User talk:Charlbury4

Sockpuppet investigation
Moist towelett (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Alleged Sockpuppetry
Editor Moist Towlett has left a message on my talk page in the last hour, alleging sockpuppetry. This is a term I have only ever heard before today. I will try and be succinct and 100% honest.

Charlbury4 is ME, Matthew Gordon Banks, the Subject of the Wiki biography in my name. Moist Towlett has a fair point, but is not entirely correct, his emphasis may be slightly misplaced but I am answering the allegation directly. I really do not edit pages. In the long past I have made openly, one or two alterations to improve or ensure accuracy of my own page. I have accused a long time ago Moist Towlett of being over-zealous and possibly attempting to further blacken my name, follow mistakes I have made in life. I have in those years used the user names Bulldog and Strathisla1. If those accounts are available today, and live, I no longer attempt to use them and do not know their passwords. I will never attempt to use them again. I am also willing to promise I will not attempt to use them again. As far as I am concerned I only have one account Charlbury4. I have used it to record a minor change which is 100% accurate. I believe an independent observer would agree that any minor change - almost a "one-off" - I have made in no way seeks to talk up my career.

Due to various changes by experienced Editors, which I have been monitoring but not interfering with, I recently decided to add a very minor amendment. One of the problems with the Wiki page is that it does not give the information that is most relevant to the kind of people in Russia, The Middle East, and South Asia especially who look me up. I was very happy with recent edits over some months. The people that look me up tend to be people in International Relations. There is hardly a mention that I worked for UK Defence Academy in UK and overseas for quite some years. If someone asked me to prove I had been an MP, I am not sure how I would do it. Any recent edit of mine is entirely factual. My work or membership of the House of Commons Transport Select Committee 1992-7 barely merits a mention.

I will never use Bulldog or Strathisla1 again. I could not conceive currently of any further attempt to add a minor edit; though I am very unhappy Moist Towlett has deleted my minor Edit and that of another experienced Editor. I think it should be put back. It is coming seriously to the stage where I was thinking of creating some press coverage about something (my work in Pakistan for UK) when I travel back on 2nd June for the first time in 10 years simply to satisfy the issue of "sources". I do not have time to thumb through volumes of Hansard to prove that, say, I was closely associated with the Privatisation of the Railways, or I successfully ensured seat-belts in mini-busses and coaches for children before they were required for all passengers.

I hope that is helpful. The allegation is confirm by me as "having something in it" but if I was trying to pull the wool over your eyes I would not use the name Charlbury, with a number 4, the name of the small town I live in which is widely known from both my Wikipage and is widely available on Google in various forms. There was no attempt to deceive. I hope Charlbury4 can remain. I hope the recent edits today can be reverted and you already have my promise there will be no attempt at any major change or use of the two old accounts.

I hope others and Moist Towlett will be satisfied with this genuine explanation.

Charlbury4 Charlbury4 (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Please see Sockpuppet_investigations/Charlbury4: specifically, my suggestion to User:ST47 and ST47's countersuggestion to you. The template to which ST47 refers appears lower down within this page.


 * What you write above would be a good start, but I suggest that you not only address ST47's particular concerns but that you consider carefully everything you say. As a minor example, there's no need for anyone to "thumb through volumes of Hansard" when Hansard for the 1990s is available online. But as the biographee, you shouldn't be editing the article at all (other than to fix vandalism and the like): instead, make suggestions for additions on its talk page.


 * Experience tells me that viewing my own prose on the screen can be mind-numbing. Printing out something complex and reading it on paper is (for me) a good way of making oddities and infelicities more conspicuous. -- Hoary (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry allegation from Moist towelett
I have answered this allegation in the previous item. May I add in relation to the following item placed by Moist towelett,

Matthew Gordon-Banks ‎ Reverted to revision 873946064 by MusikBot: Numerous uncited edits, Vandalisation of page by connected contributor or editor close to subject. BLP issues. (TW) current

The above item was placed in my history page today. I have no idea who MusikBot is and they have no connection to me, Matthew Gordon Banks, the subject of the biog I hope that is helpful. I leave it to senior Editors to judge if the actions were vandalism. I do think Moist Towelett 23 May 2019 deletions should be reinstated by reversion and I accept he, or she, had a genuine query about Sock Puppetry.

Charlbury4 Charlbury4 (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)