Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall

Is there a process for recalling an editors' appointment as an arbitrator? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be one. WP:ARBCOND says:

Any arbitrator who repeatedly or grossly fails to meet the expectations outlined above may be suspended or removed by Committee resolution supported by two-thirds of all arbitrators excluding:

The arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and;

Any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

I hope that you are not asking this question solely because you want to recall arbs that voted to ban Iskandar323. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Why not? I was thinking of proposing arb recall for that exact reason. I spent years pushing for the admin recall system, specifically because I wanted to recall admins who consistently failed to meet community expectations, some of whom have now been recalled. That's how reform works: new procedures are created to fix problems. There's nothing wrong with that. It appears we have a problem here, and I've been thinking about proposing a series of reforms to address it, including arb recall (other ideas: requiring only on-wiki discussion of on-wiki matters, allowing appeals to the community, changing arbcond to match admincond, moving to an indefinite-terms-with-subcommittees model, and increasing enfranchisement requirements). Levivich (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I hope that you are not asking this question solely because you want to recall arbs that voted to ban Iskandar323.

Why not, SuperPianoMan9167? If they've spectacularly failed at their job, then there should be a system to have that job removed. And I don't think a "the police decide if it's police misconduct" mechanism is appropriate as per how it apparently works now with Arbcom removals. Silver seren^C 19:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

There is a system - it's called the annual elections. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 19:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Do you not see the problem if the elections just happened (which they did) and then it's found that there's issues with those elected in more or less their first actions just after that? It's the same sort of problem in politics where someone can be elected, then immediately go off the rails and the only response others give is "well, you can just not vote for them in 4 years". Yeah, that doesn't help in the here and now or in the long intervening time until then. Silver seren^C 19:19, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this admin recall talk page is the right place to discuss reforms to Wikipedia:Arbitration/the WP:Arbitration Committee... I suggest starting a thread at WP:VPI. Some1 (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

If there was a 4 year arbitrator term, then I'd quite possibly agree with you - but it's a 1 to 2 year term. My actual experience with actual irl versions of recall petitions and other means of removing elected officials from office says that, practically speaking, the time it takes to build up a successful recall effort against somebody with political experience is already, at a minimum, in that one to two year cycle, at which point you're in election season anyway.

Besides, you originally said that there should be a system to remove people from their job - which we have. If what you meant was that you want additional system, then that's fine, but I do feel the need to let you know that you're, incidentally, pushed the goalposts out a bit. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 19:54, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Arbitration Committee handles their own members and can kick out a member by majority vote. I believe that the Arbitration Committee members don't necessarily need to be administrators to be members, but I could be wrong on that. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

You're right, except that kicking out an arb requires a two-thirds supermajority (probably inspired by the process of expulsion from the United States Congress). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the correction. I didn't realize that it was a supermajority, but that did make sense.

Additionally, I will note here that it seems like 2007(?) was the last time a user was removed. (More specifically, the user were appointed by Jimbo Wales, but was prevented from becoming a member due to something to do with a falsified background.) I am unsure if that situation let to a vote, but that seems to be the last possible time that there has been an Arbitrator (or appointed Arbitrator, in this case) that has been removed by ArbCom. (There was a private case in 2023 against a member, but that ended in a suspension which lasted beyond that member's term ending.) --Super Goku V (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The arb removed in 2007 was User:Essjay. See Essjay controversy. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, I'm pretty sure Essjay resigned on Jimbo's request. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but I covered it above by saying "could have been removed" as you can... Oh. I clearly wrote "has been removed by ArbCom" for some dumb reason... (Baka, baka, baka!)

