"

Addendum documentation for ArbCom (reverted from AN by Future Perfect at Sunrise twice)

 (12 hours later) the admin reverted their message
(Now, we can consider the matter of what happened.)
 [Aftermath note 1]: I created this topic when I was concerned there might be an serious (emergency) situation, but did not have sufficient knowledge of the editor's history (especially recent onwiki conversations) to judge how serious the matter was — but I had just observed behavior which was sufficiently out of the norm to not simply dismiss the replacement/message on their user page.  (interact)  

 [Aftermath note 2.a]: I  may be incorrect, but I do not believe Equazcion had sufficient knowledge of the history of the administrator to simply dismiss the matter. Unfortunately, there may be more to discuss about the interaction above, but let us first clarify if I am correct or incorrect with regard to Equazcion's knowledge of the administrator history (especially recent communications/interactions).  (interact)  

[Aftermath note 2.b]: In the interaction above Equazcion has characterized my interaction with the administrator (on User talk: Jimbo Wales) prior to the administrator's user page replacement message. Before we discuss this further, perhaps Equazcion may wish to reconsider the characterizations.  (interact)  

(I will immediately notify Equazcion of the notes 2.a and 2.b above so they may comment.  (interact)  )

===Question(s) for administrators regarding the user talk message===
The big question, of course, do we need to follow up regarding this?
 Clearly an administrator replacing their user page (and especially leaving it that way for 12 hours) with that is an inappropriate reaction to any situation. 
Note that the administrator's edits just prior to their user page replacement were:
 User talk: Jimbo Wales Revision as of 02:27, 14 February 2010 Rodhullandemu (→Bloqued WHY?: reply, and fuck you.)
 User talk: Jimbo Wales Revision as of 02:34, 14 February 2010 Rodhullandemu (→Bloqued WHY?: I'm gone.)
 User talk: Jimbo Wales Revision as of 02:41, 14 February 2010 Rodhullandemu (→Bloqued WHY?: goodbye)
Now, what is all that the reaction to? (Hint: A mock and a ""hear hear"")
 Revision as of 02:15, 14 February 2010 Proofreader77 (→Bloqued WHY?: (edit conflict) Retort to Rodhullandemu  who clearly has too many stars on their veteran editors medal ^;^ (Note: Python logic chip activated for Valentine's day drama)
 Revision as of 02:37, 14 February 2010 Proofreader77 (→Bloqued WHY?: (edit conflict) Hear hear! to Rodhullandemu's 4-star reply to that one-starred nitwit Proofreader77 ... although by a technicality only 3 are allowed. ^;^)
Executive summary (light version)
That (dastardly!) Proofreader77 mocked an administrator to virtual death with one silly message and a follow-up ""Hear Hear."" — should any administrator who can be mocked to virtual death so easily retain the bit? -)  (interact)  

Executive summary (heavy version)
 Inappro