User:Charles Matthews/Hoax investigation

Hoax admission
Since you have now admitted knowledge of the hoax nature of that page Cayley-Newbirth operation matrix, and that your comments at VfD defending it were in bad faith, I am going to pursue this matter. Since I think you should be banned, please answer with care.

First point to put to you: did you create the page, as the anonymous editor 65.177.73.18, on 4 April 2004? (And if not, what was your extent of knowledge of it?)


 * No. I wasn't around here until mid-September 2004.  My IP number is 66.171.something.  I can't remember exactly, but it's the only IP address I've had since July.  I have no knowledge of it, and do not engage in editing math articles.&mdash;ExplorerCDT 13:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Second point, you have been editing under the current user name since October 2004. Are there any other edits you wish to be identified with on the English Wikipedia? In particular, do you wish to make public any sockpuppets you may operate here? Were you editing Wikipedia earlier than October 2004? Are there any friends or collaborators who edit here who have to your knowledge also been in some way involved or complicit in hoaxing? Do you have anything to do with the Bryleigh's Theorem hoax postings, or knowledge about them? When you refer to 'clues' in your VfD edits, would you like to explain what clues or cues to the hoax nature of CNOM were offered, and by whom?


 * No earlier than September 2004. No Sockpuppets.  I'll do an occasional tongue-in-cheek edit, but no hoaxes.&mdash;ExplorerCDT 13:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Third point, do you have any knowledge relevant to the recent User:Slim Jim vandalism attack of small hoax edits in mathematics?


 * Nope.&mdash;ExplorerCDT 13:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fourth point, since the CNOM page shows considerable 'insider' knowledge of mathematical jargon and habits of writing, and you made some plausible allusions to mathematical matters at VfD, will you disclose your academic involvement with mathematics, or whether you have been supplied by someone else with this kind of material?


 * I suffered through a few semesters of calc, but never majored or minored in math or took courses other than that required as prerequisites in Economics. I think I only know one person (a teacher) with sufficient mathematical knowledge, but he's been serving in Iraq with the National Guard.&mdash;ExplorerCDT 13:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fifth, since your user page contains a number of comments of an aggressive and antisocial nature, such as the sneering about 'civility', would you like to give an account of yourself in relation to the WP project which would convince anyone that you have some intention of being a better community member in the future?Charles Matthews 12:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * No. Warnings should be taken at face value. Now find something better to do with your time. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 13:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Because I like a clean talk page every month, this discussion will be deleted in one week, irregardless. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 13:27, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One more chance to be cooperative. You wrote at VfD:

''The article has been up for 8 months. You can only leave so many clues. ;-)''

Smileys don't actually mitigate. 'You can only leave so many clues' refers to what in particular? Charles Matthews 15:31, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't need any "chances" from you, nutjob. Reflecting on my state of mind when I added that contribution, I should have written "One can only leave so many clues" as that was my intent. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 15:35, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you're in any position to be abusive, or evasive. You have put yourself in a false position in the community. Clean up your user page, clean up your act, or take the consequences. Bad faith editing is an automatic problem user badge. There are still the questions: what were your anon edits here, what are these 'tongue-in-cheek' non-hoax edits, why are you know so sure about the CNOM hoax since you don't seem to have studied abstract algebra?

By the way, I'm aware there is an RfC up for you.

Charles Matthews 15:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and there's an RfC on your buddy fvw too. What's it to ya?
 * I don't think you're in a position to continue harassing me about a hoax I had nothing to do with, or to lecture me about my user page (after all, I only disagree strenuously with one convention here). I don't have to answer your questions and I won't, because I feel as aforestated, you have no right to continue harassing me just because you "think" (and wrongly too) that I had something to do with fostering CNOM or you want to satisfy some self-appointed power-trip of superiority. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 21:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea who fvw is. Flogging a dead horse would seem apt for 'opposing' me for the ArbCom elections, now over. There has been a rash of hoax edits, and if you want to dissociate yourself from them you have an odd way of doing it. Charles Matthews 11:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Planning to blame me for your ArbCom election loss, too, Torquemada? The insinuations and accusations you posit are looser than a 40-year old prostitute plying her trade in Atlantic City, NJ. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 18:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Think you don't get it, XCDT. If you are not involved in the hoaxes, except peripherally and by chance, you have a really strange way of showing it. I haven't misrepresented you. Charles Matthews 18:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)