Hi, Raphael, you might have noticed that this is a different thread. In fact, its completely separate from the thread that includes the text you quoted. Perhaps you have an e-mail client that doesn't allow you to differentiate between threads, and perhaps this explains why you have diverged threads on a few occasions recently. Unless you intend to create a new thread, you should use replies with the same subject as the original (without adding a Re: beforehand). Additionally, it could be confusing to continue discussions on the same topic across threads. Folks contribute to different threads on different topics, and its handy to keep them separate.
Re: vast admin conspiracy. Its true, there is a Cabal. All of the admins are in on it. There are secret meetings on an admin only IRC channel, where strategy is discussed for limiting the power of non-admins and determining which chosen few should be able to join them. Have you never noticed that all voters on RfAs are admins as well, except for those few hapless users who haven't got the notice? That the control of Wikipedia by this cabal has not been widely discussed among the media is a result of the uniformity of worldview and opinion among current administrators. By and large, they tend to have very similar opinions on nearly every subject - perhaps it is a result of a racial or socioeconomic uniformity enforced by control over the RfA process. Inevitably, however, someone will notice that administrators hardly ever disagree with eachother on matters of policy, process or content. When it blows up in the press, you can expect the shit to really hit the fan - casual readers will know that the content (even referenced content!) can't be trusted if policy and process is controlled by a vicious, secretive cabal.
Nathan