172

Support

• Support, a hard working and impartial scholar. 12.75.139.231 20:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support, impartial, would be a good member. Xtra 01:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support, Has a good vision of where Wiki has to go as it expands from a group of talented personalities into an entity with its own emergent behavior. Gzuckier 16:56, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Strongly support. Consistently reasonable and fair. Shorne 03:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• For what it's worth you've got my vote. Good Luck! Rje 01:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support, I think you're a good sysop 172--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 08:37, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• A scholar of quality who should be engaged as broadly as possible in the community. Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Everyking 07:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Tannin 08:09, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Strongly support. El_C 17:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Gzornenplatz 02:55, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Ruy Lopez 04:47, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose, fox in the henhouse. Fred Bauder 20:36, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Pot calling the kettle black? Shorne 02:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Fred, as a current Arbitrator, I would hope you could at least provide one specific reason why you feel this way. "Fox in the henhouse" is a rather cryptic statement that leaves me wondering what the heck you're talking about. Please, can you provide some tips of what to look for in 172's edit history that makes you think he would be so dangerous to the other hens? --DV 14:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • 172 has a long history of aggressive point of view editing which he covers up with a smokescreen of "academic authority". He is especially active with edits which whitewash left-wing totalitarian governments, leaders and actions. Fred Bauder 11:01, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
      • I won't respond to this bullshit. I will say, though, that this is an unacceptable slander from someone the stature in the community of a member of the Arbitration Committee. I am a professional historian; and most of my family was murdered in Nazi death camps. I do not tolerate being likened to Holocaust deniers. 172 09:30, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) [Just to contextualize these comments, they were in response to a point added earlier to Fred Bauder's statement above likening me to Holocaust deniers. This comment was removed by the election organizers. [1] 172 09:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)]
        • I agree with the characterisation of Bauder's remarks as "bullshit". Like you, I don't intend to respond to them. Shorne 05:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. When Shorne insulted Stan, calling him an "idiot" and a "propagandist", (on 13 Oct 2004) 172 expressed his support for Shorne instead of disapproval for insulting other Wikipedians [2]. I suspect the reason is that Shorne and 172 have similar political orientations. I'd like arbitrators to condemn people who hurl insults, not to encourage them. Boraczek 18:02, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • It appears that I am being blacklisted for having "the same political orientation a Shorne." Yet I really doubt that Shorne thinks that we share the same political affliations, given that I'm a leader of a local U.S. Democratic Party organization. Not that this means much... Many of the victims of these kinds of McCarthyite attacks like the one above along with Fred Bauder's weren't communists either. 172 09:30, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • "Blacklisted" and "McCarthyism." I feel your pain, man. Of course, if the Democratic Party was made up primarily of people like you that'll bode well for the Republican Party's future, so keep on truckin'.
    • I am not going to respond here to the allegations that I "insulted" someone and that 172 supported the putative insult. I do wish to confirm that 172 and I do indeed part ways politically. I am openly contemptuous of the US Democratic Party, which I see as almost identical to the US Republican Party. Despite our significant political differences, I strongly endorse 172's candidacy for the Arbitration Committee.
      • 172's comment on the dispute between Shorne and Stan suggests that he perceived the conflict in political terms ("Shorne and me [172] vs Stan and the rest of the rightwing clique"). But what really matters is not political motivation, but rather encouraging personal attacks. Boraczek 09:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • As is quite obvious to anyone who can read, 172 and I don't agree with the allegation of "personal attacks" supposedly made by me. Moreover, 172 was right to frame the conflict as a political one. Shorne 17:22, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • 172, could you please see this [3] and say if in your opinion Shorne made a personal attack or not? Boraczek 20:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • I see it and I had no comment then and I have no comment now. That was not the comment to which I was responding at the time; and I have no interest in commenting on it now. 172 11:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • Frankly, I got the impression that you refused to answer so as not to "hurt" your protégé Shorne (or else to appear as partial). Boraczek 12:39, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Bauder and Boraczek are red-baiting 172. Intelligent readers will not fall for their cheap ploys. Shorne 05:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose --Josiah 22:54, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've only had one encounter with 172, back in the days of Quickpolls. Admittedly, that was a contentious page; but I don't recall anyone more hostile than 172. His profanity is the only reason I've remembered him. Cribcage 17:29, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • On second thought, I don't want to make that accusation without offering citations. I've had no subsequent conversations with 172, so they were easy to find. Here's one, and here's another. To be fair, read the entire exchange in context. Cribcage 18:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Both Fred Bauder & Cribcage have stated the reasons quite clearly. -- llywrch 20:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose; erratic and clearly not suitable for arbcom on a number of counts over and above those already eloquently stated. Sjc 07:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose; censors their own bad press example, doesn't set a good example for image file naming. example discussion --Rebroad 16:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unwilling to discuss to work toward consensus, or even give evidence to back up his position. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 07:22, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Disappointing use of revert war [4] (see hostile commentary in history) rather than discussion and consensus. --Dhartung | Talk 08:50, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• [insert vulgar personal attack here] Lirath Q. Pynnor
• Oppose, see [5] - Mailer Diablo 23:09, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose I could never support a communist for Arbitration Commmittee.--198 04:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not a Communist (not that that matters to Bauder and the rest of them), but thanks for your honesty. The rest of the users above aren't bothering to state explicitly their political motivations for their attacks. 172 11:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You sure as hell sound like one to me, but thanks anyway 172.--198 00:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • • In this opposition, probably more than any other below, users have cited specific examples and complaints. You've refused to address any of them directly. Instead, you've slung profanity and leveled ad hominem attacks. And you're accusing them of intellectual cowardice? Cribcage 23:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have only interacted with 172 in the past few days, in the article on Saddam Hussein, but that interaction has left me with concerns about his impartiality and his respect for other Wikipedians. He repeatedly reverted edits by Wtmgeo; only after several days did he begin to address Wtmgeo's efforts to compromise, and his eventual talk page comments were slow to acknowledge our main concerns. 172's behavior may not have been entirely out of line, but it falls short of what I would hope for in an arbitration committee member.--Steuard 20:06, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC) (originally 20:10, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC))
• Oppose. Knowledgeable guy, but his confrontational style of editing convinces me he's not suitable for the arbcom. It tends to be 172's way or the highway. --Robert Merkel 10:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. A knowledgeable guy for sure. But I had an edit war with him on his very early days here, in which he was aggressive and resorted to ad-hominem speculations. (I also agree with Fred Bauder about 172's leftish bias.) --FvdP 22:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • • • All these people are crawling out the woodwork whom I hardly remember. Everyone seems ready to report to HUAC Chairman Martin Dies Fred Bauder. Don't these people know that the Cold War is over? They need to get with the times and start accusing people who upset their worldview with supporting terrorism. 172 19:27, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • See 172's ways ? He gets opposition, and automatically attributes it to the worldview(s) of his opponents. Never seems to think his own behaviour may be the source of discontent. --FvdP 18:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Maybe voting's over, whatever, don't care. Pseudo-intellectual and consistent Marxophiliac who takes himself way too fuckin' seriously. Has a great wit as you can see from the above remark -- haha. J. Parker Stone 05:45, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)