The real Wikipedia FAQ: How Wiki witchfinders block users

The real Wikipedia FAQ: How Wiki witchfinders block users

The sequence here is absolutely how Wikipedia's governance system works, it is an extremely typical example of how new users are despatched.

Step 1, an indefinite block, placed on a user with no other prior blocks or even any warnings, merely citing the vague page NOTHERE, which is just an essay, not even policy (seems like the recent advise to admins to stop doing this hasn't reached Alex Shin)

Step 2, wait for the new user to fail to read the blocking admin's mind and react the way 95% of humans would, with anger and confusion.

Step 3, decline the block using the usual copy-paste reason, failure to accept and understand, blah, blah, which I personally have never seen be used successfully in a situation where the initial block hasn't been explained properly, to extricate a new user out of a hole. It only ever seems to further confuse and annoy them. The perfunctory copy-paster, Yambla, is never seen or heard of by the user, again. Fine work. Real commitment.

Step 4, realising the user has a 1% chance of getting this block lifted in procedural grounds due to the complete and total lack of due process, Alex only now provides a full explanation for the block, not for the user, but for then benefit of the next reviewer.

Step 5, wait for the angry and confused user to edit themselves into a deeper hole by addressing the reason line by line in and angry and confused manner, where they make classic newbie mistakes like not understanding this process is not a negotiation or even a conversation (silly them, doesn't realise these admins don't spend hours copy-pasting stuff to them for no reason!), it is merely a procedural step to prove to they are not willing to accept the total validity of the initial block.

Step 6, have a final reviewer turn up, after a sufficiently short time to demonstrate they've not even properly read their defence, use the user's continuing failure to understand this is not a negotiation or even a conversation, to loudly declare with one vague and dismissive statement which completely ignores the user's line by line attempted defence, the that block is totally justified, and they are on VERY THIN ICE! Great job. Must take real effort to deliver this kind of thoughtful personal service, eh MSGJ?

*Step 7**, when then user again reacts with confusion and anger, still not realising that referring to what just happened or even addressing the last reviewer, is totally not part of this game at all, do the final perfunctory step of revoking talk page access, which is the customary way these days to end blocks placed on confused and angry users. It must be nice to be an established user, eh Boing!?, where you can be as angry and confused as you like in the same situation, even in the face of completely valid blocks, and yet you will never be locked out of the precious, as a final and clear message you are not wanted. Always a way back for established users. The complete opposite for redshirts.

This is classic half-assed adminship, the normal power-play of haves and have nots, ins and outs, wizards and muggles. It barely even follows the basic admin conduct standard of a requirement to patiently read and politely respond, while ironically expecting that to be the way the blocked user conducts themselves.

Such double standards and basic failures is the hallmark of Wikipedia governance. I could write a bot to do it faster and with more actual compassion and understanding.

It is indefensible. It is so bad, there isn't even any point examining if the block was actually justified, since under these conditions, a completely innocent user cannot escape the inevitable lockout if they do not instantly and completely submit. It's a classic witchfinder process. If they get angry and protest, they're guilty.