Sunday, 23 August 2009


There have been references to the deletion of Cllr. Simon Moores Wikipedia entry on other local blogs . Wikipedia is the online encyclopedia that is a voluntary community. It is a not for profit organisation which relies on the work of volunteers.

Click here for the link to the deleted entry:
The reason for the deletion of Simon Moores entry is:

“This article or section is an autobiography, or has been extensively edited by the subject or an institution related to the subject, and may not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.”

Have a look at the entry for Simon Moores. Although largely written by Simon (not my view but that of Wikipedia) it has no mention of the fact that he usually calls himself a Doctor. An unusual omission. There’s much here that could be examined but I want to highlight the Wikipedia view of Simon.

Have a look at this page:

which I reproduce parts of below:

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Talk 00:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I take the Wikipedia editor Lord Matt to be Matt B of the Thanet Star who Simon has criticised previously. (For the record I have neither consulted, nor involved Matt on any of this research as it could prejudice his position as a Wikipedia editor, indeed I have never met him.)

This article has remained mostly autobiographical and as such seems to me to be a candidate for deletion. I am open to correction from other editors but it seems the correct action to take. Lord Matt (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Lots of acheivements, but few or none pass the bar of notability. Lots of non-notable acheivements do not add up to make one notable one. Hairhorn (talk) 16:55, 27 July Weak Delete: Alright, we have some serious WP:COI issues, no error; this is an autobiography. That aside, Moores is currently a Ward Councillor for Thanet District Council [1], but that's deemed a "third-level" legislative post per WP:POLITICIAN and doesn't pass that. RGTraynor 08:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Now there’s a concern the term WP:COI means Wikipedia Conflict of Interest. As a general rule if Councillors have a conflict of interest they should publicly declare them. This is news to me so it appears Simon has not been open about this, and I understand as Simon was both an editor of the article on himself, and also the subject of the article, he would have been aware that his article was due for deletion and that a conflict of interest had been established.

Until recently there was a webpage of the published messages Wikipedia sent Simon Moores available. My technical skills are not great so I cannot now find a way to access them, but I took screenshots before they were deleted. I cannot work out how to put them into this post but amongst them here is a message which causes concern:

“Hi Simon. I’ve just removed your link from the eGovernment article. When you edit on Wikipedia you are volunteering for Wikipedia. Your purpose here needs to be first and foremost to produce a good, open content encyclopedia, If your only purpose in editing is to promote yourself your edits are not welcome. Please read our conflict of interest and editing with a conflict of interest guidelines for pointers on how to deal with situations where your expertise would lead you to make edits that are also of benefit to yourself.—Siobhan Hansa 14:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC).”

As I read it this message was not taken on board and as the Wikipedia deleted entry says this became a deleted article because it remained autobiographical having been written by Simon rather than others. On 27th July 2009 this message was sent to Simon Moores:

“An article that you have been involved in editing, Simon Moores has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Moores. Thank you
NB:this is not personal and if other editors disagree with me the page will continue or be remade. You and I are in no real place to write it though.”

I have checked with people who have greater technical expertise than me, and this entry for Simon Moores has been described as “badly formatted”. This is surprising for somebody who promotes themselves as a computer expert.

There are a few other things worth noting in the entry. Have a look at Wikipedia entries for Roger Gale MP and Steve Ladyman MP.

They both have the usual format for Wikipedia biography entries with “Early Life” the starting point. Curiously despite having written much of his own entry, Simon omits any details of his early life and his academic achievements. Life for him seems to have began in 1986 and does not cover his Thanet roots. With his achievements, other Wikipedia users were prevented from knowing that he came from Thanet. I think it is a shame that Simon was not proud of his roots.

Wikipedia’s Conflict of Interest policy says

"A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.
COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.
COI editing is strongly discouraged. When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and notability, accounts may be blocked. COI editing also risks causing public embarrassment outside of Wikipedia for the individuals and groups being promoted."

and goes on to say

"When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference. If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias."

Simon Moores has produced just two third party sources (one of these is a link to his own company). Perhaps more serious was his financial conflict of interest:

“you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being the owner, officer or other stakeholder of a company or other organization about which you are writing”

It is hard to see how the linking on Simon Moores Wikipedia biography to his companies Zentelligence and Airads can be aligned with this policy. These are not the significant achievements Wikipedia is set up to reference.

Again the Wikipedia policy says:

“It is not recommended that you write an article about yourself. If you are notable, someone else will notice you and write the article. In some cases, Wikipedia users write articles about themselves when the more appropriate action would be to create a user page. In these cases, the article is normally moved into the user namespace rather than deleted. If you believe you may be notable enough, make your case on the appropriate talk pages, and seek consensus first, both with the notability and any proposed autobiography.”

Wikipedia decided that this entry, which was largely written by Simon Moores had broken several of their rules and hence the deletion of the entry from Wikipedia.

I think it is disappointing that Simon Moores has

1. Failed to comply with Wikipedia’s procedures
2. Has not shown regard for their conflict of interest policy.
3. As a councillor has not publicised his conflict of interest.
4. Has used a not for profit organisation to promote his company to make money for himself.

