User talk:GVP Webmaster

Welcome!

Hello, GVP Webmaster, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --Darwinek 18:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're putting links to your website into several articles. Your site is a useful one, and obviously not commercially driven, but please consider carefully which articles will benefit from it. For example, you added it to both Rangitoto Island and Auckland Volcanic Field. The placement in the latter article is great, as that's exactly what that area of your site deals with, but it doesn't add much to Rangitoto. I followed several links, with the map link looking promising but failing to load the UNAVCO map tool in either Firefox or Internet Explorer.-gadfium 20:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, You popped up on my watchlist and I thought I'd drop you a line, but it looks like gadfium has already said most of what I had in mind. I have two recommendations: (1) read User:Jmabel/PR for one user's well-thought out essay and (2) put something on your user page stating your affiliation and that you have read, and are abiding by, the relevant policies. It also turns your link blue, which is nice. Cheers, BanyanTree 17:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions BT. I do find it funny that two people 11 months apart find my adding a dozen links (to a valid and valuable site that meets Wiki rules) upsetting enough to write to me about it. If I had the time or interest to fix it, there is a huge volume of uncited volcano info on Wikipedia that was actually taken from the GVP website either directly or indirectly. But I'm almost never on here. If I popped on your watchlist for Home Reef, you may want to get a fuller story about at <http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0403-08=> under Monthly Reports. A follow-up report will get posted next week. GVP Webmaster 02:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit silly, isn't it? I hope that we sound welcoming. It's just that Jimmy Wales, the guy who started Wikipedia and has the final say, has basically taken the stance that anyone editing in a manner that might be construed as being public relations in nature may be blocked on sight. The guy who wrote the essay I linked above, which I agree with, thinks that is way too restrictive. Fortunately, Wales has stated this as his personal opinion, and not a decree as the Final Authority, so I'm happy to just advise users on your situation to be aware of the guidelines.

I actually saw you at Tagabo Hills. I started that article a few months back as part of my editing about the Darfur conflict. I am the only person to edit it, so your edit made me wander over to see who else was working in the distant outskirts of the wiki. ;)

More seriously, Wikipedia takes plagiarism seriously, as it directly affects the project's ability to be "free, as in speech". Wikipedia:Copyright problems has more info but, if you see chunks of text that have been ripped verbatim off your website, you are 100% encouraged to remove it immediately. An edit summary along the lines of "removing copyvio from (pasted link to SI page)" would be enough explanation. Rewordings obviously don't count as plagiarism in most cases. Let me know on my talk page if you do this and run into any problems. I imagine that some users don't realize that SI is not a U.S. government body, and thus the blanket government public domain license doesn't apply.

If you feel that you would like to bump this up a few notches and have some examples, I would be happy to post the situation to some high-profile pages to see what others think. - BanyanTree 04:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not offended, just amused. I totally get the anti-PR stuff. Earlier this month a guy that really rips off our stuff to draw people to his volcano tour business got quickly blocked for spamming his links into a bunch of volcanoes, while deleting "competing" links like GVP. Much of the little I've done was cleaning up and standardizing links to my site that others had already put in. Adding an external link is a way to lead the reader to more info, without me putting in the time to duplicate stuff that we already publish and keep up-to-date. I suppose I could almost as quickly add it in as a cited reference in many cases.

Actually, SI is in an odd status with some aspects of government and some private. The stuff on the GVP site is created by US govt employees and is in public domain, though many of the photos have individual copyrights. So generally I'd prefer to just edit what I find to cite us or just add a link rather than make a big deal of it. We're an information service dedicated to the diffusion of knowledge, but getting proper credit is important so we can continue to justify our existence to maintain the only reliable database on volcanoes and eruptions.

I happened onto Tagabo while browsing the volcano lists that were reorganized since I last visited, and didn't recognize the name, so went to check it out. I was happy to see the link you already had there; just wanted to fix a typo and tweak it a bit. I'll have our database manager look into adding "Berti Hills" as another synonym.

Enjoy whatever holiday you celebrate at this time of year! GVP Webmaster 04:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Happy holidays to you as well. - BanyanTree 13:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my mistake. I'll change that after Christmast break. Thanks. — Indon (reply) — 10:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noted your message at Indons talk page - after my comment.

