Hi Folks, I thought I was probably done here, but I'll offer a few more thoughts... for completeness, etc
Firstly, I really don't like Wikipedia's suppression mechanism. On the one hand it means that when people see a number of revisions suppressed, it's natural for them to suspect something juicy has been removed when it was only one small comment. On the other hand, that also means it is possible to hide large amounts of history while claiming that very little was removed. I'd prefer to see some sort of mechanism that retains the old revisions but obscures the redacted content in some way - then, observers would at least be able to see how much was redacted and by whom. And that would improve openness to some degree.
The lack of openness can lead to discussions like this one, where people can propagate false accusation based on being pointed to what they think is a smoking gun... in this case, a suppression that made it look like something I said might have been redacted, when it wasn't.
And that brings me to the danger that Oberranks and his friends/supporters/whoever are themselves exposing him to. I expect Jennsaurus innocently accepted claims by Oberranks, saw something that looked suspicious in the revision history, and came here to defend him.
This is the third site now, outside of Wikipedia, where Oberranks (or someone supporting him) has continued his false accusations. One was Wikipediocracy, and the other I will not name because it is in Oberranks' real name (and he since deleted most of the attacks he made there). And whenever these accusations are raised again, the actual evidence of what actually happened will come to light again. And it does not make Oberranks look good.
Here's the discussion that resulted in his ban from Wikipedia (yes, he was banned - he didn't just leave)...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ed_sources
So please, Jennsaurus (and others who might be tempted to believe Oberranks' accusations), have a read of that. Look at how firm the ban is, observe the list of signatories, and follow the links to the damning evidence. It's quite clear that the ousting of Oberranks was not a vindictive effort on the part of me and one other person.
No, it was due 100% to the uncovering of his decade-long history of faking content, falsifying sources, copyright theft, and persistent lies. If you know him, go ask him about all of that, now that you have the evidence. (And you'll surely appreciate the irony in his chronic falsification of historical documents).
When you continue propagating his false accusations, Jennsaurus, especially on a site like this that encourages doxxing, you are simply increasing the possibility that someone will dox him. You will raise the likelihood of the one thing that he really doesn't want to happen happening.
Is that really what you want, Jennsaurus? If he, or his supporters, continue these unsupportable accusations, it's surely going to happen. Even if I won't dox him, I think it's very likely that someone else eventually will.
And I'm quite sure there are plenty of people who know who he is - he essentially had lots of self-identifying information on his user pages up until early 2021, getting it removed shortly before he launched the attacks from his employer's email account. It didn't take a great detective to work it out - even Dr Watson or Captain Hastings could have done it.
I'd pretty much forgotten about Oberranks after his accusations appeared to have stopped. Your repeating them again, here, has brought it all into the light again, and has led me to posting links to what actually happened so that everyone can see he's a chronic fantasist and liar. His downfall was his own doing.
Best,
Boing!