(As you can guess by this response, I was not intending to write "has been removed by ArbCom" at all. That was why I was saying "the last possible time" prior to that.) Thank you again for the correction. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

You've forgotten about Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_51#Suspension_of_Beeblebrox. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:26, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I think that's what Super Goku V meant when they said There was a private case in 2023 against a member, but that ended in a suspension which lasted beyond that member's term ending. Thanks for the link. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

As SuperPianoMan9167 said, I was referring to that case without naming it. (Technically, there is no case to link to anyways, just the announcement.) --Super Goku V (talk) 09:47, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

There was also Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 7#Iridescent in 2011. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

There's also Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_12#Alex_Shih:_Statement_from_the_Arbitration_Committee (though that was technically a resignation under a WP:CLOUD rather than an involuntary removal for cause), as well as the follow-up desysop. Sugar Tax (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Whatever else, there is nothing in the admin recall process that would apply to Arbs, and this talk page is about admin recall. And I'm in the same place as the last sentence of what SuperPianoMan just said about the Iskandar situation. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Arbitrators are elected for one or (most commonly) two year terms every December. If you have evidence that an arbitrator has engaged in conducted so egregious that they need to be removed before their term ends then you need to submit that evidence to the committee. The arbitrator concerned will recuse themselves (not doing so would be absolutely see them suspended or removed by their colleagues) and the other arbitrators will objectively review the evidence you have presented. If they agree that the evidence merits it (a very low bar but they do get complaints that don't come close to meeting it) they will ask the arbitrator concerned for their response. Based on that response they will either (a) dismiss matters as not meriting anything, (b) initiate suspension or removal procedures, or (c) hold a full case (there may be more detailed investigation before b or c, which may or may not involve seeking input from the complainant and/or third parties). Thryduulf (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there is a process for non-arb members to "recall" arb members, and using admin recall against an arb won't remove them as an arb since non-admins can get elected to the arbitration committee. So similar to IRL elections, editors could just wait for the arb's term to expire and vote "Oppose" if the problem arb decides to run for re-election.

Here's the chart with the term expiration:

Some1 (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Arbs are immune from recall for the first twelve months after being elected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:48, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Another option, I believe, would be to propose an "Arbitrator recall" process by following Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Ratification and amendment, though you'll probably need to workshop the proposal first at the Village Pump. Interesting comment by admin Xaosflux: "the community can overthrow arbcom as well, and not just in the annual elections. For example, a similar petition could be used to change the Scope and responsibilities of the arbitration policy to remove the authority of the committee." Some1 (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I recognize that, as said above, it is theoretically possible for non-admins to get elected to ArbCom (even though it has never happened yet). But something that occurs to me is that an Arb who is recalled as an admin would be seen as losing a significant amount of credibility with the community, and Arbs who lose adminship would also lose checkuser and oversight privileges unless WMF makes a special exception. So there could be the possibility of taking an Arbitrator to the existing admin recall procedure. If the petition were to reach threshold, the other members of ArbCom would have to decide whether to treat the situation as though a non-admin had been elected to ArbCom, or whether the member would need to resign. I'm not explicitly recommending this, but I see it as a possibility. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

CheckUser is granted by the Arbitration Committee and there is no formal requirement that checkusers also be administrators. No special exception from WMF is required, as so far as they are concerned it is the result of a community process. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

If the community believes that an arb who has been successfully recalled should no longer retain their Checkuser or Oversight privileges (or, I guess, be on the arbitration committee), maybe amendments need to be made to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy? Some1 (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

it is theoretically possible for non-admins to get elected to ArbCom... In the recent past ArbCom made election to the committee an automatic trigger for the new committee member to be appointed CU & OS. Those permissions are a necessary tool of the job. (How can you pass comment on someone's use of the tools if you can't see what they're doing?) A plausible case could be made for appointing a non-admin ArbCom member as admin. Admin tools are needed for the arbitration role and ACE participation way exceeds both RFA participation and exceeds Legal's requirements for an RFA. Cabayi (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Given that an arbitration committee member is bound to an NDA, the consequences of misusing checkuser/suppression tools such as exposing sensitive IP information without WMF consent is far more than just removal from ArbCom, they could be potentially exposing themselves to legal action by WMF. I think that is enough of a deterrence to stop serious misuse, although I don't know of any cases where WMF pursued legal action for breach of the NDA (inside of the committee or outside). Aasim (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

For reference, Wikipedia:Non-administrator Arbitrators RfC is where previous discussion was held regarding how user rights should be handled for non-admins becoming arbitrators, and what to do when their terms end. At that time, there was a strong consensus against granting the administrator role to arbitrators (that is, placing them in the sysop user group) if they weren't already administrators. isaacl (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall

Other discussions

Arbitrator recall?

Related Articles