I am considering putting in all the entires, also known as Gunung... simply because of the reason given at Indons talk page - there are generations of tourists who have known the mountains from the guide books and tourist information as that. I do hope that the reason for this is sufficient;y explained and not in any way subversive towards GVP naming procedures. For me the importance of synonyms that might be found in the indonesian wikipedia is important, simply to try to keep links evolving and linking - rather than inventing new terminology that does not relate to local usage. I was involved in a protracted discussion about a number of issues that I consider no Javanese or Indonesian would ever think about in the terms used....

I am very pleased to see that you have a presence on wikipedia whoever you may be - I consider the GVP information to be excellent quality compared to some of the rubbish that I have encountered on the web in relation to a number of geological issues SatuSuro 09:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GVP Webmaster, since your the webmaster of the Smithsonian Institution's Global Volcanism Program, what does 1730 ± 150 years mean? ("Tseax River Cone". Global Volcanism Program. Smithsonian Institution.) Also, do you know anything about a volcano called Mount Cayley in southwestern British Columbia? There appears to be a scenario of an eruption at the volcano. Black Tusk 12:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The eruption date of 1730 ± 150 years means that the exact date of the eruption is uncertain, but between 1580 and 1880. If you look at the GVP eruptive history page (left link menu on the volcano page), the dating technique used to obtain that date is Uncorrected Radiocarbon. Explanations of all the dating techniques used are included in the Eruptions Data Criteria page, also linked on the left-side menu. Dates are always subject to revision as further studies are done and the data published. Why the Wiki page says the eruption was in 1750 I have no idea; the referenced GSC page clearly says 220 years ago, though the baseline of 1950 and the uncertainty are not included.

