This is what I love about Wikipedia. People (including Hitchens) complain about anonymity, but the two biggest fuck ups in this entire epispde, the original block and now his ultimate punishment, being muted, were done by people whose identities are known - Guy Champan and JP Gordon.
The issue is not knowing who these people are, the issue is not being able to hold them to account on Wikipedia, for what they do on Wikipedia. All that knowing their identifies allows you to do, is hold them to account in real life. And there's only two ways to do that, by publicly shaming them, or via legal action. The former is useless, these people are shameless. The latter is largely pointless.
In terms of on wiki actions to that end, both are Administrators, so that means it has to be a pretty brave person to undo one of their actions, and by definition, it can only be done by another Administrator (since it is well established the WMF itself never dirties it's hands to rectify injustice, and there would be a riot if they did so in anything but the most obvious cases).
Both of these shitlords know Hitchins has already lost the game, largely because he didn't know what the rules were in the first place. Like so many before him, he persisted for too long under the impression that on Wikipedia, facts and logical argument matter, and that there is something akin to justice or at least proportionality.
He clearly had his talk page access removed once it became obvious to JP Gordon that Hitchins was wise to the game, and no longer wanted to play. Once a blocked user starts referring to their experience of Wikipedia as Kafkaesque, you know they're toast. As if to prove the point, JPGordon weight to explain himself as follows (a very late explanation it was too).....
Any admin who wants to is welcome to restore the user page access. I know nothing whatsoever of this conflict other than what I was drawn to as a result of the request for unblock. Just like his unblock requests, the verbiage on his talk page did not seem to be addressing the reasons for his block, and did not seem to me to be going in a useful direction. As far as "who is jpgordon", well, I'm probably one of the least anonymous editors on Wikipedia; I've been entirely public in my networked life since the early days of usenet and BBSing. But that's meaningless here. The question is asked, "in what area of public life J P Gordon (whoever he or she is) has any power or authority over Mr Hitchens?" That's easy. I'm one of 1,211 administrators on Wikipedia, and, like each of us could, I exerted blocking authority regarding the Wikipedia user account identified as User:Clockback, with the intent of reducing disruption to Wikipedia. Obviously it has failed in this instance; the disruption instead increased. Oh well. --jpgordon 22:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Imagine my surprise, in reading those words, to find the following message on Hitchin's talk page......
No, that's not going to get you unblocked. It wouldn't surprise me at all if someone removes your talk page access if you try this approach again. --jpgordon 16:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
That wasn't a random comment, but was what JP Gordon thinks is an appropriate way to decline an appeal from someone who so clearly either doesn't understand or doesn't accept that in order to be unblocked, he simply has to admit guilt for a crime he didn't do, and say he won't do it again, even though the reasons for his alleged crime would still exist if the Wikipedians persisted in treating this matter in isolation.
Rather than wait for one of those other 1,211 Administrators to come to the conclusion he had, and perhaps because he could see none of them were going to, he decided to just do it himself, a day later. Even though he could see that what was happening on the talk page, while not textbook appeal negotiation, was at least aimed at resolving the issue. He wasn't simply ranting and raving into thin air, he was being talked to by three users, Kingsindian, onetwothreeip and another Admin, Swarm.
Indeed, what perhaps rattled JP Gordon into muting Hitchins, was seeing Swarm's rather generous act, which he explained here.....
Administrator note: I tried to close this as "no consensus to unblock" before sufficient time had elapsed for this to be considered a "community block" (which is a block that ends up endorsed after "due consideration" by the community, thus becoming a de facto CBAN). I did this in an attempt to avert unnecessary drama, prevent the escalation of an unintended CBAN, and to let this user retain the normal options for unblocking. Both the OP here and the blocked user have objected to the closure as too quick, and while I thoroughly explained to them the much more serious consequences of a formal community-endorsed block that has been given "due consideration", the OP has strenuously insisted that they want a fair trial. So, if the consensus to endorse the block continues to hold for a reasonable amount of time, that is a risk that the blocked user was made aware of and decided to take. Swarm 10:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
A fly in the ointment there being that it had already been open for 24 hours, which is considered the minimum for debating a community ban. That it had not been so closed, perhaps shows the other 1,200 not involved in the case can see the weakness of such an affirmation based on the specifics and general shitness of the efforts in community review thus far, even if not minded to undo the original block.
