* The idea of a provisional stage of adminship has some merit, but perhaps it should be an optional part of RfA, whereby "Provisional Support" is a fourth voting option.  If the "Support" alone is strong enough, make them an admin.  If "Support" plus "Provisional Support" is enough, make them a provisional admin, and revisit in a year.  Introducing it in this way would make the change less disruptive, and would let the community decide whether it wants it to be part of the process.  I would hope that some of the current failed RfAs would be upgraded to provisional under this proposal, but few of the current successes would be downgraded. 
 * If we're going to have terms for admins, then perhaps we should reverse the burden of proof, and say that you need overwhelming opposition to lose the bit.  Again, this would make the change less disruptive, and reduce the chance of losing admins rapidly.  (I am opposed to term limits for admins, but I'm not sure that anyone really means to propose that.)   
 * I am strongly opposed to unbundling and partial admins.  When I see disruption in Wikipedia, I have many tools at my disposal, e.g. editing, reversion, rollback, warning, protection, deletion, and blocking.  I use them all as appropriate.  If I had fewer tools, I'd face a continual temptation to act with those I had.  When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. 
 * It's my view that the key to reducing the perception (or prevalence) of admin corruption is to change the etiquette related to wheel-warring.  Currently, there is a strong taboo against undoing another admin's administrative action.  I propose that we remove that stigma entirely.  Any admin should feel empowered to boldly reverse another admin's administrative actions as if reversing their own actions, but it should be forbidden for the original admin to reinstate the action.  This has been my unilateral policy for about three years but no-one has ever exploited it.  For example, if Admin A blocks User X, then Admin B should feel free to shorten the block.  Admin B's decision may be criticized on its merits, but there is no breach of etiquette and nobody is being a "cowboy".  Admin A cannot reblock User X (for the same disruption), but Admin C may feel free to do so.  Each successive reversal becomes less likely and the process will stabilize quickly.  Controversial decisions are therefore opened up to the community of admins.  Borderline disruptive users are given a little more rope.  I would also add a guideline for admins that they should avoid ever blocking the same established user twice.  If it's the right thing to do, then someone else will do it.