I am not usually one to doubt Wikipedia. I don't care if it is sourced or not my theory is if it is not true some one will change it. But now that articles are sourced my fear is that people a growing lazy and not challenging things.
The article Banksy about the English graffiti artist, sources an article by the BBC to claim that Banksy's real name is Robert Banks. Though I read the article and the source claims that Banksy's name is Rob Banks. Which is a pretty common name but what is funny is if you Google "Rob Banks" instead of getting articles about people you get articles about how to rob banks. In other word how to advice committing bank robbery.
Plus to top it off if you Google "Robert Banks" you get articles that source the BBC article or the Wikipedia article no additional information on Banksy's real name. It seems like a pretty old joke. It reminds me of how my uncle once told me about how he would sign Uben Hadd on any contract he didn't want to sign. My theory is that Rob or Robert Banks is all a ruse. It is another prank pulled off by Banksy on Fergus Colville or by Fergus on the BBC.
Banksy was asked why he clings to anonymity, he said: “So I can do my work without being impeded by arrest.” That motivation is all I would need to not let a reporter have be able to rat me out. In the BBC article Colville claims that he "just phoned up people ... that knew [Banksy] and set up the interview", before Banksy was famous. It seems to me that Banksy would have had the most to louse by revealing who he really was to a reporter that he didn't know before he was famous. People now claim that the anonymity helps fuel his success but before Banksy was famous officials would not have been so likely to take a vote to preserve his work they would have arrested him. So either Colville is some one that Banksy knew back in the day and has betrayed the trust or Colville is in on the scam.