"
As I suspected, complete nonsense. Your statement is so silly that I can't begin to tell you how wrong it is. You said, ""You there presume that your not-yet-filed Arbcom case has been decided"". I assure you that this was not the case - I would consider that to be a stupid assumption. I am not a stupid person. I would therefore ask that you assume good faith on my part, and withdraw everything on this page based on your mind-reading trick.
You quote out of context and misrepresent when you describe part of my questioning as the ""lack the intellectual ability comment""
By the perverted interpretation of standards you are trying to apply to me, your accusation of me not treating others as human beings is a personal attack. If it wasn't so silly I would spend time thinking more on it, which may lead to concluding that it is a straight up personal attack.
Here's a few points for you to think on.

WP:Civil, WP:AGF & WP:NPA  are all policies written in mind for the writing of encyclopaedic articles.
Then let's consider the ArbCom an article. What then is this articles content?
Hmm, let's see … the ArbCom is an article, so what is the ArbCom made of? Why, members. So that means the content of the committee is it's members. So an election is a decision on the content of this article.
So.
Members are editors, so content is editors, so in order to write this article we must discuss the content.
We must discuss the editor who is to become part of the content.
You don't like that?
WP:Civil, WP:AGF & WP:NPA  are all policies written in mind for the writing of encyclopaedic articles.
But ArbCom is not an article. It is an election to decide which persons are to be members of that important committee.
We must discuss the editors who are to become members of the committee.
We cannot question articles about their content, nor can we ask the content questions, but we can ask the proposed contents of the ArbCom questions.
Is a certain level of intellectual ability pertinent to ArbCom membership? If you do not think so, how many of the present ArbCom do you consider stupid? Would a low intellect on ArbCom help or hinder? If there is evidence (a diff) of intellectual failings, does the candidate realise this failing? Can he explain it as something other than an intellectual failing? The questions were politely put. They were challenging, and they were meant to be, and anyone in the community (which includes me) has the right to ask candidates challenging questions on their past performance. There was no name calling, all questions were relevant to a quality of the candidate pertinent to his ability to perform on ArbCom. They were not deferential. Which may be the actual cause of the consternation you and others displayed.
Your threats of blocks I regard as an attempt to bully. Do not try to bully me.
Finally I would contrast the participation of admin's in this ANI with the marshalling of forces which you participated in, and then came here.   "