As far as Cayley, it's not in our database because it hasn't had an eruption in the last 10,000 years. Civil defense planning for an eruption has been done, but is totally hypothetical. If Cathy Hickson finds evidence of recent activity I'm sure she will let us know and publish her findings. The statement "Mount Cayley is one of the top 10 Canadian volcanoes with recent seismic activity..." seems to be unsupported by the listed refs. Maybe the full Stasiuk paper has that data, but it's not supported in the online astract. GVP Webmaster 20:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the Tseax River Cone eruption was uncertain because I have seen many different years. I'm the who put the statement "Mount Cayley is one of the top 10 Canadian volcanoes with recent seismic activity...", it's on the map here marked with stars. There are 10 volcanoes related to seismic activity since 1975 (Cayley's one of them) and Cayley also has hot springs. I have also contacted Cathie Hickson a few months ago and she said the activity still occurs at the volcano. Do you know when Mount Cayley actually last erupted? Because I have also seen many different years for this volcano as well (20,000 BP, 5,000 BP, 200,000 BP and 310,000 BP). Uncertain? Black Tusk 12:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I believe the Cayley seismicity, but why don't you properly reference the statement? Hickson may have more updated info, but her Cayley article in Volcanoes of North America (Wood and Kienle, 1990) based on work by Souther in the 1980's lists stages of activity during 4,000,000-600,000 and 300,000-200,000 BP. K-Ar dating (Green and others, 1988) gave 310,000 BP for the last eruption. On page 111 of the Hickson and Ulmi (2006) presentation (which you noted and linked above) the map indicates two dates for Cayley, 2.7-3.8 Ma and 310,000. Since that's the latest available ref by the person who should know, I'd go with the 310 Ka date. GVP Webmaster 16:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was going to reference it properly, but I haven't had time to do so (I'm also the one who made the article). When I was talking with Cathie, she said they have completed 3 Argon-Argon dates at Cayley. There's another volcano with seismic activity called Castle Rock, which last erupted during the Pleistocene period. Black Tusk 17:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GVP Webmaster, Mount Cayley appears to have been active up until about 8,000 years ago.[1] Black Tusk 04:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced. If it's not directly from a known reliable source, or not published in a scientific journal, as far as we are concerned it's not fact. In this case the statement is unreferenced, apparently anonymous, and on a site that could probably care less if it has correct eruption info -- not a slam on the site, just that it's not their area of concern. I noticed you still haven't referenced the top-10 seismicity statement. I'm puzzled why it is so hard to reference such a significant statement at the time you put it in, because clearly the reference must be in front of you when you do the edit, right? You save time, confusion, and challenges to your editing when you do it right the first time.GVP Webmaster 12:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have referenced the top-10 seismicity statement. I didn't reference the statement because I have been working on other volcano articles. Black Tusk 12:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I found the Tseax River Cone eruption in 1775 here and here but are not sourced. As for Mount Cayley, it is a major and long-lived volcanic center in the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt like Mount Garibaldi and Mount Meager, dating back to the Miocene and Pleistocene times.[2] [3] But since the volcano contains seismic activity and hot springs, it's not really an extinct or dormant volcano. For seismic activity, see here and here. For hot springs, see here. For Nazko Cone seismic activity, see here. The hot springs at Mount Cayley are related to geologically recent volcanic affinity, same for the seismic activity. I suggest Mount Cayley should be a synonym on your site like the rest of the Holocene active Canadian volcanoes. In my opinion, it seems kind of odd why the volcano should be left out because it's a major and long-lived volcanic center, possibly the oldest in the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt, since Mount Meager formed approximately 2 million years ago and Mount Garibaldi's age is early Pleistocene but both have had Holocene activity as well. Black Tusk 10:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to join the Volcanoes Wiki! Questions can be directed to my main user page. MeldshalP (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You recently added text to this article which is a verbatim copy from the GVP website, which you acknowledged in your edit comments. According to the site's copyright page (http://www.si.edu/copyright/), this text cannot be used "as-is" since it is not compatible with GFDL (e.g. GFDL allows commercial re-use with attribution). I have rephrased most of the text, as otherwise, other editors may have marked it as a copyright violation. I know that may seem somewhat ironic considering that a lot of Wikipedia articles have direct text copies from the GVP without proper attribution. However, many knowledgable editors (including yourself) are slowly trying to fix that. Feel free to update as you think necessary. Thanks for your contribution. RedWolf (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, rules, rules, rules. However, since I am the author/editor of the copied text, nobody else should complain. Technically I shouldn't have put anything up, but the tiny bit of lame text that was originally submitted upon page creation was too horrible to leave alone. So, I compromised by breaking both rules and now others can take it where they will. As far as direct text copies from GVP in other locations, my main concern is attribution, not the editing. The posted SI copyright rules don't address the extremely common situation of US Govt material, especially in the sciences, including GVP, where all text was created by US federal employees. Anyway, thanks for working it over and for the disambiguation page. GVP Webmaster (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thought you would like to know there is a discussion on my talk page about a mysterous eruption that you might know or help with. Black Tusk (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on my talk page. Black Tusk (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know I am more or less just trying help because I know Canada is commonly thought to occupy a gap in the Pacific Ring of Fire. I have access to the GSC because Cathie and others noticed some of my good volcano postings on Wikipedia and so on. Now, I have found recently active submarine volcanoes possibly related to mantle plumes on the BC Coast called Bowie and Tuzo Wilson Seamounts that range from Late Pleistocene to Holocene.[4] The young Tuzo Wilson Knolls here is most likely another name for the Tuzo Wilson Seamounts. Black Tusk (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just contacted Melanie Kelman and she said the GSC has not been able to date any of the really young stuff at the Mount Cayley volcanic field. But field evidence indicates some of the volcanics are younger than 10,000 years. There is a small lava flow atop the west lobe of Slag Hill that is postglacial (it has no indications of eruption in contact with ice, although it sits atop older lavas that do show evidence of ice contact eruption), which means that it is younger than 8,000-10,000 years, although the exact timing of deglaciation in that area is unknown. There is also a lava flow at Pali Dome West that is probably subaerial (hence, postglacial). In addition, some of the ice-contact features in the Cayley area may be younger than 10,000 years, since field characteristics (e.g. the elevation at which lava was impounded behind valley-filling ice) indicate they formed during the waning of glaciation...but since they do not know the exact timing of deglaciation, it is hard to put precise dates on their times of eruption. A good example of this is the Tricouni Southwest flow, which appears to have been impounded against ice in the deep ~north-south gully on its western margin, but thins out and disappears in the forest without evidence for ice ponding on the gently-sloping terrain along its western margin. This lava flow probably erupted during very late stage glaciation, and it is the exception among the young Mount Cayley volcanic field deposits in that there is a radiometric date for it - a carbon date, which came from an archaeological study. Melanie did not have the reference, but it was definately younger than 10,000 years. As a result, eruptions in the Mount Cayley volcanic field are most likely Holocene age. There are also some deposits outside the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt that are likely to be younger than 10,000 years such as some of the volcanics at the Nazko end of the Anahim Volcanic Belt. However, most of these are unmapped and many have probably not been identified - the DEM shows some features that look like cinder cones, but the GSC has not studied them yet. Melanie also said she will be able to devote some time this year to extensive updates of the GSC website, so you may update your website accordingly. Black Tusk (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have found references for early Holocene activity in the Mount Cayley volcanic field here, here, here, here. Black Tusk (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unattributed statements on webpages are not in any way sufficient or reliable for GVP. Nothing definitive in the text on those pages anyway, with possibly some small activity barely into the Holocene. As I've said before, when there is something published in a professional journal the status will be re-evaluated. Just like with every other volcano and every paper that talks about eruption dates. GVP Webmaster (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying the Geological Survey of Canada is not a reliable source. I have to disagree with that though. The GSC is associated with Natural Resources Canada which is part of the Canadian government. Might as well call the United States Geological Survey unreliable as well. Black Tusk (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying exactly that, and would say the same thing about unsupported, unattributed, statements on a USGS webpage. What's good enough for you when editing a Wikipedia article may not even come close to being scientifically reliable as far as GVP is concerned. GVP Webmaster (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I ment was the GSC and USGS in general, not the websites. I'm not sure you will believe me if I say this then, but Meager may not be the northernmost of the Cascade Arc. There is evidence the remote and poorly studied Silverthrone area may be the northernmost, given the fact that dacite, rhyolite, andesite and basaltic andesite all exist in the Silverthrone area (all those volcanics are mentioned on the GVP as well) and all those volcanics are commonly found together along the Cascadia subduction zone. Not sure if these are reliable to you in any way, but they are worthy to see. [5][6] Both state Silverthrone as the northernmost Cascade volcano. Black Tusk (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GVP WM: Thank you for correcting my error at Duluth Complex. I have fixed the link on the German Wikipedia, and will look for other uses of the source and correct those as well.

