Of course there is no intellectual property here outside the GFDL license.  If you are unaccustomed to the term ‘intellectual property’, or afraid of it per se, if it strikes terror in your heart or sounds to your ears like an imprecation within Wikipedia context or is too high-flying for Wikipedia, I cannot help you; but please do not impute to me views which I have never articulated and do not hold.  For you are not scoring the rhetorical points at which you aim, but rather reduce the level of discourse to the point which I thought was beneath you — by involving yourself in a tangle of your own making.

The case is very simple.  ‘Violation’ and ‘malfeasance’ involve here the claim of the infringement of Wikipedia guidelines by (two) administrators who, as such (i.e. as administrators), are charged instead with the safeguarding of those very guidelines.  Administrators, yourself included, do not, and cannot, play any role whatever within the Wikipedia scheme other than that of assuring that WP guidelines are implemented and not infringed by the users: there is no scope within the project, as it stands defined at present, for any other additional role that they might even potentially or hypothetically assume.  Even their efforts at protecting the site from vandalism, etc., are only within their purview as guardians of (published) house rules (which, in this case, define vandalism for example in ways differing from those understood by the general public) — nothing, nothing, not an iota more than that.  There is no mechanism here for ‘discretion’, ‘broad’ or otherwise, whereby they could obtain blanket license to violate those guidelines without accountability: the moment that such powers (to dispense with guidelines altogether) are vested in or arrogated by them, (1) they cease to be administrators and become ma-and-pa corner grocery’s owners, with the goods on the shelves their private property to dispose of as they see fit; and (2) Wikipedia ceases to be a community editing project and becomes the private fiefdom of a limited few.  So no, I do not believe you understand that you do not operate here in a vacuum of your own making: I am Wikipedia every bit as much as you are, thank you very much.

You allege that I ‘have misunderstood the essentials of the system’, without specifying wherein that misunderstanding might have consisted in.  You do not have the right to make such unsubstantiated allegations in this forum; those are hits below the belt.  You may say to me, ‘you have claimed xxx, which conflicts with stated policy xxx, and fails to take into consideration the fact that xxx, published here xxx’.  The right to make generalized unsubstantiated allegations amounts to the license to launch personal attacks, a practice that again runs afoul of Wikipedia policies.  You are now violating those policies yourself.  I am not concerned with your tone (whether ‘polite’ or ‘vehement’ and how that impacts my liking or disliking you), but with the substance of what you are saying and how that impacts the project we are both involved in.

I wish to state that your own demeanour here has always struck me as approximating something of a Big Brother from Orwell, a position in part claimed by a kind of doublespeak.  No one, not even the founder, holds here a monopoly on Truth (you might have called it ‘a system of permissions to hold opinions’): all views must be closely argued and fully substantiated, by everyone without exception.

Administrators found guilty of deliberately, with (malice or otherwise) aforethought, violating house rules, and subsequently showing remorseless, unreasonable, unreasoning, defiance to the challenges of such violations (on the strength that ‘I am an administrator and therefore I do not have to account for my actions to you’), must be removed as a matter of principle, and will be removed.  There is no other remedy, as failure to clean the house would amount to allowing it to sink to the lowest common denominator determined by such administrators (and their unaccounted and perhaps unaccountable private reasons which propel them to certain actions).  Enthusiasm for the project and other such factors cannot be sufficient qualification to make someone an administrator here: a certain integrity, a sense of ethics, and a modicum of objectivity (the ability, that is, to see beyond the tip of one’s nose), are also required.  While the fulfilment of these requirements cannot obviously be easily determined beforehand, the discharge of one’s mission as an administrator can be appraised retroactively, and such appraisal should determine whether a user should continue in his/her supervisory capacity.  You wish to protect the administrators accused of wrongdoing now (by failing to answer the facts of the case as requested, but drawing instead all kinds of red herrings out of the hat), from the desire to m