=Arbitrary section break to reply to Tony, Ohconfucius, et al=== 
 Wow. I had no idea my questions would garner such a great response.  

 Here are my responses. 

 *Item 1 
 **Admin-Admin I wanted to bring it up because I saw the need for clarification. Also, admin-admin abuse is, unfortunately, an occurrence. It generally kicks up a lot of dust. I tend to agree with Tony: we have a new and unique judicial proposal. Perhaps this proposal will be more orderly than RfC and less dramatic than ArbCom. As such, I believe the process—as currently proposed—provides a so-called "third way"; a place to bring feuding parties together under the moderation of a diverse cross-section of Wikipedians (writers, vandal fighters, policy wonks, admins, and non admins; rather than all admins). 
 **Jurisdiction I agree with Tony; as an admin: the most of my edits are to relatively uncontroversial articles with which I have an hedonistic intellectual curiosity. If, however, I  threaten to block a collaborator with whom I disagree, then I should be held at fault. 
 ***I might justify this along the same lines of Common assult: the crime is committed when admin A causes apprehension for user B (through the threat of force). Of course, our finding must be that the this was intentional; and, that the threatened action was outside of the requisite policies. 
 Name change There does not appear to be consensus for my proposal. No worries. 
 *Item 2 Right, I do not think there is a way beyond this. These cases may just be rejected. In the long run, if the community supports another avenue that may be explored later.  
 *Item 3 This one might be tough, and I might be in disagreement with the others. First, I think a plaintiff should be requried to demonstrate standing; id est: sufficient injury. Western Judicial systems generally follow this precept. My fear is that we might inadvertently inspire a class of editors who scour admin actions for possible misdeeds; the project has done this in other areas (i.e. a dedicated class of vandal fighters). 
 **Class action You mention class action: I prefer we allow who are able to demonstrate sufficient injury. Thus, if an article is protected and Users X,Y,Z were able to demonstrate injury: all three editors should be able to file suit jointly (that is: file one suit). 
 ***This has the added benefit of disallowing multiple cases which regard the same action. 
 **On the inverse: I fear the "Arbcom effect". Although, at times, an amicus curae is helpful; I feel the overall effect, as occur in Wikipedia, damage the reconciliation process. In other words: let's keep the proceedings limited to the admin(s), the plaintiff(s), and the coordinators. We have one leg up on the real world here in WP: we've got diffs. Therefore, there is no need for third-parties or witness. I feel that this is one of the failings of our current dispute resolution system. In simple terms: the fewer statements, the better.  
 *Item 4 I think 7 days is sufficient. Perhaps 14 days, but I prefer seven: let's get it over with. 
 *Item 5 I believe this is a good idea; an admin coordinator should be willing to provide the required information (if need be). If the actual edits cannot be shown, then the admin could, in good faith, provide a description. 
 *Item 6 Yep, you've nailed it, now. I only did a precursory read over, but it was much improved. I imagine the justification section was there before this proposal gained so much acceptance. I'll look closer and try and pick out loopholes after I've been removed from the process for a day or so. 

 Ok, there was one more small issue I wanted to bring up regarding scope. I do not, however, remember what the point was I wanted to make. So....let me know what everyone thinks.    

 ==