Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee, or ArbCom, is supposed to be the final stop for disputes that can’t be resolved anywhere else on the site. But every election for its members turns into a battlefield. It’s not about who writes the best articles. It’s about who can build the strongest coalition, spin the most convincing narrative, and outmaneuver opponents in a system designed to be neutral-but rarely is.
How ArbCom Elections Work (And Why They Don’t Feel Neutral)
The Arbitration Committee consists of volunteers elected by the Wikipedia community every year. Candidates submit statements, answer questions from other editors, and campaign on talk pages, mailing lists, and social media. Voters are active editors with enough edits and tenure to qualify. The process looks democratic on paper: one editor, one vote. But in practice, it’s a high-stakes political contest.
Unlike other Wikipedia roles, ArbCom members don’t just fix edits. They can ban users, restrict editing rights, and interpret community policy in ways that shape the entire project. That power makes the election a magnet for conflict. Editors who’ve been banned before often mobilize to block candidates they see as biased. Editors who’ve spent years enforcing rules rally behind those they believe will protect the site’s integrity.
There’s no official party system. But alliances form fast. One group might unite around editors who favor strict enforcement of sourcing rules. Another might back those who argue for more leniency toward new contributors. These factions don’t always align with real policy differences-they align with personal grudges, past disputes, and perceived ideological leanings.
Campaigns That Broke the Rules (And How They Got Away With It)
In 2022, a candidate ran a coordinated campaign using sockpuppet accounts to boost their votes. They created fake user profiles, posted supportive comments on their own talk page, and even asked friends to vote in bulk. When exposed, the community was divided. Some called for disqualification. Others argued that since no rule explicitly banned coordinated voting, the votes should stand.
The ArbCom itself ended up reviewing the case. They didn’t remove the candidate’s name from the ballot. Instead, they issued a statement warning against “undue influence” and added a new guideline: voters must declare any prior coordination with candidates. But enforcement? That’s still patchy.
Another example: in 2021, a candidate received hundreds of endorsements from editors who had never edited a single article. Their bios claimed they were “longtime contributors,” but their edit histories showed just a few changes made days before the election. The campaign used templates and bots to mass-email supporters, a tactic that technically didn’t violate policy-but felt like a hack.
Wikipedia’s rules are written for consensus, not competition. And when competition kicks in, the rules bend. There’s no watchdog for campaign ethics. No media to fact-check claims. No oversight body to punish bad behavior. Just a community that’s too tired, too divided, or too indifferent to stop it.
Alliances That Changed the Outcome
Some of the most decisive ArbCom elections turned less on policy and more on who showed up to vote.
In 2020, two candidates were neck-and-neck. One was a respected administrator known for enforcing policy. The other was a newer editor with a large network of allies from a major regional editing group. The second candidate didn’t have the highest edit count. But they had 300 people in their Slack group who coordinated voting. They sent out a calendar with voting reminders, created a shared document listing supporters, and even held a live Q&A session to rally turnout.
The result? The candidate with fewer edits won by 87 votes. The community erupted. Critics called it an “organized takeover.” Supporters said it was just good mobilization. The truth? Both sides have done it. The difference is who got caught.
These alliances aren’t always malicious. Sometimes they’re just practical. Editors who work on the same topic-say, medical articles or LGBTQ+ history-often form informal voting blocs. They trust each other’s judgment. They know who’s been fighting the same battles for years. But when those blocs grow large enough, they start looking like political machines.
Outcomes That Shaped Wikipedia’s Future
ArbCom decisions don’t just settle disputes-they set precedents. And those precedents ripple across the entire site.
In 2018, ArbCom banned a well-known editor who had been accused of coordinating edit wars to push a specific narrative about climate change. The ban wasn’t just about that editor. It was a signal: coordinated manipulation of content, even if done under the guise of “advocacy,” won’t be tolerated. After that, edit wars on climate topics dropped by 40% in the next six months.
Another case: in 2023, ArbCom ruled that editors could not be banned solely for their political views-but could be restricted if they repeatedly used Wikipedia to promote those views. That decision became a blueprint for handling similar cases involving gender identity, historical revisionism, and conspiracy theories.
But not every outcome was positive. In 2019, a controversial ArbCom member was re-elected despite a history of aggressive moderation. Their presence led to a 22% drop in new editor retention that year. New contributors felt unwelcome. Many left. And the site lost a generation of potential volunteers.
