Talk:Michael Lockwood (guitarist)

Copy vio

I removed a large chunk of text which was as far as I can tell copied straight from http://music.aol.com/artist/lions-and-ghosts/23712/biography. This is not a page for the band so it shouldn't even be on Michael Lockwood's wiki page. --ImmortalGoddezz 21:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's get a picture up

Here is his personal page:

http://www.myspace.com/michaeldeanlockwood/photos/albums/my-photos/578599#mssrc=SitesPhotos_SP_AlbumCover_ViewAlbum

SChalice 00:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

COI removal of sourced content

In this edit, Monotune, (who claims to be Micheal Lockwood), has repeatedly removed this sourced content from the "personal history" section;

In February 2017, Presley said that her daughters were taken into protective custody and she opposed Lockwood's request for spousal support, claiming that she had found hundreds of images and videos of child pornography on his personal computer.

Sources

This is content that a simple Google search shows is supported by multiple reliable sources, and additional sources confirm that there was a police investigation, that Lockwood's computers and other evidence were seized followed a warranted search of his property, that the children were removed from the home, and first in the care of Lockwood's mother-in-law Priscilla Presley, and then custody went back to the mother, his ex-wife Lisa Marie Presley, while the court only permitted supervised visits for Lockwood. The content, (in some form and with supporting refs of course), should be re-instated. jmho - wolf 19:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree (Walker Snarling) (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The computers taken by the police belonged to Lisa Marie Presley. Lockwood was never investigated. The children were removed from Presley as well and she was ordered to go to rehab. The judge awarded both parents 50/50 custody. The tabloid articles were based on lies and slander Lisa Marie filed in court to obtain custody of the children. True Facts! Monotune (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Thewolfchild, (Walker Snarling), User:Monotune, maybe this is a case to take to WP:BLPN. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

...Or COIN. Or SPI. Or ANI. This is an SPA that with less than a dozen edits (total), has violated COI, sockpuppeted, edit-warred, posted legal threats, (am I missing anything? I think that's everything). I'm not sure what is to be done with this matter. This person is clearly not here to help build and maintain this project, but instead have the very singular intent of removing unflattering, but relevant and supported content from a BLP that they appear to have a very strong connection. They don't show a willingness to abide by our policies & guidelines, or to be particularly co-opertive on discussion pages, (instead their behaviour is IDLI, IDHT, refusal to DTS and possible CIR). Drmies what do you see as a (realistically) best outcome here? - wolf 01:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Thewolfchild, this is also a real-life person who is not a Wikipedia editor and is trying to ... well, whatever it is that they want. Yes they are ignorant of our guidelines and how we do things, and so are many other people, and it's not his fault. OUR job is to a. write good articles and b. protect living people. What we need to do is find a solution. Please be more mindful of WP:BLP. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. - wolf 01:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Protect living people? That's not usually what's done on here. I read articles, not write them and I can tell you that living people on here are only protected if the writers like them. 173.16.27.205 (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cjhard: As you can see, there is already a discussion in progress here regarding this content. You should perhaps join in, or at least wait for a conclusion, before arbitrarily removing the content being discussed. - wolf 13:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild:

It's a 6 year old unsubstantiated accusation of possession of child pornography on a biography of a living person sourced to E-Online. Also work out how to engage with other people in a collaborative manner. Cjhard (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The accusation was made and it triggered an investigation. It doesn't matter if it happened 6 years ago or 6 decades ago... it happened. It's reported in reliable sources and that's why it was included in the article. And before you get on your high horse and preach to anyone about collaboration, take a good long look in the mirror first. - wolf 02:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

What was the outcome of the investigation, wolf child? Cjhard (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I like ice cream, my favourite is neopolitan, what's yours? - wolf 01:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The outcome of the divorce allegation investigation [1] didn't meet the narrative that some want so it was reverted. Neither Brentwood nor TBI found any wrongdoing after an exhaustive search of 80 electronic devices, including the devices that Ms. Presley turned over to law enforcement. It's time to put this to a formal vote with a formal consensus and take editor personalities out of the equation. P37307 (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I would hope that "unsubstantiated accusation of possessing child pornography parroted in the biography of a living person" would not require an RfC, despite the personality of a certain editor. Cjhard (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I was shocked when I came to the page and no follow up to the entry had been made in years it was added and I tried to clear it up only to be met with resistance. Personally, I don't think it should be in there, esp since the multi-state investigations cleared up the allegations made during divorce proceedings, the only inflammatory statements were made by a divorcing party trying to leverage a financial gain in court, and even the children being taken into protective custody part was exaggerated by the Presley, as the children went with their grandmother and both parents had full access to them, according to the sources, during the investigation. P37307 (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's really obvious that the content should be removed. I think Michael Lockwood himself (understandably) trying to remove the content didn't help things and a few editors have become positional regarding the content as a result. Posting to the WP:BLPN may be an appropriate resolution as Drmies suggested, if you'd like to have enough eyes on the topic to overcome any stonewalling. Cjhard (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not a Michael Lockwood fansite. We don't sanitize content so it only says nice things about people. We include relevant, notable content that can be supported by reliable sources, like all the ones that pop up in a Google seach of: "michael lockwood child porn", for example. Basing content decisions on stupid questions like "What was the outcome of the investigation" is silly. Do we exclude everything about the Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman murders from the OJ blp because he got off? Nope. It doesn't matter what the outcome was because either way we would include that as well. Right after a couple sentences detailing Lisa Marie's accusations and the subsequent investigations, (along with refs), the paragraph could conclude with "Neither Brentwood nor TBI found any wrongdoing after an exhaustive search of 80 electronic devices, including the devices that Ms. Presley turned over to law enforcement.", (along with refs). It's pretty straight-forward. - wolf 03:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild I never heard of the man until I came to his page. So, I'm not a fan editor. If you look at the edit links I included in my reply up above, my edit did include something of that sort as you suggest with citations but it was reverted. P37307 (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

This edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Lockwood_%28guitarist%29&diff=1133432295&oldid=1133422161&variant=en (Sorry if reply out of sorts, on mobile) P37307 (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

That's ok, I didn't think otherwise. I appreciate the approach to editing you've taken here, you aren't making this personal nor did you arbitrarily remove disputed content while there was an active discussion on the talk page about it, nor are you pushing really hard to keep that content out for... reasons. I think if we all just focus on WP:EDITSNOTEDITORS, we'll be able to collaboratively resolve this. - wolf 13:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I have reinstated the investigation's conclusion with wolf's suggested wording. I really don't understand why some people keep reverting anything regarding the investigation. We have a direct quote from an investigator that they were not able to conclude that a crime had taken place. We have to apply WP:BLP here. Tvx1 16:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, it appears that as of Lisa Marie's death custody of their daughters was shared between her 60% and Lockwood 40%, which is unrealistic if he had been convicted for those accusations. He might even end up with full custody now. Maybe the custody situation should get a short mention in this article too. Tvx1 16:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Ftr: it wasn't my "suggested wording", I was just quoting P37307, but doing so because I basically agreed with it. Also, pleae note that that The Daily Mail (UK) has been deprecated as a source as it's unreliable. That said, it may be worthwhile to keep an eye on the custody situation. Typically, the father should get 100% if the mother dies, but that's not always so. - wolf 17:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)