I think it is surprising that when editing his own Wikipedia entry he chose to not describe himself as Dr. Moores as he does in many spheres of life, and to not provide any academic information. On Wikipedia he has described himself as Simon Moores, whereas for example the entry for Steve Ladyman MP makes clear reference to Dr. Ladyman's doctorate and references it.

My greater concern is that over a number of years Simon ignored the rules of an organisation he was part of, and used volunteers donations and efforts to advertise his companies.

It does not inspire confidence that Cllr. Simon Moores will act in a correct and proper fashion as a councillor, and as a Thanet District Council Cabinet member.


  1. Happy news at this link - Gerry O’Donnell saved a lady from falling

    Well done Gerry!

  2. Cyril Hoser, George Maison (tory cllrs arrested either with firearms or having armed associates)

    Bill Hayton the tory cllr who still refuses to answer whether he perjured in the High Court in 1998 on behalf of the said Maison.

    Now Simon seems not to be performing too well answering questions.

    PhD status. Royal Marines Reserve Record.

    It is more interesting to me if Simon did serve in RMR at material time because I would have thought it inevitable he knew the Combat Training Team (con) run by James Shortt at Deal Barracks.

    Jimbo and Cabinet Security fiasco this year

    Jimbo's Wikipedia entry

    Brian Ware the Cabinet Security man was in "ILETA" the so called "International Law Enforcement Training Agency" which grew out of the bogus "Combat Training Team" Royal Marines Deal Barracks 1976 - 82.

    ILETA appears now to have taken its websites down.

    piccies from one of James Shortt's International Bodyguards courses .. note the guns

    This is some of the reason Kent Police are none too anxious to answer about years of use of two ranges in Kent. One at Dartford and one in Thanet.

    As I understand it James was an associate of one V Queens V TAVR sergeant (the unit within which tory cllr Maison was arrested but not charged for armed paramilitary activity in 87) and had an RMR sergeant on his "Instructional team" 1982 et seq with serving police officers.

    I would just find it very odd if someone served with RMR and had not an inkling of recall about such unlawful activity.

    And finally Mark

    Private Military Company report re Jimbo Shortt

  3. In addition to this "problem" with Wikipedia, it's noteworthy that the various speaker bureaux with whom Moores is registered have ceased to refer to his education history in the CVs they present on their websites. They did before. The title "Doctor" also appears much less than it once did.

    But that proves nothing. As I have said in a previous comment on here, what is needed is someone with the time and resource to undertake some hard research into Moores's background - to establish whether anything he claims is not evidenced. Until that research is undertaken and the evidence produced, there is an obvious danger in anyone continuing to question his truthfulness. Although in no way do I wish to indulge his sensibilities, he is right that the Law protects him from unfounded allegations.

    In this respect - and I say this as a supporter of you politically, and a supporter of what you are trying to tackle here with Moores - it is disappointing that you have so far not offered the "full monty" that you promised in an earlier post. We are all waiting!

    On the wider aspect, you are right about the way Moores manipulates. He drops in offensive references and uses offensively suggestive pictures in his posts. In the past he has been more overtly offensive and insulting - as I and others have reminded readers recently.He and his supporters will claim that such observations are paranoid or obsessive. They would; they are either involved in his spinning and manipulative presentation, or they are/choose to be blind to it because they are in his political camp.

    Sadly, this is representative of Tory behaviour locally. Moores and others will dismiss the most embarrassing reports (about them) as "non-stories", without ever explaining why. In fact, usually that response can be taken to mean there is substance there, something to answer. Chris Wells, the Tory "peace-maker" will occasionally blog and offer to "sort things" - never to be heard of on that subject again. There are many other ways in which they disingenuously try to fob off bloggers. Given that the bloggers are, I assume, electors, they are effectively putting two fingers up to those whom they represent.

    The Tories locally believe they are above the rest of us. They believe they are not accountabvle for what they do and do not do. They treat the electorate with contempt.

  4. Interesting when you check out the various websites that feature Councillor Moores' availability as a speaker that his 1989 book on a computer software programme is featured, available from Amazon. Crikey, isn't that like something from the 19th century in computer terms? Trading on past glories, perhaps.

  5. Although Im all for someone having a change of career, to be in politics you have to have both a very thick skin and a whiter than white past professional and family life - neither of which anyone can rewrite once elected. I have on occasion dropped into Thanet life and it seems that the only things that Cllr Moores has yet to achieve are a past career in fire fighting (although Im sure he was probably in their reserve service for a couple of weeks!)played a sport professionally until injury forced him to take part in strictly come dancing and saved the country (in a modest, mild mannered way from a secret phone box in the depths of Whitehall - although he would never crow about it too loudly) Perhaps he should stop assuming his many 'look at me arent I wonderful and far superior to you' personas as it doesnt seem to be helping him on the popularity stakes when trying to relate to Thanetonians -he's obviously pissed enough off already! and although I dont agree with the vitriolic voracity of his critics in their quest for the truth they and we as voters do have a right to know if the person we intend reelecting is a Walter Mitty?