Talk:Matthew Gordon-Banks

Moist towelett

Moist towelett has sought to destroy all the best details - successfully since 2015 and replace it with nothing of any interest to those who would google. This includes a lot of work undertaken by the British MoD.

This month he has done the ultimate. When the Daily Express has obeyed a Court Order to remove from the internet a false article sensationalised concerning an alleged drink drive charge he has managed to use a "device" put into archive on Court Order (Oxford Crown Court) to remove details he quotes simply because it no longer appears on a Google search.

A young reporter is now in the dock. The Daily Express have removed their article which was copied and I now have to wait for a Court date in 2018 to have this item removed even though it cannot be found on the internet but normal search. His approach for several years has been to blacken my name no matter what the consequences or by what method and I must now question his suitability as a Wiki Editor.

It is especially difficult when I am representing my country in Moscow right this moment. 95.213.152.61 (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Hälsingar. Buongiorno.

If you believe a section of the article is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text.For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add.

If you believe that the content was created in Bad faith, then you may dispute that content edit here.

Now, onto the content I added. I believe that it is not in violation of Wikipedia Policies and guidelines. I also believe I am also not violating the 'People accused of crime' as a verdict has been reached, a conviction has been secured and published in the court record. Unless another judicial ruling overrules the previous, then it shouldn't be removed.

If you feel like you wish to discuss the issue further then use the "help me" template on your talk page or post a dispute on the biographies of living persons noticeboard.

Now for the dispute:

• "This month he has done the ultimate. When the Daily Express has obeyed a Court Order to remove from the internet a false article sensationalised concerning an alleged drink drive charge he has managed to use a "device" put into archive on Court Order (Oxford Crown Court) to remove details he quotes simply because it no longer appears on a Google search." - A guilty court verdict does not count as a case of 'Fake news'. I think you should look up what fake news actually is before you start making false accusations of libellous journalism. The journalist was just trying to do his job.

• "The Daily Express have removed their article which was copied and I now have to wait for a Court date in 2018 to have this item removed even though it cannot be found on the internet but normal search." - The article was one of the first results to pop up in an internet search. As for the archives or "device"(haha), they are standard wikipedia procedure for citing references (please see Help:Using_the_Wayback_Machine). The Archives are there to ensure material persists if it gets removed (due to legal or journalistic pressure), or if the server host can no longer keep the website active (as is the case with alot of local newspapers who are facing increasing financial pressure and as a result are forced to close down at an ever increasing rate). I believe they are essential to making the wikipedia project a fair place.

Finally, if you feel that the 'MOD' work has been removed, please add it back to the article. I myself have made sure not to remove a single character that contributes to the article during my edits, with most of the edits only editing the structure to better meet wikipedia's Manual of style.

Moist towelett (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Also might i remind you, you should refrain from personal attacks on other wikipedia users, please keep criticism strictly content related, not user related (unless it it issued in a constructive manner). Moist towelett (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC on recent edits by Moist towelett

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was to keep Moist towelett's edits. The survey clearly shows support for their inclusion. Wikipedia is not censored and criminal offences committed by public officials is certainly relevant. (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 18:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

---

• Please see the updated determination of consensus here. DrStrauss talk 17:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

There has been a dispute about edits made by myself from the subject of the article.

What do you think about the recent edits (resignation from liberal democrats and drink driving), Should they stay?

