It's not bureaucratic as much you think. There is a system that is very easy to follow.
1. First they missed the delete review that normally waits about 7 days before taking action.
2. Upon discovering that their page was deleted found the archive delete review discussion.
3. Didn't understand what they were looking at and with disregard to the notes posted at the top saying that it's archive and not to edit it, edited it anyways.
4. A bot was triggered to an admin that someone edited a locked discussion and so he happily went to go help and left a message for the user on how to handle things and where to find delete review.
5. The user wanted to send a message to the editor and got confused at another point (the editor's talk page vs their user page).
6. etc etc etc...
It's sad the user is frustrated but lets stop the blame game here. I've been doing vandal patrol on wikipedia for 5 years. It's not some evil hive mind of control or something.
So WP let him do a bunch of things he wouldn't have been able to do if it had a decent interface and/or couldn't find things buried under a pile of acronyms and bureaucratic opaqueness and that's supposed to be your evidence that it's not a broken process?
re. 3, he was given instructions: don't change this, follow that process instead. Is the process is incorrect, how do you proceed?
re. 3,5 - there's a lot of confusion here, coming from an experienced web user. If he can't figure out what's going on, is it a user problem, or instructions issue?
It's an archived discussion under Articles for Deletion (AfD).
At the top of the page is a bread crumb back to the deletion process. (Someone should probably update the template for the archive notice to have a link maybe for those that stumble on to it).
1. First they missed the delete review that normally waits about 7 days before taking action. 2. Upon discovering that their page was deleted found the archive delete review discussion. 3. Didn't understand what they were looking at and with disregard to the notes posted at the top saying that it's archive and not to edit it, edited it anyways. 4. A bot was triggered to an admin that someone edited a locked discussion and so he happily went to go help and left a message for the user on how to handle things and where to find delete review. 5. The user wanted to send a message to the editor and got confused at another point (the editor's talk page vs their user page). 6. etc etc etc...
It's sad the user is frustrated but lets stop the blame game here. I've been doing vandal patrol on wikipedia for 5 years. It's not some evil hive mind of control or something.