Jeff Raymond wrote:
Unless Jimbo has pardon authority (which, for all
intents and purposes, he
may), this remains problematic. Even *with* pardon authority, this
remains problematic.
When I created the arbitration committee and delegated some powers to
it, the most important "safety valve" which was retained (and quite
properly, in order to sooth some concerns about whether a rogue ArbCom
could do great damage to the openness of Wikipedia) was the right to pardon.
In this case, the ArbCom declined to act, quite properly within their
right. I have not overruled the ArbCom in any way by taking up the
appeal myself and considering it. This is the normal way things work.
Why? Why do we do things this way rather than following some
mechanistic legal system? Because we know each other, we trust each
other, we share responsibilities, and we proceed forward thoughtfully
and carefully to try to make sure that in all cases, justice is done.
--Jimbo