Thanks. Moist towelett (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

(A note of my opinion: Keep Subject is a politician and do is covered byWP:Notability although i do believe that there could be some ce to conform to WP:WEIGHT which could be made by other editors.)Moist towelett (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Keep Lib-Dem suspension + twitter "rant" - this is material to a public figure. Weak remove drunk driving - all I see is one source for this (I tried searching for more), and it doesn't seem connected to his public persona. If this were better sourced I'd change my mind.Icewhiz (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Keep suspension/twitter content, exclude drunk driving. I think Banks qualifies as being a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, so the suspension/twitter content should be included as it was widely reported, the drunk driving on the other hand was not widely reported and should be excluded - If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Keep both. I don't see how The Oxford Times (surely a WP:Reliable source) is insufficient to WP:verify the detail of the drink driving, and I very respectfully disagree with Icewhiz that a legal infraction of this nature is not relevant to coverage of a politician, given this position is where his primary WP:Notability extends from. I understand the WP:WEIGHT argument the preceding two editors have tried to make here, but I think a brief mention of the event is in keeping with that consideration. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep both Summoned by a bot - I agree with the comment above that the drunk driving is worth noting in addition to the suspension, based on the subject's profession. However WP:UNDUE should definitely be kept in mind when it comes to the drunk driving. Comatmebro (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep both as per above - I see no valid reason why it shouldn't as both were reported on, Also I've changed "Drunk driving" to "Drink driving" as that's what's used in the UK, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• I might be able to find stronger and more reliable source (a court record) for the drink driving offences, as stated by Icewhiz (talk · contribs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moist towelett (talk • contribs) 13:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  If it is not discussed in secondary sources (beyond Oxford Times), there is a question of WP:UNDUE. Currently this is described at greater length and detail than his stint as a MP for 5 years. If it stays in - it should probably be pared down to whatever he was convicted for (e.g. convicted in XDATE for YOffense, sentences to ZSentence) - and maybe left at a sentence or two.Icewhiz (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  I dont believe WP:UNDUE applies in this case because it is not a viewpoint which is held in an opinionated manner, rather it is a factual court order. Maybe i'm interpreting the WP:UNDUE wrong? Anyone willing to chime in? Moist towelett (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  My apologies, I should have cited WP:PROPORTION. The drunk driving episode is currently discussed in minute detail - while other more significant aspects of his activities are barely covered. I would assume he did something as MP besides just sit on some committee, but perhaps I'm wrong. Same for other activities.Icewhiz (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Note - I cut down the text just to mention the fine and driving-ban. Still not sure it should be in, but if it is in - it shouldn't be too long.Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  In this context, then yes. I think I agree that the weight is not evenly distributed. A pairing down of the event would be more suitable (possibly to 1/3 of its current size). Tack, for the edit. Moist towelett (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• What if the subject has made legal threats towards the media and has been using googles 'right to be removed' in order to remove coverage of bad media?Moist towelett (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  You need a RS covering that. If you got one it may be notable in and of it self.Icewhiz (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

  Well I mean the subject had admitted to taking the journalist to oxford crown court above... Moist towelett (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

  That would be WP:OR by an IP editor claiming to the subject. Sourcing from the subject of the article is generally not a good idea, unless it is a factual correction of little controversy (e.g. on a different wiki - I corrected someone's degrees after e-mailing with them (to request a picture) - they were a little bit off on-wiki (IIRC - it was History of Israel instead of Jewish studies or something similar - and I fixed this after corroborating this matched claims elsewhere)). To claim the subject is making legal threats to suppress reporting you need something stronger than writing on a wiki talk page. I will note that the press is often keen to report such threats.Icewhiz (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, that's not a reliable source for our purposes. But, just to clarify the legal, technical and pragmatic issues here for those who may live outside the EU and/or those unfamiliar with the "Right to be Forgotten", here's a breakdown of what seems to have happened here (assuming the above IP is Mr. Banks communicating with us and is being completely forthright):

1. Mr. Banks seems to have been arrested at one point for drink driving and fleeing police. This arrest and the events surrounding it were covered by a newspaper, The Oxford Times.
2. Under recently-established European Union law (specifically, a CJEU ruling which extended certain provisions of the the Data Protection Directive to search engines), Banks can apply to Google to have links to webpages (including journalistic sources) which publish unflattering details about him removed, if they are "no longer relevant". There are counterbalancing legal principles that could keep these links up in the case of journalistic works and public figures, but you must understand that Google (or any search engine) acts as a proxy for the EU in an administrative capacity (no court is involved unless Google decides to press the issue and foot a legal bill) and it is liable for sizable damages if it is found to have refused to remove information it "should" have, under the EU's high court doctrines on the matter. This means that Google often just chooses the path of least resistance and gives in to these requests. Whatever the case, it seems that Google did in fact remove the links here.
3. However, the Right to be Forgotten can only touch the links in search engines (for the most part). The story actually stays up on the internet and can be reached if you know the web address or you just happen to live outside the EU (as most en.Wikipedia users and editors do). However, it seems from the above comments that Mr. Banks brought action against the actual newspaper as well, in UK domestic court, to get them to take down the story. This may have been successful (or the paper may have just given in), seeing as the story seems to no longer be carried on their website.
4. However, most public-facing websites are routinely archived by certain automated projects; one of these, The Wayback Machine preserved a snapshot of the original story, so when the original version of the article on the The Oxford Times went down, one of our editors simply linked to this version of the article (this is allowed under our policies). It seems (again, from the above comments) that Mr. Banks is now pursuing legal action against the owners of the Wayback Machine, to get this redundant version of the article taken down. However, as the Wayback Machine is operated by the U.S.-based Internet Archive, it is uncertain whether any action in a UK court could have much impact on this version; the U.S. has some of the strongest protections in the world (constitutional protections, no less) for freedom of expression in general and freedom of the press in particular.
5. What Mr. Banks does not seem to fully appreciate, for the purposes of this project, is that it does not matter where the copy of the article resides, or even if a version remains up online at all; all that matters for our WP:Verification standards is that, at the time it was created, the article was a WP:reliable source. Google and the UK courts may have decided that the appropriate thing to do was to comply with his efforts to sanitize his history on the internet, but that's a separate legal matter between him and those entities. We are not going to make a decision about whether to cover this story based on the fact that he has had good fortune in his efforts in the EU. We will make that determination based on our own internal policies on verifiability and WP:WEIGHT, and Moist Toilette is in no way an "unsuitable" editor for following those policies. (In fact, he did exactly the right thing in restoring a stable version of a viable source currently in use in this article and then opening this up to community discussion).

