Talk:Aria Giovanni/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

How long did it take you to find a G-rated picture of her?

Never mind. If I had read the article, I wouldn't have asked. (I only read Wikipedia for the articles, honest, honey!)

Guys,

Several issues.

A recent bit of expanding of Olivia Newton-John had me adding her date of birth at the start of her name in this style: (September 26, 1948- )

A certain astronomer then proceeded to change this to read (b September 26, 1948)

Which format is correct - and is there a correct format? I has a look in FAQ but found no help there.

Whilst we're at it, let's expand some more and ask : are there any standards as regards displaying peoples' dates of birth and death? There do not appear to be any. Some biographies start with just the years , often not in tag form (eg Fred VII (1654-1700) was a merry old soul); others do not start with a date of birth and/or death at all ( eg Luke VIII was a king of England who hated termites ...) ; others still use tags at the start ( Rodney II (June 15, 1936- October 31, 2001). Which format, if any, is standard? I prefer the lattermost myself.

One other thing. Whilst going through lists of the most popular pages, I was surprised to see one dedicated to someone called Aria Giovanni - some 4800 or so hits. When I investigated it, I was initially amused and then annoyed to discover that she is a Penthouse Pet.


I suspect that some of those 4800 hits were due to people looking for grubby pictures. Thanks to the tag at the bottom, that links to a site that, according to its own disclaimer, "contains explicit sexually oriented material" , they have access to them. (Oh, I should add, I did not look at this material...)

Seriously, though, is there any reason as to why the Asia Giovanni article should not be taken out? This website is not a referring service for porn, is it?

I should also point out that there is something patently ridiculous about a Penthouse Pet having a page that has a length compatible with, say Walter Burley Griffin, or is longer than , say, Aage Niels Bohr, two far more historically important individuals.

Arno

Yes, there are standards. They are outlined on the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and yes, you guessed it, some are still being thrashed out, in typical wikipedia style ;) The correct style for dates, however, is decided on. YOu'll be pleased to know that your preffered style is the standard: ( Rodney II (June 15, 1936- October 31, 2001). For the not-dead-yet, we use (born June 15, 1936). -- Tarquin


To answer your other question; We are not a porn referral service and if you see another pointless link to a porn site in the future then feel free to delete it. However, there are soft porn sites that can add to the value of certain articles. For example, in our surprisingly good article nude celebrities on the Internet there is a link to "The Case Files of the Fake Detective" which is a website that analyzes more than 300 faked nude photos of celebrities. It has side-by-side images of the fake, the original of the clothed celebrity, and the original of the nude model. But at one time there was a link to the Lair of Lux Lucre which only has the fakes. I removed the pointless Lux link. --mav
I am all in favor of focusing on and/or beefing up biographical articles on historically significant figures, but I see no justification for imposing arbitrary rules regarding biographies of adult entertainers/celebrities, nor do I see any justification for imposing arbitrary rules regarding links to adult content. Specifically, Playboy Playmates and Penthouse Pets are an important part of popular culture, and if we eliminate articles about them, or links to Web sites dedicated to them, we might as well eliminate articles about popular musicians such as Britney Spears along with links to their fan sites. Indeed, we might as well eliminate the Wikipedia article on fashion design altogether. -- NetEsq 18:21 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)
The main issue here is relevance of links and whether or not they add value to the article. I argue that linking to pure smut is not relevant and adds nothing to the article. So a link to Playboy.com from within our Playboy article would be appropriate as would a link to an official website of a subject in question so long as there is some encyclopedic value in it. If you think that linking to XXX porn is encyclopedic, then link away. Just don't be shocked when somebody else disagrees. --mav
<< The main issue here is relevance of links and whether or not they add value to the article. >>
Personally, I steer clear of biographical articles that might feature adult content. However, using your opinion as carte blanche authority for deleting links to pornographic Web sites, an anonymous contributor has deleted the official Web site of Aria Giovanni from the Aria Giovanni article. To wit, the comments of the anonymous contributor state: "This is not a porn referral service." With this in mind, would you care to reconsider your position on this issue and/or clarify your opinion as to whether the official Web site of a famous international model is relevant to an article about that model and/or whether that Web site should be deleted from an encyclopedic article about said model? -- NetEsq 20:47 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)
What's to clarify? If it's an official site site of a famous model, well then it is an official site. If there isn't anything encyclopedic there then a non-clickable link would be appropriate. External links are for more information, not gateways to smut. The URL of the official website is information that should be included in the article, but it doesn't have to be clickable. --mav

<<What's to clarify?>>

The original query was:

Seriously, though, is there any reason as to why the Asia Giovanni article should not be taken out? This website is not a referring service for porn, is it?

