Chris Sherlock quits

[The Garbage Scow]

EDIT: Richard Arthur Norton added this to Sherlock's old userpage last year
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =388495299

He also brought up this old discussion from 2010, is he saying Sherlock was behind these old problematic trolls?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ckpuppetry

You've got your facts a little off. RAN has been blocked since June 2018.

Right, it was 2010. My mistake.

[Beeblebrox]

So, to the question of "why was he allowed to return" that' actually several questions depending on which return you are asking about. The last account, Aussie Article Writer, was created after he "retired" as Chris Sherlock. AAW was actually doing good, quiet work for some time. Then he decided to let the committee know that it was him and he was doing a "clean start" and of course our only option was to inform him that he was not qualified for a clean start because of the interaction ban with BHG. All he had to do was make a note on his user page or whatever saying he operated the Chris Sherlock account, and he could have gone straight back to what he'd been doing, but instead of doing that he basically went on an "I'm back" campaign, advertising all over the place that he "invented AN" and all this other stuff.

And then he did the only thing he was not allowed to do, and did it like six times in a row on several different pages (and there was a seventh time that nobody had noticed on his user page like a week earlier). I don't think there's any coming back from that, and ArbCom has taken over the block and is his now his only avenue of appeal, but I doubt either the current or future committee would ever unblock without a community consultation as well. I hope he can just move on, I'm sure he would be happier not being a Wikipedia editor, but he has to come to that conclusion on his own, and his pattern suggests that may be a bit of a struggle.

[The Garbage Scow]

And then he did the only thing he was not allowed to do

Right in keeping with his immature behavior over the last 17 years or so. Then he cries "emotional disability" and gets his white knights and enablers to come to his rescue, thus achieving the attention he very much desires, even if he doesn't manage to avoid sanction.

Arbcom has the block and there's to be a renewed community ban from the looks of it, which hopefully provides additional checks if he tries appealing to one or the other.

I totally expect him to come back with a new sock, regardless. Addiction is a bitch.

[The Garbage Scow]

And the cban is final.

[Beeblebrox]

As I commented there it's a fairly unprecedented situation to have an arbcom block and a community ban on the same account, and normally I'd agree with those that say it isn't necessary, but in this case I think it helps to at least try and send the appropriate message. (that message being "for your own good and ours, go away")

[The Garbage Scow]

As I commented there it's a fairly unprecedented situation to have an arbcom block and a community ban on the same account, and normally I'd agree with those that say it isn't necessary, but in this case I think it helps to at least try and send the appropriate message. (that message being "for your own good and ours, go away")

There are a couple precedents, but I can't recall the specifics. If someone has a copy of the old deleted list of banned users you could probably find it. Not that it's really important.

[Giraffe Stapler]

As I commented there it's a fairly unprecedented situation to have an arbcom block and a community ban on the same account, and normally I'd agree with those that say it isn't necessary, but in this case I think it helps to at least try and send the appropriate message. (that message being "for your own good and ours, go away")

There are a couple precedents, but I can't recall the specifics. If someone has a copy of the old deleted list of banned users you could probably find it. Not that it's really important.

I was going to cite Tenebrae as both arbcom blocked and community banned, but then I remembered that arbcom bravely decided only to give him a topic ban. Pathetic.

[turnedworm]

Up until a few years ago, Arbcom could lift community bans in all cases under BASC. It made duplication rather pointless

[Moral Hazard]

Arbs often complain that they are overwhelmed with the work, much of it being private.

Did the establishment of Trust and Safety reduce the workload (besides reducing concerns about personal liability)?

[turnedworm]

I don't think we are overwhelmed any more.

While we have regular meetings with T&S - I think the easing has been down to the community taking care of problems far earlier, nipping issues in the bud so they don't escalate to arbcom.

We still deal with private stuff, but it's manageable

[ArmasRebane]

I was iffy on whether BHG's behavior merited a desysop in whatever case that was, but her behavior since has made it supremely obvious that was the right call (and the people who say 'it was one of the worst decisions ArbCom's made' get corresponding side-eye.)