I hope that helps alleviate confusion for incoming commenters. Reiterating my original point for MT in this response, though: no, we cannot mention that he has had this information removed via Google's Right to be Forgotten procedure: even if the IP is Banks, his comments here do not constitute a reliable source. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I will note that it may be possible to retrieve at least PRIMARY RS on the right to be forgotten request to google, in which case it might be possible to source this claim. Whether it should receive attention in the wiki article is another matter (and it might not).

Looking at the IP's claims in the talk above, it would seem he was also asserting google's "right to be forgotten" and also possibly some form of libel charge. If the paper was forced to retract the claim due to libel (and not just this "right to be forgotten" business) - this would impact our use of the information.Icewhiz (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

No, it need not necessarily be libel; I believe there may be other conditions in the UK under which a person convicted of a crime can have reference to that crime removed from publications. And note that the IP does not indicate that the story is a lie, but rather just something he has had success expunging in the UK/EU, and expects us to just honour as if we were an extension of those entities--which of course we aren't. But I don't think we should be pontificating too far into what may be going on here; I'm sure you'll agree that until we have good reason (that is, a solid source) indicating a successful libel suit, we need to continue to utilize our sources as we otherwise would. As you pointed out earlier, all we have at present is an IP claiming to be the subject, whose comments here do not constitute a source. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

It appears the subject of the article is interested in pursuing Legal Action against myself for libel. As he is unaware of my identity and of course my pseudonyms only follow empty links on google, I am immune. But it should be noted that the subject has made previous accusations of 'libel' against myself and could be breaching Wikipedia:No personal attacks.Moist towelett (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Given his approach to this problem, I gave a very detailed look to his comments above to make sure that there had been no WP:LEGALTHREATS against you or other editors; these are strictly proscribed by policies that are very strongly enforced--these can lead to a block even on a first occasion. The "a young lawyer is now in the dock" comment is borderline, but I didn't see anything that explicitly constitutes a threat against you in that post above, however--just a lot of whinging about how you were an "inappropriate" editor because (for some reason) he thinks that the fact that he had some success getting these details removed from the public record on certain sites, that it is inappropriate for you to change the link for the article to another site on which it is preserved.

Unfortunately, while misinformed and to some extent the kind of thing you might expect from a person trying to edit an article on themselves with little experience with Wikipedia or wish to understand and work within its rules, I fear that we are going to be seeing more and more of these kinds of assertions as the years go on and people continue to avail themselves of the EU's new bizarre policy for burying even factually correct reports from search engines. We're probably going to have to develop some policies of our own, specifically for helping users outside the EU understand what is going on with this disappearing content and to help clarify that the underlying sources can be perfectly reliable (that is, they were accurate, factual reporting) but removed nonetheless. As Icewhiz points out, if the actual source were removed from the UK paper's website as a result of libel, that would be an entirely different story; in that case, BLP would apply and we'd probably avoid referencing this story. But we have no reason to assume that now, and the EU's new doctrine allows for some links to be removed, even if the story they point to was non-libelous and perfectly factual, but simply "no longer relevant" (again, as determined by Google which has a vested interest in not looking too closely at the details and thus saving itself legal expenses). Which is exactly why the doctrine is starting to face public furor in the EU; it was not meant to help politicians or criminals to whitewash their personal history, but in upwards of 5% of the requests that Google gets, that's exactly what's happening. Anyway, although the issue is nuanced, I have faith that the en.Wikipedia community will continue to parse the legal fictions correctly and not sanitize pages supported by perfectly reliable sources. There's going to be some headaches though, mark my words.