No problem. I've worked in the DC and know all the main players there, so the name typo jumped right out at me. GVP Webmaster (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On another matter, I quoted some of your comments above at this talk page. If you wish, feel free to comment there with any thoughts you have on citing and using public domain materials on Wikipedia. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I really have no time or interest to participate in such discussions, which tend to go nowhere and accomplish nothing. I just pop in once in awhile. Fortunately most of the editors actively working on volcano articles have now become pretty familiar with GVP and I rarely see anything blatently ripped off without any ref to us at all. GVP Webmaster (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and am glad to hear that GVP's work is being credited.

If you have a PD map showing in simplified form the Duluth Complex, Beaver Bay Complex, and NS Volcanics, it would be a helpful addition to the DC article. I have found a few (including at the Jirsa and Southwick source), but not in the public domain. Thanks. Kablammo (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing some work and I came across four links that are no longer function as expected. They are:

Paniri

GVP redirected link 1505-071

WayBackMachine

Cerro del León

GVP redirected link 1505-072

WayBackMachine

Linzor

GVP redirected link 1505-073

WayBackMachine

Tocorpuri

GVP redirected link 1505-082

WayBackMachine

I'm not sure exactly what to do about them. Common practice would suggest that I replace them with links to the Internet Archive using the WayBackMachine but since your available I thought I might ask you first. --droll [chat] 22:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks droll. The links are gone because additional research and evaluation of those volcanoes by volcanologists working in the area indicates that they have not erupted during the Holocene. As a result they no longer appear on our website. As indicated in the background geology text for those, work by Oscar Gonazales-Ferran was the primary source. A better solution that the internet archive might be to replace the GVP reference with this source:

Gonzalez-Ferran O, 1995. Volcanes de Chile. Santiago: Instituto Geografico Militar, 635 p

