Yes. It all depends on the implementation. For example, automatic notifications can be used to quickly get users who are online involved. The process where I would most like to have additional safeguards is blocking. It might be preferable to have a temporary "review phase" where editing privileges are suspended, but the block is not yet finalized. The finalization could require a quorum, no objections from other sysops, or a similar process.
The reason is simple. A user who feels they are unfairly blocked once may never come back. Angela says that this, too, can be an example of an "irreversible" action. That is quite a drastic possible outcome, and we should strive to reduce that possibility while not giving one inch to spammers and vandals.
Temporary blocks are already 24 hours. How are you going to build a review phase in that? The sheer option of being considered for a block is enough to send a lot of people over the edge.
Generally people should get the whole package. Atomic operations, especially when granting privileges, should be the exception. But they should be possible.
Yes, it only makes finding an admin to help you with certain actions harder for newbies.
Also, someone said something about the cabal choosing the cabal when it comes to RFA. Personally, I find this ridiculous. The only reason admins are voting, is because they are already trusted and have the experience to see who makes a good admin. Besides, admins make up 1% of the Wikipedia population at most, if you made some effort to involve other users, you could easily have more non-admins join in such discussion. -Mgm