In the meantime, I see no legal threat from the IP immediately above, but if they (or any IP/account) has done so in the past, let me know. It's probably too stale to act on if its in the archive, but it will be good for editors working here to know about it, if it has happened; if it happens again, it can be taken directly to an admin or ANI and its likely to get an immediate response; this is one thing the mop corps does not dilly-dally with. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anyone arguing that The Oxford Times is not a reliable source. And my argument is not based on WP:WEIGHT, my argument is that Banks is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which is part of WP:BLP, which states - If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it (emphasis mine). This incident (drunk driving) has not been covered by multiple reliable third-party sources, so apparently it is not noteworthy or relevant to this living individual or it would have been widely reported on, so it shoud be left out per WP:BLP. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the elaboration on your position. But you seem to be jumping to the conclusion that a BLP claim has to be verified by multiple sources. Maybe that's not an unreasonable standard for an individual editor to adopt in helping them make WP:BALANCE determinations in cases of BLPs, but no such metric is enshrined in any policy or guideline that I know of--and in practice, vast numbers of BLP details (including the type you reference, which the article subject would rather were not included) have been sourced to a single RS. The question here seems to be less about whether the arrest occurred and more about its relevance, and it seems as if there are relatively few RS about Banks as a subject out there at all (and certainly a very small number used in the article), so this is not exactly out-of-proportion representation of what the sources say about the man. I would say that the event is certainly noteworthy and relevant, given the main causes of notability for the subject, so the question comes down to whether or not a single article can constitute "well documented". I'd say that's a matter that needs to be judged by context, on a case-by-case basis, including such considerations as: the total amount of coverage on the topic, the nature of the claim itself, the question of whether the claim is contradicted by any other sources, and the depth of coverage of the claim in the reliable source in question (that is to say, is the claim an offhand mention in the source, or the main thrust of the piece, backed by detail and context?), and the general standing of the publication from which the source is derived. On the balance of these factors and the other information we are party to here, one source feels sufficient to me, in this instance. Snow ^{let's rap} 18:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not jumping to any conclusions "that a BLP claim has to be verified by multiple sources". I'm simply quoting what WP:BLP (an English Wikipedia policy) states, specifically the section WP:PUBLICFIGURE which says in full:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

I consider this to be an incident of a negative nature, and I also consider Banks to be a public figure. If, as you say, "the event is certainly noteworthy and relevant", then I would expect to see multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the incident, and I don't see, or at least so far no one has presented multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the incident, so my position is - leave it out per WP:BLP. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, but do consider the source of my confusion here: when last I read WP:PUBLICFIGURE, there was no requirement for multiple sources, and when you quoted that section of the policy in your last comment, you included every last word of it, except the sentence stating the requirement for multiple sources (i.e. the part that actually directly supports the position you were advocating for). I therefore assumed that you were trying to make an analogical extension from the portion of the section you did quote. But all of that said, it does seem that you have the right policy interpretation here; under current policies we need multiple sources to support this. Given the arrest occurred in 2017, it's possible additional such sources may manifest (not withstanding Mr. Banks' legal efforts to discourage them), but at the present time, it seems the only policy-consistent approach is to avoid coverage of this arrest.

