Really, I wish we could put together some sort of limited adminship situation. I'm close to starting to call for certain administrators to have their deletion tools limited because they Just Don't Get It over and over, and do nothing to change it.
Warn them on their talk page the first time, take them to RFC the second time (often a waste of time, but it's a hoop you have to jump through) and ArbCom the first - 3 chances is more than enough. I think ArbCom would take action - at the very least a stern warning such that they won't have any room for excuses the next time and will get desysopped.
I don't think there is a need for limited adminship - if people can't handle being an admin, they shouldn't be one, simple as that.
Perhaps we need a new system to take the place of RFC in cases like this - a Motions to Censure (MTC) page where anyone can take reports of misuse of admin tools (I would at least start it as only for admins, but if it goes well it could be expanded to problems with anyone). They would explain the problem, giving appropriate evidence and people would discuss it with '''Support''' and '''Oppose''' !votes (this would be very similar to RfA, but it should work well since nothing actually happens if you are censured, it's just a formal warning, so it being closed incorrectly isn't a big problem). The discussion is then closed after a week (I'm thinking either by a crat or an arbitrator) and the motion to censure either passes or fails. If it passes, then the admin had better get their act together or it will be a very short ArbCom case.
There is an argument for only allowing admins to !vote. It would carry more weight if it's admins keeping control of each other, and it would stop people trying to censure admins every time they protect the wrong version. The obvious argument is the cabal argument, although seeing as this would be a new thing, I'm not sure how it can make anything worse. Non-admins would be allowed to express their opinions, but they wouldn't be taken into account when closing.
Opinions? Is it worth writing this up as a proper policy proposal? (Try saying that three times quickly! ;))