And your response was:

We are not a porn referral service and if you see another pointless link to a porn site in the future then feel free to delete it.

And using your opinion as carte blanche, an anonymous contributor deleted the official Web site of Aria Giovanni from the Aria Giovanni article.

<<If there isn't anything encyclopedic there then a non-clickable link would be appropriate.>>

And should we edit the link to Playboy from the Playboy article to make it non-clickable? In other words, exactly where are the boundaries of your "no linking to smut" criteria? Have you really thought this through? -- NetEsq 21:13 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)

Boy, you seem to like to argue over non-important things. I don't. However, I would keep Playboy.com clickable becuase both the magazine and the website are far more than pure smut. There is sports info, corporate info, an about page telling the reader about Playboy ect. That doesn't compare to a mere smut portal. Again, this is about link relevance; if there ain't info on the other end, then there is no reason to link to it no matter what it is. And there is no reason to have a clear set of guidelines on this, human judgement is all that is needed. If you think that making a direct link to the website makes the article a better article, then by all means link away. But if somebody else doesn't think that the link serves an encyclopedic purpose then they should delink to the link. Thus is the wiki way. And yes, I have thought this through.
If you don't mind, I have more important things to do. --mav
<< Boy, you seem to like to argue over non-important things. I don't. >>

I suppose it's all a matter of perspective, but it's very clear that you do like to argue; you just don't like to be proven wrong. To wit, you stated that you did not want to argue, then you went on to state your own contrary opinion. What did you hope to prove?

I consider censorship to be a very important issue, and I think that your patronizing dismissal of this issue (along with me and my opinions) speaks volumes to your lack of consideration and judgment. You offered an opinion; now it's time to defend it. Alternatively, you can admit that you are wrong. What will not pass for defending your opinion is dismissing me as a troll while offering your own opinion as though it were Biblical canon, which is *exactly* what you just did.

<< I would keep Playboy.com clickable becuase both the magazine and the website are far more than pure smut. >>

In other words, "I don't look at the pictures; I just read the articles." Well, you'll be saddened to know that the model whose Web site you seek to censor was hired by Wikipedia's sponsor Bomis for a fashion shoot that was used to promote the "Win a Ferrari" contest, and none other than Jimbo Wales himself uploaded a publicity photo of Aria Giovanni to Wikipedia. Should we now create a "no linking to smut except when it's used to promote Wikipedia" criteria? Or, alternatively, should we simply link to whatever Web sites are relevant to Wikipedia articles and lose the judgmental label of "smut" altogether? -- NetEsq 22:11 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)

"We are not a porn referral service" -- we're not? Aw crap. I want my money back!

I will let everybody else decide just who is patronizing here (which you stated as fact BTW). People are free to add or remove links as they see fit so long as those actions furhter our number one policy; that we are an encyclopedia. But, since you are obviously dancing around the central issue of relevance, I see no point in continuing this discussion. --mav

I'm with NetEsq on this one. If a person is worthy of an article and they happen to have their own website, then a single, relevant link to their website isn't objectionable. If that person happens to be a porn star, then you should recognize that the linked site will probably be pornographic. If your reason for deleting it is at all arguable-- and somebody else really thinks it should be there-- then let it be (and don't encourage others to mess with it). Dachshund
As I already said, if you think it is relevant and helps to make a better article then link away. However, anybody else can disagree. --mav
My point being that too much disagreement can be detrimental to the site. In order to keep Wiki working, it's better to settle on a policy that everybody can abide by, rather than leaving it open as a source of contention. There is obviously a deep rift between people who just don't want certain links in the Wikipedia because they're "smut" (and NPOV is not the only issue here), and others who think that a relevant link even to a porn site is acceptable given certain specific conditions. It would be far more productive to work this out than to leave it hanging. Where's Larry when you need him? Dachshund

I wasn't trying to either state or make a policy in this regard and I don't think it would be a good idea to do so. Everybody should be able to link or delink based on their own ideas on what is of encyclopedic relevance. Perhaps this thread began because I oftentimes don't qualify my opinions and some people are not able to tell an opinion from a statement of fact unless there is an obvious qualification. If you would like to have a hand in policy, then please join the Wikipedia mailing list. This thread should be moved elsewhere. --mav