This whole affair, however, has made me realize how important it is going to be for this community to pay some attention to how we are going to approach BLP coverage in light of the complexities that result in our sourcing as a consequence of the EU's "right to be Forgotten" doctrine. That doctrine was meant to be applied only to very old events relating to non-public figures. And while many observers both within the legal world and without questioned how that was ever going to work and if this doctrine made any kind of sense at all (especially when Google is put in the uncomfortable position of being both judge of the importance of the information and potential defendant in very costly legal action if the subject that the info relates to is unhappy with their decision), this has got to be one of the more extreme cases of the kind of overreach that critics of the doctrine said were likely: a politician has managed to get links removed with regard to a story about his own arrest, which took place mere months ago. The truth is, we now don't know if there were additional reliable sources that have since been hidden from the public, as a consequence of the subject's rapid and apparently highly effective legal exercises. That's something that bears the community looking into, if only to figure out how we are going to approach reliable sources which our EU editors will have less access to than other contributors, or which get removed from European sites altogether, but which were perfectly factual and accurate and still constitute reliable sources for our purposes. Do we save copies of these sources? That seems highly problematic, in multiple ways--not the least of which is that we would never now which ones are going to need to be preserved until they start to disappear. This is very disconcerting; I can only imagine how those living in the EU right now feel about it. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Another question to ask - is he still a public figure? He resigned at the end of 2016 (or at least the wiki article say so) - and this happened afterwards.Icewhiz (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe that former politicians still qualify as being public figures, he was a member of Parliament between 1992 and 1997, and he's been covered in reliable sources since that time. However, many of the BLP claims in this article are sourced to: Biography, Who's Who (reference #2), with no indication on whether the source was online or if the source was the published book. If it was the online source, then it should be tagged as subscription required, and an URL to the web page. If it was the book, then there should be a proper cite which includes the volume, name of the publisher, edition, year of publication, chapter or page number(s) and an ISBN. Their website says - What makes Who's Who unique is that each biographee provides the details for their entry, so it would appear that Banks was responsible for the details for his entry. I haven't been able to indepently verify any of the following claims from his alleged entry in Who's Who (UK). Isaidnoway (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• educated privately and at Sheffield Hallam University
• a BA (Hons) in history and economics.
• leaving the Army in 1983 with a war disablement pension
• chairman of the Schools Committee from 1985 to 1986 and the Works Committee from 1986 to 1987
• worked as private secretary to Cecil Franks...and from 1989 he was senior adviser on Middle East affairs for LBJ Ltd.
• chairman of the Anglo-Venezuela Parliamentary Group
• secretary of the Anglo-United Arab Emirates Parliamentary Group from 1993 to 1997
• obtained an MBA from the Donald Harrison School of Business at Southeast Missouri State University in 2001
• adviser to the Joint Security Industry Council
• joined the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom as Senior Research Fellow, Middle East and South Asia,
• Director, Middle East and South Asia, of the International Institute for Strategic Affairs
• owns Gordon Castle near Fochabers, Morayshire

Back to the right to be forgotten, take a look at the allegation of fraud paragraph on this edit.Moist towelett (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have in my possession proof of Mr Gordon Banks's revocation of driving licence for a period due to illness, his living fulltime where he was born at Gordon Castle pre and post 1997. This has been passed to Wikipedia by email.2A00:23C1:6C0C:A401:4883:4AA5:5319:84AD (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

His work is similar to FCO. No media reports would exist as intelligence work is too sensitive.Bulldog4 (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)2A00:23C1:6C0C:A401:4883:4AA5:5319:84AD (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Alleged Arrest in 2017

Isaidnoway

Mr Gordon Banks was NOT arrested for anything in 2017.

The dilution of every positive thing Mr Gordon Banks has done since 2015 is dreadful. He is too disabled now to cover the Middle East on foot hence his switch to Russia where he first visited in 1984.

What one feels worrying is that unless there is a newspaper article it doesn't exist to some writers. In fact some press articles are not true anyway.

Mr Gordon Banks has worked in British Intelligence for years. His current assignment in red type is no less a cover than working for the FCO as, say, a Second or First Secretary.Bulldog4 (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Bulldog, we do accept WP:reliable sources other than newspapers, but for most purposes, we need reliable WP:Secondary sources that are WP:independent of the source. This is because Wikipedia works on a WP:Verification model that is meant to remove our editors from making their own evlauations of the facts, as this would compromise our WP:Neutrality and open the door to numerous kinds of WP:BIAS. I'm sorry that you feel this disadvantages you, but I'm afraid we can't deviate from those policies in the way you suggest simply because Mr. Gordon Banks "works in intelligence" and thus his greatest contributions are, you seem to be suggesting, unknown. We just can't allow challenged claims in without support from reliable sources.

On a separate matter, since it seems quite obvious that you are (or are suggesting you are) an associate of Mr. Gordon Banks, or someone with a close relationship, you should read WP:COI, because depending on that relationship, you may be required to disclose your conflict of interest on your user page and here.

Lastly, can you provide more details/proof of your assertion that Moist Toilette is the same person as the one behind other accounts that have operated on this article in the past. With an assertion backed up with more concrete evidence, we can look into the matter. But simply making the assertion repeatedly, without WP:diffs or some other kind of support, is considered WP:disruptive on this project (in short, you have to put up evidence when you make such assertions or they may be seen as a form of unwarranted WP:Personal attack. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I simply had my name changed from User:Rhumidian to my current name, Im not using a sockpuppet.Moist towelett (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, MT. I was skeptical of the claim, but trying to WP:AGF with this new user, not withstanding the obvious SPA situation here.

