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