![]() Screenshot of the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee main page in 2021 | |
Abbreviation | Arbcom |
---|---|
Formation | December 4, 2003[1] |
Membership | 15 as of January 1, 2024[update] |
Website | en |
On Wikimedia Foundation projects, an Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) is a binding dispute resolution panel of editors. Each of Wikimedia's projects are editorially autonomous and independent, and some of them have established their own ArbComs who work according to rules developed by the project's editors and are usually annually elected by their communities. ArbComs generally address misconduct by administrators and editors with access to advanced tools, and a range of "real-world" issues related to harmful conduct that can arise in the context of Wikimedia projects.[2][3] Rulings, policies and procedures differ between projects depending on local and cultural contexts. According to the Wikimedia Terms of Use, users are not obliged to have a dispute solved by an ArbCom.[4]
The first Wikimedia project to use an arbitration committee was the Swedish Wikipedia, soon followed by the widely covered English Wikipedia Committee. Over time, other Wikimedia projects have established Arbitration Committees as well.
The English Wikipedia ArbCom was created by Jimmy Wales on December 4, 2003, as an extension of the decision-making power he formerly held as CEO of site-owner Bomis.[1][5] Wales appointed members of the committee either in person or by email following advisory elections; Wales generally appointed editors who received the most votes to the ArbCom.[6][needs update]
The English Wikipedia's ArbCom acts as a court of last resort for disputes among editors and has been described in the media as "quasi-judicial" and a Wikipedian "High or Supreme Court", although the Committee states it is not and does not pretend to be a formal court of law. English Wikipedia's ArbCom has decided several hundred cases in its history.[7] The Foundation's Arbitration Committee process has been examined by academics researching dispute resolution, and has been reported in public media in connection with case decisions and Wikipedia-related controversies.[5][8][9]