Bulldog4, you are correct that Moist towelett and Rhumidian are the same person. Sometimes a user has a reason to change their user name, and does so using our WP:user name change policy. Note that this is not the same thing as using two separate accounts, without disclosing the relationship between them (this is known as WP:SOCKING and is not allowed). Because Moist Towelett used the rename process, all of his older edits/commons on this page have been preserved and remain attached to his account, and he cannot avoid scrutiny for his actions here, and he has done nothing wrong in changing his name. As to his being a "wrecker" of the content you created, you should understand that this is a collaborative project based on content and verification guidelines which may be hard to understand at first, but which were not settled upon arbitrarily, but rather with a great deal of community discussion. This means that you cannot get too attached to content which you write, especially as a novice, and especially relating to subjects/persons you directly know, because there are good chances that what you write could be changed or removed if they do not satisfy our content WP:policies and WP:guidelines. If you are here to be a Wikipedia editor, I suggest you cut your teeth on a subject which you are not involved with for a few months or years first. If you are WP:NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia, but rather to WP:PROMOTE a topic/person, then I suggest that you give up that effort--because if that is your sole objective, it is going to stand in the way of your understanding the rules that editors must operate under here and you will only come into conflict with other editors who are following those rules (generally without any particular stake in how the subject is presented, beyond objective interest). Snow ^{let's rap} 20:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Proof

"We" are going to provide Wikipedia GHQ with some email original paperwork as the manner Mr Gordon Banks has been treated is dreadful. Even the most simple truthful thing has been deleted and we have highlighted in the past two writers keen to defame him who miraculously no longer edit under their original names.Bulldog4 (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy, Apology and Promise

I would like to thank those Editors who have recently edited the page Matthew Gordon Banks. Mr Gordon-Banks would like to apologise to Moist Towlett and will try, if the system will allow this IP to revove remarks in the Talk Section. This IP promises NOT to seek to change at any time the contect of the biog, but will seek to draw to the attention of Editors material that might or should be included. This is intended to work WITH Wiki Editors. When the subject is access, it is usually because people are interested in what he says on International Relations. Thus it is a rather incomplete Biog. Here is our first suggestion:

This is in fact an alteration suggested. In the 2010 section regarding Oliver Letwin suggest delete "no charges were brought" and replace it with - directly from the Daily Telegraph Article quoted which is very accurate, (on 24th Dec 2011) "the CPS and Metropolitan Police issued a statement stating no crime had been committed" - (In fact it was Dr Sir Oliver Letwin who was cautioned by the information Commissioner)

It is in the newspaper article. Bringing no charges is rather different from the statement issued and subsequently reported by the Daily Telegraph.

We hope an editor might be good enough to look at your DT source article and agree this suggestion is fairer. Thank you.2A00:23C1:6C0C:A401:4883:4AA5:5319:84AD (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

This Alleged Drink Drive Biz

To those editors who mention the Oxford Mail, two points.

1. The Daily Express and Daily Mail copied and embellished an article from a young Oxford Mail reporter. When questioned and investigated they realised it was not true and removed the articles from the internet. 2. It is the Courts in Oxford that have summoned the young reporter to Court in October relating to Contempt of Court. At NO stage has Mr Gordon-Banks or his representatives sought to pursue the young reporter. A2A00:23C1:6C0C:A401:46F:4B2D:1911:C344 (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)s at 11 Aug 2017

Matthew Gordon Banks

Regarding the recent edits concerning "my" surname. May "I" make it clear my surname is Gordon Banks. This appears in my Passport. I was known simply as Matthew Banks as an MP which over20 years ago!

As to Public Life - I left Public life not in 2016 but when resigning as a Councillor in Cotswold District (where I was the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee) in November 2004; some 14 years ago. Being a Member of, any, political Party until 2016 does not in my view constitute being in Public Life.

Finally, whilst The Daily Mail Group and an Oxford paper wrote some things about my driving licence being revoked the articles are substantially inaccurate. This very week commencing 2nd July 2018, both newspapers refuse to cover the current complaints being dealt with by Thames Valley Police Professional Standards of Perjury by two police officers last year, which is easily proven, two cases of gross misconduct where I was forcibly removed against medical advice from my sick bed at home, the alteration to cover the police of my NHS medical records by an NHS nurse, and the defamatory untrue statements of a male nurse from Mountain Health contracted to the TV Police. I am not seeking the sacking of any police officers and certainly not having them jailed for Perjury but I am trying to highlight in the press the above to balance what people write.