Almost all improper web sites have a warning page (at worst R-rated) and require another click before you get to the good stuff. Ortolan88
Again, sigh, "good stuff" is not the issue. Whether or not a link has encyclopedic relevance is the issue. If a link doesn't add value to an article then it isn't needed. --mav
It is disingenuous to pretend that at least part of the question here is not whether a link from the Wikipedia will, in and of itself, cause offense to an unsuspecting clicker. The existence of warning pages means that, otherwise legitimate links are not, in and of themselves, likely to cause offense without further voluntary action on the part of the reader. That's good, and it supports your point of view, mav, and undermines the underlying objection to these links by those who disagree with you. Ortolan88
OK that did go over my head. I thought you were arguing for links here to outside porn because those sites have disclaimers. But I still think encyclopedic relevance is the main issue here with "offense to an unsuspecting clicker" being a related issue. Both of these must be weighed against the value of having the link. Again, there is little reason not to have information such as the URL of a related website, but we don't have to make that link active if it doesn't really add to the article. --mav
Mav, I don't get this. The link is labelled, and the article itself should be a warning to unsuspecting readers. An unclickable link doesn't resolve your encyclopedic-value issue, and it's just plain ugly/bad. Yuck. Dachshund
Dachshund, keep in mind that mav's comments above are about an older link, one that claimed to be "official" but is inferior in every way to the current link. In particular:
  • It didn't have a warning on the subject page.
  • It was primarily an attempt to extract money from surfers in exchange for access to more porn.
  • It had no encyclopædic material.
I would agree with mav that there's little point in linking that old page, but it's not the same as the current link (well, current as I write this, we'll see if Arno deletes it). — Toby 11:47 Oct 7, 2002 (UTC)
In other words, "It's okay to light up. Just don't inhale!" -- NetEsq 04:27 Sep 28, 2002 (UTC)

--

I appear to have sparked off something bigger than Ben Hur. I just reentered this area and read the above entries.

I'll just settle for one or two points. I agree that if a 'soft' webpage or website can illustrate a point involving some adult industry identity like Hugh Hefner then it is OK to include it. That is indeed the case with Hefner's page.

Nor do I have too much of a problem about such pages on the Wikipedia to begin with - Hefner has left a mark on periodical culture.

But there has to be line drawn somewhere on this. I must maintain that the idea of writing ad inifinitum about( or even worse, promoting) specific nudie models on the grounds that they are "an important part of popular culture" and giving them more attention than Walter Burley Griffin or Aage Niels Bohr is bizarre.

Arno

Well, Arno, the problem with the line that you hope to draw is that it is based entirely upon your own Victorian sense of morality. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your original position was that the Aria Giovanni article should be deleted, and your justification for wanting to delete that article revolves around the fact that the source of Aria Giovanni's international fame is the fact that she is a Penthouse Pet. However, the fact remains that Aria Giovanni is a famous international model, one featured by Wikipedia's sponsor Bomis . So, whatever your personal views are on the value of articles on "nudie models," Aria Giovanni deserves an article in Wikipedia, and that article should feature a link to her official Web site. (On this note, the URL for Aria Giovanni's official Web site has -- once again -- been removed from the Wikipedia article about Aria Giovanni by an anonymous contributor.)
Simply put, if you think that Walter Burley Griffin and Aage Niels Bohr deserve more attention than Aria Giovanni, then you should spend your time researching the former rather than advocating censorship of the latter. -- NetEsq 14:50 Sep 28, 2002 (UTC)

Look, mate, a few things.

1. Victorian England saw prostitution flourishing. It wasn't exactly smut-free. Get your facts right in future.

2. I have been contributing to Burley Griffin's article ; again, get your facts right. If you truly cannot contribute anything much to this site except besides nudie models, then I feel for you. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

3. Once again, this wikipedia is not meant to be a link for porno websites, regardless of whether or nor they come with a cover page and regardless of whether their subject is backed by a wikipedia sponsor. The Giovanni page, and in particular the webpage link that you have such an obsessive insistence on, is setting a precedent that this site needs the way you need another nose.

4. Finally, your tactic of highlighting words such as 'you' in an ill-advised attempt to dominate me is noted, and rejected with the contempt that it well deserves.

