"::::::::::I'm not comfortable with the assumption that adding a ""threat"" necessarily will improve relations between editors.  Since everyone agrees that the ""vast majority"" are doing fine work, it's not clear to me that Wikipedia would benefit from an annual review, harrassment, and possible retirement of hundreds of admins.  It's far more likely to make it impossible (rather than merely difficult, as it is now) to find editors willing to take administrative actions in the most contentious areas, where there are the  most dedicated advocates of fringe views.  Proponents of homeopathy,  9/11 conspiracy theorists, anti-vaccinationists, global warming denialists, and cold fusion evangelists will have a field day every quarter, as they strive to take down the admins who are now barely (and still not entirely) holding them in check.   As Will Beback notes, the canvassing will be epic. Accusations of bad faith and sockpuppetry (true, speculative, or absurd) will fall like rain during the course of discussion.  Last year we had a poorly-thought-out process proposal called 'Community De-adminship'; this new proposal embodies many of the same flaws (please, have a look at CDA discussion, including the specific flaws I noted in the proposal).    
 "