Kumioko wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:45 pm
[...]
They know the CU tool isnt trustworthy so it's easy for Bbb23 to CU people and find associated socks to use to ban them. Of course they aren't socking, it's just that the tool can't tell, but it still gives Bbb23 thebability to justify blocking them in retaliation.
This is irrelevant to the instant ArbCom case. In this case, a noob created another account, which was openly acknowledged. Without necessity, Bbb23 checkusered and blocked, using the checkuserblock template. RAHayworth, who had inaccurately tagged the user's article, unblocked, having recognized the error he had made and the lack of necessity for the Bbb23 block.
Because RAHayworth had undone a checkuser block, he had violated what appears to be a policy, that ordinary admins do not unblock from a checkuser block. However, there is a reason for that policy, but it did not actually apply here. So RAHayworth was following the old IAR, dealing with substance rather than the exact prescriptions of rules.
There was a whole series of admin errors here. But errors are not cause for desysop; generally, rather a pattern of behavior that would lead to an expectation of enough necessary cleanup such that it's not worth keeping the admin.
Something else is obviously going on, old grudges being played out, or just general rule-bound wikilawyering.
The real problems are avoided in favor of finding blame and kicking scapegoats. And so the real problems will continue, and each time take enormous amounts of editor time in order to accomplish what a sane system would literally handle in minutes.
It is not only that nobody is responsible on Wikipedia, but also that no value is assigned to editor time, and no value to creating what would make the "free knowledge" actually reliable. That would take structure, and structure is Evil.
Now, that's a POV, and it dominated Wikipedia from the early days. Question it, and you were, ipso facto, not a "Wikipedian," you were an outsider, to be shunned and banned as quickly as possible.