[Bezdomni]

I don't think we are overwhelmed any more.

Then one of you could order in some planes to dump flame retardant on the latest AN/I forest fire, right? At the moment any potential closing admin for the Piotrus-BHG affair will be edit-conflicted because folks are curious what you've been doing for five months on another issue (if I'm reading correctly).

[el84]

I don't think we are overwhelmed any more.

Then one of you could order in some planes to dump flame retardant on the latest AN/I forest fire, right? At the moment any potential closing admin for the Piotrus-BHG affair will be edit-conflicted because folks are curious what you've been doing for five months (if I'm reading correctly).

There's been more fires that they've been dealing with for the last five months...

[Emptyeye]

I was iffy on whether BHG's behavior merited a desysop in whatever case that was, but her behavior since has made it supremely obvious that was the right call (and the people who say 'it was one of the worst decisions ArbCom's made' get corresponding side-eye.)

Yeah, I'm one of the people eating crow on this one. Not to excuse her behavior up to that point, but my thinking at the time was that maybe Portals were just her berserk buttons for whatever reason. In which case, well, I certainly have my berserk buttons myself, and while she was horrifically uncivil in that one area, she's frankly not unique among Wiki-personalities in that regard. My other issue at the time was that she was primarily desysoped for being (Incredibly) uncivil, but at least one arb cited "using tools while involved" in their vote for what was really more of a technical violation; even the people on the other 'side' of the debate agreed that wasn't really a big deal. Put another way, it looked like they wanted to desysop for incivility, but didn't want to say they were desysoping for incivility because of how fraught that landscape has been through WP's history.

But looking at this, it appears to Just Be Who She Is, and trying to use AAW as a smokescreen for her lashing out at everyone else is...unimpressive. And I do think there's way too much rope extended to "Long-term" contributors as others have pointed out (Heck, Chris/AAW was one of them). So yeah, I was wrong there.

[Chris Sherlock]

As I commented there it's a fairly unprecedented situation to have an arbcom block and a community ban on the same account, and normally I'd agree with those that say it isn't necessary, but in this case I think it helps to at least try and send the appropriate message. (that message being "for your own good and ours, go away")

That's interesting Beeblebrox, because that was not what was communicated to me by the committee. I was told to wait for some time but that there is a possibility I might be able to ask for the community to forgive me and allow me back.

[Vigilant]

Names to faces

[Chris Sherlock]

Yup, I was told that I was simultaneously turning up my nose and smirking at the same time, so I thought I'd post what that might look like.

Edit: the direct link to the image is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Turn ... irking.jpg

I took it in response to Tony1 who wrote that "I'll just turn my nose up at a distance and smirk, rather than assist as I'd begun to."

Full context is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... /Archive_2

FWIW, I was at fault for not giving in to using unicode mdashes. I should have just done so. Would have been a lot less drama. Admittedly, this happened after I had spent hours writing an article for the Women In Red project, but Tony had decided my prose was terrible and he had to find something to pick on.

[Zoloft]

Yup, I was told that I was simultaneously turning up my nose and smirking at the same time, so I thought I'd post what that might look like.

That's worth either a jump scare or a spit take.

Oh, and

[Chris Sherlock]

Thanks Zoloft

It is somewhat disheartening that the One Way Interaction ban was premised under the fact that I was trying to get a reaction from BHG. Given what I had asked ANI to do was to please ask her to desist from responding to me, she then proceeded to say that I was trying to gain a reaction from the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =979713824.

That was right after I was told I was Wikipedia's "most prolific bot". That was from BHG. lol!

The pile one was quite remarkable, and not a single person pointed out what I had been responding to. Several days ago, ArbCom banned BHG indefinitely for personal attacks and battleground mentality. It appears they were quite happy to allow her to make personal attacks for some time. In fact, I noticed they bent over backwards to try to save her.