`=The RFAR option=== My reasoning is somewhat different than Ymblanter's, but I earlier also raised the possibility of RFAR, and I'm really thinking about it. It would certainly be one way for 28bytes to get more feedback about what course of action he should take, something he has indicated he would like to have. We can take a look at the degree to which 28bytes's answer to Carrite's question was or was not misleading the community. (Hint: I think not seriously so.)  But it also would go into something else. I just went back and looked at the archived discussion of the recent decision about Phil Sandifer. In particular, I looked at what members of the Committee said at that time. Considering what  did in his Wikipediocracy post, there are some differences from the Sandifer case, but I'm not convinced that they are all that substantive. If you read the WPO post, it would have been easy enough to prune it to read: ``Apparently recently resoundingly elected Wikipedia Arbitration committee member ``28bytes`` is a guy who also happens to be a longstanding poster here called ``Mason``...``. (It actually reads ``a guy named (name) who also happens to be``.) All that is gained by having included the name is the Internet phenomenon of dancing up and down in pleasure at causing someone else discomfort. In the Sandifer case, there was a bit of ``followed the bread crumbs`` (I'm quoting Newyorkbrad there) to put together the outing, and in this case somewhat fewer crumbs needed to be followed. But I'm not concerned that it matters. We can see at WPO how Dan Murphy felt about being asked to redact it, and it's little different than Phil Sandifer's response at the time. In no way am I questioning Dan Murphy's right to write stuff at WPO, but I'd like to find out whether or not he is still welcome here at Wikipedia after what he did.     ==`