Tannin wrote in part:
The question to be considered here is not whether
a generally
reasonable, cooperative, and always hard-working contributor in 172
should be given admin status. The question is why a persistently
uncooperative, unreasonable and - let us face the facts here -
persistently and unrepentantly dishonest contributor should retain such
status.
I'm not a fan of Fredbauder -- and certainly 172 should become an admin --
but I don't think that it's wise to set a precedent for
taking admin status away from people because they're bad contributors.
The reason for doing that should be an *abuse* of admin *power*.
You haven't alleged this in the case of Fredbauder (in this post);
do you allege it now?
If so, that's a very serious discussion that should be separated from 172
(a case that we probably ought to decide first, to avoid conflating them).
I'm just going to chime in and say that I think that the attacks on Fred are
unsubstantiated.