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).
-- Toby