But it seems clear that all that further comment from Hitchins was going to do, was further build his case in his own mind, if not in general community, that he has been totally fucked over, by the unaccountable and completely illogical Wikipedia machine. Which, as Hitchins has already identified, is geared to one goal - protecting and encouraging those fools stupid enough to dedicate enough time to understanding how the game is played, and willingly playing.
He has already figured out the best winning move after seeing his detractors deploy it numerous times - if you find yourself in a hole, caught in a lie or a brazen act of hypocrisy, the best move for any Wikipedian, is to say nothing, or simply answer the bits of the post that don't land them in the shit. After all, what can anyone do to you? It's a volunteer website, so nobody can be forced to admit they are wrong. The only means Wikipedia has to even try to do that, is blocking, and as Hitchins has pointed out many times, the person arguably responsible for triggering his "bad" edit, is not blocked, and nobody else seems interested in the wider context at all.
As a further example, bearing in mind Hitchins has frequently cited how complex and confusing Wikipedia is, as he attempted to get unblocked, it was not surprising to see Guy make a post like this, in the place where he is supposed to be justifying his block.......
How many times do I have to explain this? The original block was for WP:TE/WP:DE/WP:EW (and WP:POINT, frankly, and possibly WP:CIR, certainly WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS), the block review that you instigated has shown that in addition to being tendentious and disruptive, all this user's edits for the past decade are also WP:COI, despite numerous past warnings, and many are WP:PROMO. This is a user who simply does not accept our COI policy and who views his opinion as ineffable truth (m:MPOV). Add WP:NPA and (of course!) WP:NCR, leading to TPA removal, and I am left thinking that the only reason for unblocking at this point would be for comedy value, to see if he can collect the full set of policy violations before the next inevitable block. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Kingsindian has wasted a lot of time trying to defend Hitchins, and I don't know why, since he surely cannot be surprised to learn Guy is the sort of person who does this.....
We're done here. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I really do hope Hitchins sees the contemptuous manner off that post, the sheer brazennes of a veteran Wikipedia shitlord who clearly knows they are untouchable inside the Wikipedia bubble, and does the only right and just thing and slams all these fuckers in his paper. It won't get him unblocked, but he has surely figured out by now, that to get unblocked, he would have to accept their proposition that he is an idiot and a scumbag. And in all likelihood, have to accept a topic ban from the pages he clearly wants to edit.
Hitchins made the point himself, although it is easily missed in the walls of text (first rule of then gsme, don't write too much, and don't repeat yourself)......
But the implication, that I am so stupid that I cannot tell an encyclopaedia entry from a newspaper column, or vice versa, and that I think I could or should get away with interfering in entries which concern me in a way that suits my case, *while using my own name* is rather insulting. I am just not that thick.
To be unblocked, he really would have to accept them believing he is thick. Not only is that implicit by virtue of their many and repeated public slurs against anyone who works for the Mail, which can be found all over Wikipedia, not just in this debacle, the Wikipedians are showing it by deliberately ignoring his explanation for that "bad" edit for this long.
If there was justice and accountability to be found anywhere on Wikipedia, if there was a prospect of any of them being remotely prepared to accept they have got it wrong, or could at least accept he is not thick, then he would have been swiftly unblocked, rather than being subjected to this torture of a thousand cuts.
Still, it is far better he be tortured like this, since it will leave a deep, long lasting impression. I have high hopes it will bear fruit not just in a single article in the Mail, but an whole series of them, exposing how Wikipedia really works, that they will then mindlessly dismiss in the usual way.
Since he will surely soon realise, in time, that his case was not special but simply routine. That they treat people like this all the time. There is no bigger crime for the Wikipedians, than a user realising the whole thing is rigged, a hypocritical farce, but then not being so overcome with the need to edit, that they would wllingly be a party of it, subjugating themselves to shitlords like Guy, or in this case to a group of people who see in him the qualities espoused in WP:ADMIN. Reading that document and comparing his experience to it at the hands of people like 331dot, should be the last straw for Hitchins.