> do you know what I got the one-way IBAN for?
Yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=980273295#Proposa...
Your fellow Wikipedians had had enough of your and BHG's squabbling, and they decided it was primarily you needling her. And yes, even in the brief exchange in the thread there, BHG comes off like an absolute prick. In no way does BHG's awful behaviour allow you to excuse your own.
See also your own words "Upon reflection, that was indeed a needlessly inflammatory comment I made. I apologise for that."
Perhaps you can accept you've made more than one needlessly inflammatory comment towards BHG?
* Here you made a snide little comment exclusively about BHG where she'd see it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Adminis...
* Here you accused her of gaslighting: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wi...
* BHG then made a thuggish and threatening post on your user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chris.s...
BHG later characterised this like "oh but he was trolling me and I merely asked him one time on his talk page to stop (which is allowed)", which is bollocks because the "one time" is a long, angry screed written in a menacing tone. But if you want to go no-contact with someone who's clearly bad for you to be around, go no-contact -- don't ever mention them again. Don't interact directly with them. Don't comment on things they're involved in. If you're in something and they join in, politely recuse yourself.
That you didn't, is the reason why your fellow Wikipedians decided to issue the one-way IBAN.
> Also: I was not doing any editing of Brisbane categories
OK, that was not quite right. What happened was: BHG relisted a bunch of small categories for Australian city suburbs (starting with Brisbane), then you commented with unhelpful snark on several of them, and then deleted all your commentary minutes later: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categor...
That's a classic tactic for needling someone watching the page, then playing innocent afterwards, as I'm sure you know. Bonus points for referring to her as "the nominator" rather than by name, for a further level of deniability.
> I can assure you, I was not doing the instigating
Per Beeblebrox: https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11595&p...
"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."
"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"
If you had simply not interacted with BHG after coming back, until the point that she was finally banned, you'd still be editing today. Instead, you got perma'd for violating your IBAN with impunity. And honestly, would you really want to have your IBAN reviewed, maybe even removed... for what? So that you could go back to needling her, and having her bully you right back? WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO DO THAT? IT'S VERY CLEAR NO GOOD COULD EVER COME OF THAT.
> I have not edited Wikipedia since I was banned.
I never said you did. I was explaining to the other HN user how Wikipedians know that banned users have come back under a sockpuppet. Essentially, it is very obvious when the banned users come back and start doing the same things they were banned for, which decloaks them.