Something these admins have clearly not read 

It's clear from the reckless disregard shown towards Chooserr that the admins of wikipedia are failing to read the materials provided for their education.  In this case the Wikipedia:Controversial_blocks page.  The copy below has emphasis provided where the admins in this situation are failing:

Wikipedia:Controversial blocks
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

While blocking IP addresses responsible for anonymous, clear-cut vandalism is routine, many other uses of IP and username blocks are contentious. Where consensus proves elusive, such blocks are damaging to the community.

The most controversial blocks are blocks of:

 suspected "sock puppets" or "reincarnations" of banned users
 logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions,' regardless of the reasoning for the block
 blocks made under the disruption provision of the blocking policy.
 blocks that, while possibly wise, lack policy basis.

Once you are convinced that a block is warranted, the recommended procedure for | controversial blocks is:

 Check the facts with care.
 Reread' appropriate parts of Wikipedia:Blocking policy.
 If possible, contact other administrators informally to be sure there are others who agree with your reasoning. The administrators' noticeboard, IRC and email are effective tools for this.
 Place the block, exercising due care in the wording of the "reason"  message, and include a link to the user page of the user being blocked.
 Place a notice of the block on the talk page of the affected user, with additional rationale, outlining the facts and the part of the blocking policy you feel applies.
 Be willing to discuss the block with other Wikipedians. Such discussion usually takes place either on the blocked user's talk page, or the administrators' noticeboard (the latter especially in those cases where it was already raised there).

Block wars, in which a user is repeatedly blocked and unblocked, are extremely harmful. They are a source of frustration and disappointment to many seasoned Wikipedians and tend to encourage further bad behavior on the part of the blocked user. Avoid them. Instead, discuss the matter, and try to reach a consensus.

If no consensus has emerged after several respected Wikipedians have reviewed the matter, the user should be left unblocked.