But, the resulting view seems to imply bias in your preceding considerations. For instance, you've assumed I wanted Roux gone, when there's never been any such expressed desire from me, either im- or explicitly, neither before nor now. It also seems that you've excused Roux for some of the behaviour you admonish me for (not to say I feel I should be excused from anything I've done).
If I may express my opinion, Roux is a good editor, but generally only when working alone or without opposition or critique; yes, I bare my own biases, but I come to that conclusion having seen his interactions with others in addition to my own experiences, and recent events seem to show that it isn't changing. It is my sense that in these circumstances he genuinely believes himself to be a victim, and, seemingly sensing some threat, responds to the most gentle criticism with the most vicious vitriol. While that can cause some problem in itself, the preverbal shit hits the fan when thrown into the mix are stubborn individuals who don't buy his claims of innocence and casualty, after which the intensity of the conflict increases exponentially. If it wasn't already obvious: I am one of those stubborn persons, believing we alone are responsible for our own actions. Thus, I honestly don't for one minute buy that Roux was "driven" to do anything; he chose to participate here in the manners that he did, both good and bad, and he chose to leave; just as I chose to participate in the manners that I did, chose to leave, chose to come back, chose to leave again, chose to come back, and choose to admit much of my editing habits were the wrong way to go about things. I like the idea of Roux no longer being an obstacle, but do not feel comfortable about the way in which it came to be; I'm not sure that anybody's actually won in this case.