These aren’t abstract policy debates. They’re real consequences: fewer editors, more bias, slower growth, and a growing sense that Wikipedia is no longer open to everyone.
Why the System Still Holds (Even When It Shouldn’t)
Despite all the drama, ArbCom still works-for now. Why? Because no one else will take over.
Wikipedia has no corporate board. No paid moderators. No government oversight. The only people who can fix things are the volunteers who’ve been here the longest. And they’re the ones most likely to get elected to ArbCom.
There’s no perfect solution. More oversight would mean bureaucracy. More transparency would mean more gamesmanship. More rules would mean more loopholes.
So the community keeps patching the system. They’ve added cooling-off periods for banned users before they can run. They’ve made candidate statements more detailed. They’ve created public archives of voting patterns. But none of it stops the core problem: the people who care the most about power are the ones who show up to fight for it.
What Happens When the Volunteers Quit?
Wikipedia’s biggest threat isn’t disinformation. It’s burnout.
ArbCom elections used to draw thousands of votes. Now, turnout hovers around 5,000-down from 12,000 in 2015. The editors who still show up are the same ones who’ve been here for a decade. The newcomers? They’re overwhelmed. They see the drama, the infighting, the backstabbing. And they leave.
Without fresh voices, ArbCom becomes a closed circle. The same people vote for the same people. The same alliances form. The same biases get reinforced. The system becomes self-perpetuating, not self-correcting.
Some have proposed term limits. Others suggest random selection from qualified editors. A few even argue for replacing ArbCom with a small panel of paid moderators. But those ideas go nowhere. Too many editors fear losing control. Too many believe the system, flawed as it is, still represents the only true form of community governance.
And so it continues. Campaigns get nastier. Alliances get tighter. Outcomes get more polarized. And Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that was supposed to be open to everyone, becomes harder and harder for new people to join.
What You Can Do If You Care About Wikipedia
If you’re an editor, don’t wait for someone else to fix this. Here’s what actually works:
- Vote. Seriously. Turnout is low because most people think their vote doesn’t matter. It does.
- Read candidate statements. Don’t just vote for the name you recognize. Look at their past actions, not their reputation.
- Report coordinated voting. If you see a group emailing or messaging editors to vote a certain way, flag it. Even if it’s not against the rules, it’s against the spirit.
- Don’t support candidates just because they’re “on your side.” Ask: Do they respect process? Or do they just want to win?
- Encourage new editors to participate. The system won’t change unless new people show up-and stay.
Wikipedia isn’t broken. But it’s bleeding. And the only people who can stop it are the ones who still believe in it.
What is the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) on Wikipedia?
The Arbitration Committee, or ArbCom, is a group of volunteer editors elected by the Wikipedia community to resolve serious disputes that can’t be settled through normal discussion. They have the power to ban users, restrict editing rights, and interpret community policies. Their decisions are final and binding.
How are ArbCom members elected?
Candidates submit statements and answer questions from other editors. Active editors with enough edits and tenure can vote. The top vote-getters win seats. There’s no formal campaigning allowed, but in practice, candidates use talk pages, mailing lists, and social media to build support.
Why do ArbCom elections become so controversial?
Because ArbCom members control real power-bans, restrictions, policy interpretations. Editors who’ve been punished before try to block candidates they see as hostile. Others rally behind those they believe will protect their side of a debate. Personal grudges, past conflicts, and ideological divides turn elections into political battles.
Can you campaign for an ArbCom candidate?
Officially, no. Wikipedia prohibits coordinated voting and mass solicitation. But in practice, many candidates run organized campaigns using email lists, Slack groups, and social media. Enforcement is inconsistent, and many tactics fall into gray areas of policy.
Do ArbCom decisions affect regular editors?
Yes. ArbCom rulings set precedents that shape how policies are applied across the site. A ban on coordinated editing, for example, can reduce edit wars on sensitive topics. A ruling on neutrality can make it harder to push certain narratives. These decisions influence what content survives and who gets to edit it.
Why is voter turnout for ArbCom elections so low?
Many editors feel the process is too political, too complex, or too hostile. Others are burned out. New editors are intimidated by the drama. Turnout has dropped from over 12,000 voters in 2015 to around 5,000 today. The people who vote are often the same ones who’ve been here for years, which makes the system harder to change.
