" 

 ==random== 
 OK, so, if you're a registered editor, when you view an edit history, you'll see (curr) (last) and (report). If you click on the report button, it will report that diff as a policy violation. This will get put into a queue of all reported policy violations. Admins who wish to handle a reported violation will go to a page, click on a button and the wikipedia website will pick which reported violation they are to investigate. Ideally, this decision making would filter out reported violations that occured on pages that the admin regularly edits, or users that the admin is often involved with. Beyond that, the software could randomly pick a reported violation (or pick from the ones that have the largest number of editors reporting it) and assign it to that admin. The admin would then investigate and either administer a warning or a block or close the report as insufficient to warrant punishment. Gaming the system by admins would be impossible. Which means cries of ""cabal"" and ""old boys network"" would be silly.  Basically, an admin is nothing more than an editor and maintenance person and can only act as a policy enforcer on issues assigned by this randomized tool. This would require some changes to the wiki software, but it could be done.  "