Suffice to say, s/he appears only when there's stuff to be edited or deleted on the Board.

Number 12 specifically says no swearing, and even if the minor swears are somewhat acceptable, which I've seen varying evidence both supporting and denying, that's no excuse for putting a mid-tier swear word out in the subject line, where there's not any opportunity for a language warning. That's essentially both an indisputable rule that DrMarble has broken and a social line that he or she has crossed.

To refute your other two article selections, Article 7 is basically irrelevant here. DrMarble was not being offensive for some reason that would allow an opportunity for explanation or rationalization. The message was three words long, and the swear word was used as an unneeded attachment to a message that would have meant the same thing without it. If the swear word had been removed and an apostrophe had been placed between the I and M of the first word, the message would have held the same meaning with nothing being lost and both proper grammar and further sensitivity gained.

Article 9 is less easy to refute as being attached to the situation, since it does concern reactions to someone breaking the rules, but while Phobos was not being polite, he was also not being disproportionately mean. Careless use of bad language should come coupled with a warning to cease that bad language, and if Phobos wanted to go at it from the angle of "you just got back here, and you're not going to be an acceptable presence if you keep talking like that", he's within his rights to do so. Again, this is the selected article most connected to the situation, since it is likely that there were more polite options that could have been chosen, but none of them would have been as direct and effective(save the supremely direct actions undertaken by the Nameless Admin, of course, but I doubt that Phobos and the Nameless Admin are the same person, so he would not have had that power).