I'm pretty confident that everything that found its way into Wikipedia for those volcanoes is covered in his book. GVP Webmaster (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I'll take care of it. --droll [chat] 06:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- the wikipedia editor/author - of a bunch of the Smithsonian references that you have just corrected. Thanks. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If you haven't noticed, I've started a structural reorganization of WikiProject Volcanoes. So far, I've beutified the head page and moved a lot of the stuff to subpages of the project, so as not to bulk the main page. As an active member of the project, this is just a notice about what's going on. Comments go on the talk page. Happy holidays, ResMar 14:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not here to start another arugument like what happened with the discussion about Holocene activity at Cayley, but there is something that has remained in question about the GVP page about Meager. There is some doubt about Meager being the northernmost volcano of the Cascade volcanic arc. The Silverthrone and Franklin Glacier complexes to the northwest have the potential to be related to Cascadia subduction because their origins are poorly understood due to minimal studies.[7] But they are still considered to be part of the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt, which is the northern extension of the Cascade volcanic arc in the United States.[8] This indicates that Silverthrone could be the northernmost volcano of the Cascade volcanic arc and not Meager. Also, the GVP page about Silverthrone states that the caldera has erupted rhyolitic, dacitic and andesitic lava domes, flows and breccia. This kind of chemistry is common at volcanoes related to subduction zone volcanism. It would be nice if there was some kind of clarrification between Meager, Franklin and Silverthrone. Just because Meager is more well-studied and the Franklin and Silverthrone complexes are poorly studied does not mean Meager is the northernmost Cascade volcano. The chemistry of Silverthrone and Franklin are similar to other volcanoes throughout the Cascade volcanic arc. BT (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So some of us have been working on {{Infobox mountain}} which is used for many articles about volcanoes as I am sure you are aware. One of the row labels is "Volcanic arc/belt". I think this label is a bit clumsy. I am aware of arcs, belts fields and area called zones. Is there a generic term that can be used to refer such features generally and would not be objectionable from a professionals point of view. –droll [chat] 02:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I hoping for something concise like "volcanic region" or "volcanic area". –droll [chat] 03:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who should come? You should. Really.
	She Blinded Me with Science: Smithsonian Women in Science Edit-a-Thon will be held on Friday, March 30, 2012 at the Smithsonian Archives in Washington, D.C. This edit-a-thon will focus on improving and writing Wikipedia content about women from the Smithsonian who contributed to the sciences. It will be followed by a happy hour meetup! We look forward to seeing you there!

...and if you do not live in the Washington, D.C. area, please forgive the intrusion and you can delete this invite! Sarah (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say hello really, GVP is excellent, I did wonder whether there was an easy way to report minor errors/inconsistancies in the GVP data? Small things like this discussion on Talk:Asavyo would be easier to resolve if it was easier to prompt gvp regarding things to update. EdwardLane (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that the officially approved citation for the Smithsonian Institution Global Volcanism Program contains a web link to the old version of the website. That is, when a wikipedia article uses this citation, an error page comes up.

The officially approved citation is:

Siebert L, Simkin T (2002-). Volcanoes of the World: an Illustrated Catalog of Holocene Volcanoes and their Eruptions. Smithsonian Institution, Global Volcanism Program Digital Information Series, GVP-3, (http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/).

(See:http://www.volcano.si.edu/info/about/about_votw.cfm#CitationGuidelines)

And this citation appears on the Wikipedia template: Template:Global Volcanism Program

In the new version of the website I have not been able to find an updated version of this citation. Should the citation be the same but simply use a different url (i.e., http://www.volcano.si.edu/index.cfm; or one that links to a more specific area of the website)?

So that is my first question: Can you please confirm the current officially approved citation.

My second question is regarding use of this citation. For examples, for list pages, it would seem appropriate, but what about for pages referencing more specific data, such as data contained within the background, or weekly reports tabs for an individual volcano. Should the same citation be used, or should more specific information be provided within the title along with a specific url to the page in question)?

Third question: I noticed additional citation guidelines within the GVP websites. While the above citation pertains to information within the Volcanoes of the World database, my understanding is that data from other reports should follow the citation guidelines:

Venzke E, Wunderman R W, McClelland L, Simkin, T, Luhr, JF, Siebert L, Mayberry G, and Sennert S (eds.) (2002-). Global Volcanism, 1968 to the Present. Smithsonian Institution, Global Volcanism Program Digital Information Series, GVP-4 (http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/). (using appropriate titles, authors, url, etc.) (see: http://www.volcano.si.edu/info/about/about_reports.cfm)

and other general information from the website should follow: Simkin T, Siebert L (2002-). Global Volcanism FAQs. Smithsonian Institution, Global Volcanism Program Digital Information Series, GVP-5 (http://www.volcano.si.edu/education/questions/).

(see: http://www.volcano.si.edu/info/about/about_faq.cfm)

Is this correct?

I am not sure exactly how rigid it must be, but I am interested in citing with consistency and correctness! Thanks for your help.Datdyat (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a further point I forgot to ask: What do the -3, -4, and -5s refer to at the end of the citations (e.g., GVP-3) Thanks again! Datdyat (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GVP Webmaster. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GVP Webmaster. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]