day or two (or at least less harm is done than if the disputed info is in the article when it should be out.) Wanderer57 (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

- re your last point, I'm going to think about that. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to belabor the procedural discussion, but that "last point" is relevant here. A single editor deleted this information five (5) times, and was reverted by four (4) different editors. The single editor gave little or no reason for this deletion, the "defamatory" claim being flat wrong, and "inappropriate" being vague and unsupported. Furthermore, this editor may have WP:COI issues editing an article on Rob Grill (who FYI does not currently live in California). And as for waiting "a day or two", this information has been left out for three (3) weeks while we have waited for this anon to reply to concerns initially brought up on this talk page.

I'm going to ask you again. What can I say here that I have not already? I have presented a third source demonstrating this is a non-trivial issue in this person's life, and I have left out that information which though true could be unnecessarily humiliating to the subject of this article. I've been quite patient with this, I have followed Wikipedia procedures, and when you joined this discussion I explained all this to you (other than the part about this taking three weeks). Now you wish to remove this information on a vague and apparently open-ended claim of "doubt". For "a day or two", at which point what exactly happens? How am I supposed to address this? / edg ☺ ☭ 03:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you know where Rob Grill "currently lives"? Do you have a personal involvement in this matter? You seem to be pushing very hard for the inclusion of information designed to paint this living person in a negative light. Cleo123 (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Where Grill "currently lives" can be approximately inferred from information connected to this article. Going into specifics would out the guy further. As for "pushing", consider the edit history of this article, which I have not edited in over 2 weeks. (In fact, I did not intend to edit this article further without a reply from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, which I was increasingly convinced was not coming.) Two anons with the same geographical location were repetitively reverting all changes to this article, including changes made per MOS. This appeared to be a very clear case of WP:OWN, with sustained defense of a promotional tone that at least suggests a WP:COI. I objected to this, and the final edit of contention seemed to me especially sanitizing in nature.

I'll be happy to not include this information in Rob Grill, and I'll be just as happy to take this article off my watchlist. For the record, I do not have a personal involvement in matters relating to Rob Grill, unless I have been edit-warring with him or his representative on Wikipedia. / edg ☺ ☭ 09:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No one should be trying to "approximately infer" any personal, private information about the subject of the article. Tracing IP addresses in order to divine the geographic location of someone we suspect is a celebrity is a behavior associated with Cyberstalking. I'm not accusing you of stalking Grill or anyone else. I'm just cautioning you that perfectly innocent investigation regarding fellow editors can be misinterpreted. Wikipedia's Privacy Policy needs to be taken very seriously.

I've seen this over and over again on Wikipedia. Just because an editor deletes negative information from an article, it does not mean that they are the subject of the article! This is a VERY serious assumption to make, with sweeping negative ramifications. The IP's you mention could belong to anyone, including a fan who has never even met Mr. Grill. I'd never even heard of Grill before reading your notice yet I'm "defending" him. Does that make me the subject of the article? No, of course not. All too often people assume that they are, in fact, arguing with the subject of the article. I think there is a certain "thrill" for some people in the idea of exercising some sort of power or control over a celebrity. When we imagine that we are in fact "doing editorial battle" with the subject of the article there is a tendency for passions to become inflamed. I've seen this over and over again. Perfectly reasonable editors get involved in a conflict with someone they suspect to be the article's subject. Suddenly they are fighting tooth and nail to include negative information, just to put the article's subject "in line". This is a dangerous place to go. Assumptions regarding other editors identities should be avoided at all costs. Cleo123 (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

I recommend posting this dispute—the dilemma about the event, its citation, and the issues of reliable sources and undue weight—on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.

I hope this helps. — Athaenara ✉ 07:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: The noticeboard format for section heading and article links:

==Rob Grill==

• {{La|Rob Grill}}

Description of the problem/disagreement.

[Note:   Rob Grill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)   is the {{La}} output in this case]

I hope this helps, too :-) — Athaenara ✉ 08:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Copied from the BLP Notice Board -

I think edg is really out of line here. A cursory review of the sources provided indicates that this matter directly relates to a medical condition. Medical records fall under Wikipedia's presumption in favor of privacy. This individual appears to have left public life long ago. Details regarding his injury and medical records should be treated with the utmost discretion and sensitivity.

I'm even more concerned that when edg doesn't get the answer he wants, his next suggestion is to have the article deleted "as not sufficiently important, a fan/promo page squatting on Wikipedia's servers but not worth maintaining." Seems to me that this user may have a COI of some sort regarding the article's subject. I think his or her contributions warrant monitoring. Cleo123 (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied to there. Thank you for getting back to us on this. A response including a bad faith assumption against me is still much better than the no-reply-at-all which I had at this point come to expect. Per your advice, I won't attempt to restore this information to this article. / edg ☺ ☭ 09:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. For the record, I am not assuming any bad faith on your part. You asked for an objective outside opinion from a biography project member and I've done my best to give you a neutral, objective evaluation based on all the evidence available to me. I'm sure you are a very fine editor. Unfortunately, sometimes when we are involved in a dispute on an article that isn't seeing a lot of outside traffic, tensions can simmer quickly and perspectives can become skewed. It's stressful "fighting the good fight" alone on some page that's low on the radar screen. It happens to the best of us - myself included. That's why I often step back and take a little break when I see editorial disputes beginning to escalate. You did the right thing in taking a break and requesting outside opinions. Thanks for your cooperation in this matter. Happy Editing and Best Regards! Cleo123 (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, this article currently says "Years active = 1966 – Present". If Grill has "left public life long ago", this might need to be clarified in the article. I don't know where to find this information. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Discography

The discography contains solo records as well as those made as member of Grass Roots. The latter ones are already listed in the article on the Grass Roots. Apart from that, in the list in this article, the credits aren't included. I find this all very confusing and not what I expect from a Wikipedia article. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)