I have long since promised not to attempt to alter what little there now is in my entry. All my work overseas for the Ministry of Defence has been removed - thus all that would be of interest to International Relations practitioners. The Alleged anti-Semite remark made when I was suffering very badly from PTSD in my view takes a disproportionate amount of space. At the time I was seeking to draw attention to Tim Farron MP taking money for his Leadership bid from several donors, whom at that time, were under investigation for bribery by the SFO. The only reason they were not charged was because rolls Royce paid a £600m fine.92.38.138.111 (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Gordon Banks

Hello Everyone.

PLEASE could you help me. I AM the subject and my email address not to be published is (Redacted)

Over a number of years two people Moist Toilet and Phillip Cross now banned from Editing have truly destroyed my entry and anyone in International Relations looking me up sees very little most negative.

Recently serious vandalism occurred I believe by two Students. A recent change in the Personal section ought to be removed. It was put in by a non-editor and it has an odd address - not an ISP. Please would someone look at this and look carefully at the History section to see who has done what. A police officer - I have close protection officers - made a change which is genuine. Someone says I am frequently asked to appear on Russian TV. This is intended to further destroy my reputation and puts my life at risk. It appears I made a serious attempt to take my life in the early hours of Tuesday morning and Police visited my home to check on my welfare.

I ask you to reverse the changes made by people who are not proper editors. The block on my own ISP is unfair. I have tried to revert things - they even suggested these students I was a paedophile. It has been hell.

Your sincerely, Matthew Gordon-Banks (Redacted)62.128.207.104 (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

For your information, Mr Gordon Banks, I have for your protection redacted your email address (in two places) from your post above, just as someone else has already done in the copy of the post you placed on the Teahouse page. You say it is not to be published, but placing it here (or on the Teahouse) is publishing it: anyone on the Internet can look at either of these pages, and a great many people do. I have had, and seek, no other involvement with the matters discussed above concerning Wikipedia's article about you. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.42 (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I return to this page upon my name being mentioned not only here but on the RFPP and Teahouse. Perhaps, as per wikipedias rules you may want to consult the Dispute Resolution process (and quit these frivolous and flawed accusations regarding Philip Cross's involvement in the SIS...). I quote you saying "there has been vandalism in the last 14 days including absured allegations of sexual matter with young men" however I am yet to find any such material to be posted on the article for Matthew Gordon-banks in any of the edit history, why would you make this up (particularly such a serious matter that concerns yourself?), it seems comical. You can trawl the edits yourself. Perhaps one might say you have something to add regarding this matter? Moist towelett (talk)

Moist Towlett

The items to which you refer AND the history has been removed.

Your remarks about my comments regarding Philip Cross are most unfair. Mr Cross has edited Wiki accounts throughout the day most days for several years!! He has been banned from Editing on Wikipedia (if that is not proof enough of my telling the truth I do not know what is) and Social media is full of the names, including mine, whose Wiki pages he has altered. He is also liked to journalists and one in particular at The Times. One wonders whether you are in anyway connected with this group given your remarks about my truthful comments. Things like frivolous. People take photo's of my movements and my driver everywhere we go.

The sexual remarks were placed on the internet on 25th October, and within a few days an ISP had put them on the Wiki page. I too am very surprised the history of that action has been removed but there is police involvement. I have not made that point up. It has also this week affected my daughter's teaching career. In my case it happens because some powerful people do not like my attempts to improve dialogue between London and Moscow. I was also accused of having links to Russian intelligence which is nonsense. I only meet diplomats. You will find the article I refer to if you google my name. My dates are correct and we are in contact with the 21 yr olds parents. 62.128.217.99 (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)62.128.217.99 (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for adding clarity. As this is a complex issue I think you should resolve this by going through the official Wiki dispute resolution process, they will allow you to reach a fair and timely consensus regarding your concerns.95.144.83.166 (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Failure to Stop Last edit

I am no longer amazed at the number of editors' interfering with this biog. Mr Gordon-Banks was NOT charged with "Failure to Stop" - several Editor's have simple not read the newspaper report carefully. He is a quote from source 10. "Mr Ryman told the court an officer found Gordon-Banks 'stumbling' along the road 'so intoxicated he had to steady himself against a garden wall.' The Wall was in Mr Gordon-Banks's own garden! In truth he had never walk anywhere but that's another story. No newspaper reports incorrectly, no newspaper reports he was charged with "Failing to Stop" why do so many Editors keep "making it up"! 13:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)62.128.217.97 (talk)

One of the newspaper articles says that in that incident he failed to stop. One could reasonably infer that he was charged with failure to stop. However, the article does not say that he was charged with this. So you're right: it should go.

WP:PUBLICFIGURE says: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

Two incidents, one source each. This isn't good enough, so I have removed this material. Anyone wanting to readd it should first get agreement on this talk page for doing so. -- Hoary (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Recent Edits _"Failure to Stop"

Once again, Mr Gordon-Banks was NOT charged with Failure to Stop". Editors are not reading source 10 news item carefully enough. Here is the key phrase from a Prosecutor not using words carefully (deliberately) "Mr Ryman told the court an officer found Gordon-Banks 'stumbling' along the road 'so intoxicated he had to steady himself against a garden wall". Mr GB is disabled. He had actually walked nowhere. The garden wall was his own garden wall. So why do Editor's insist on adding this Failure to Stop unless it is vexatious? 62.128.217.97 (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes. You have already said this. -- Hoary (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

1996-7 Parliamentary Private Secretary @ Dept of the Environment

In the over-editing and vandalism on this biography an (any) experienced editor has not replaced wording in the Parliamentary Career Section which is probably the most important item removed. Please may I suggest wording be added along the following lines, please: "1996-7 PPS at the Department of the Environment to Minister's of State, David Curry and Robert Jones". 1. source can remain item 4 2. Strongly suggest placing in "Dept of Environment" as most readers will not know whom Curry and Jones (now dead) were, or which Department they/he served in. Gordon Banks's responsibilities were "Local Government, Housing and Planning" (also covered in the item 4 press release used as evidence which came from the Local Government Association) I hope this is helpful. MGB92.29.194.218 (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

1992 Gordon Banks made the only Conservative gain in England

(Removed a long time ago by someone) In the early stages of this biography it should be added by any experienced Editor that Banks made "the only Conservative gain in England" (in the 1992 election - which was a spectacular local win against the trend of Conservatives losing a huge number of seats. Proof can be found with an easy Google of BBC election results to quote BBC. (The Conservatives also one one seat in Scotland, Aberdeen South and one in Wales, Brecon and Radnor) 92.29.194.218 (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Gordon-Banks

I would like to thank Editors whom prevent a further and very nasty alteration to my Wiki bio on 1st June. Between June and 16 June, I have suffered frequent and nasty intrusions into my private life. I do not know whom the now blocked perpetrator was but I am certain what they had to add was both defamatory and untrue. In the last 14 days I have been subjected to huge pressure under social media. My Wiki page has been filleted of most of the useful information outsiders might require. Phillip Cross and Moist Towlett who have been banned have alter the balance in favor of bad news rather than my career. This latest example Wiki editors have fast blocked is clearly untrue but as he is blocked I cannot msee the exact allegation - which I expect is something sexual. It is tiresome that Not a Single Peice of evidence has ever been produced. Thank you for blocking these rogue editors. MGB2A00:23A8:983:6D01:7909:63A8:F375:7FCF (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Umm…When did I get banned Moist towelett (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

JKA HARPER Re Matthew Gordon-Banks

Although recently US Editors with no axe to grind have made better shape of MY biography, we now have an edit from JKAHARPER whose names is familiar as are 2-3 others who work for the UK State in besmirching the names of those who take alternative views to UK Govt policy.

Mr Harper has added in what he regards as the same articles re drink driving when a consensus had been agreed - not as he alleges by sock-puppets or friends of mine - but by editors I believe based in the US.

1. The concensus is broken by JKAHarper. 2. He makes a hash of the changes and does not get the sex correct of an alleged victim, who turned out to be a fraudster in her insurance claim. 3. He places a heading of Expulsion from the Liberal Democrat Party - there cannot be any evidence for this as I resigned.

In Jan 2021 when matters come to Court it will be seen that my Insurance company wrote as long ago as 2017 that I could not have been the driver of the car in question for the detailed reasons my insurer sets out.

These changes are done by State backed employees. I ask that the recent changes be undone and I consider it libellous on the part of JKAHarper to suggest I have anything to do with American editors I have never even heard of.2A00:23A8:983:6D01:40F8:7679:FA3D:A237 (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)