Arno

<< Victorian England saw prostitution flourishing. It wasn't exactly smut-free. Get your facts right in future. >>
What does this have to do with anything?
<< I have been contributing to Burley Griffin's article ; again, get your facts right. If you truly cannot contribute anything much to this site except besides nudie models, then I feel for you. >>
Get *your* facts straight. My contributions to Wikipedia have been limited to serious topics and discussions which relate to my areas of expertise, such as law, copyright issues, and (now) attempts at censorship by you. Specifically, I have *NOT* made *ANY* contributions on articles about "nudie models," but I am *VERY* concerned that you seem to think that such contributions should be censored. My point was (and is) that you should spend your time on articles that you feel need beefing up rather than advocating censorship of the totally valid contributions of others.
<< Once again, this wikipedia is not meant to be a link for porno websites, regardless of whether or nor they come with a cover page and regardless of whether their subject is backed by a wikipedia sponsor. >>
Not just "a wikipedia sponsor," but *THE* sponsor. If you would like to start your own version of Wikipedia and censor articles about "nudie models," more power to you. However, Wikipedia owes its existence to the beneficience of Jimbo Wales, owner of Bomis, Inc., so if you choose to engage in a pointless pissing contest with me over an article that Jimbo thinks should be included in Wikipedia, you will lose.
<< The Giovanni page, and in particular the webpage link that you have such an obsessive insistence on, is setting a precedent that this site needs the way you need another nose. >>
Look, mate, it is *YOU* who is obsessed. The Aria Givoanni article is (at worst) fluff, and it is hardly "setting a precedent." Rather, there are many such articles in Wikipedia, and there is no reason to believe that your attempts at censorship will have any appreciable impact on them. If they did, then *THAT* would be a dangerous precedent, not unlike the banning and burning of books like _Catcher in the Rye._ -- NetEsq 14:21 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

---

Hello debating Wikipedians. This Playboy debate is getting extremely long. Any ideas on where it can be relocated? --Stephen Gilbert 13:27 Sep 29, 2002 (UTC)

(After Stephen wrote that, it was of course relocated here.)

I don't really know who Aria Giovanni is but I don't think it matters. The world historic significance of an individual should not be a barrier to a Wikipedia entry. If someone is willing to write something in an appropriate style then there is no reason to exclude it.

As for the link issue, making any decision to remove a link due to potentially "offensive" or immoral content of the link is a slippery slope. Irrelevant links to porn sites can be deleted but links to an individual's official or personal website do seem to me to be relevant.

This issue does have wider implications. Should articles on neo-nazism link to neo-nazi sites for example?

My view is link and let the reader beware.

Anon

Once again, Arno has deleted the link to Aria Giovanni's official Web site from the Aria Giovanni article, citing mav's original statements as carte blanche authority for doing so, even though mav himself has twice restored the URL. At what point does Arno's petty and recalcitrant defiance of the consensus of other Wikipedians become intentional sabotage? -- NetEsq 15:26 Oct 3, 2002 (UTC)

Oooh dear. Just when I thought that you'd (finally) accepted this in good grace, this hysterial claptrap appears.

Mav did NOT restore the original link - rather a reference to it. He only did that after repeated cyber-footstamping on your part (see above). You still cannot get your facts right. This little tendency of yours to write down hysterical things things about others without checking them out is something you'd be well advised to curb - sooner or later it may result in a defamation lawsuit. — Arno

I don't think that Arno's actions, although I disagree with them, amount to sabotage. It's a reasonable disagreement about what the content of the article might be. BTW, Arno, have you looked at the site that I linked to? It's much better than the old one:

  • It sure looks a lot more like an official site.
  • It has legitimate biographical information (and thus doesn't fall under mav's "carte blanche" clause).
  • It isn't a commercial site asking people for money to see more porn (although it is commercial in the sense that it promotes an entertainer's career).

The only downside that I can see is that it shows boobies on every page without warning, which is why I added a warning of my own to the link. — Toby 11:47 Oct 7, 2002 (UTC)

First they came for the crackers.
But I never did anything illegal with my computer,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the pornographers.
But I thought there was too much smut on the Internet anyway,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the anonymous remailers.
But a lot of nasty stuff gets sent from anon.penet.fi,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the encryption users.
But I could never figure out how to work PGP anyway,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for me.
And by that time there was no one left to speak up.
- Author unknown

<< I don't think that Arno's actions, although I disagree with them, amount to sabotage. >>

My question was (and is), "At what point does Arno's petty and recalcitrant defiance of the consensus of other Wikipedians become intentional sabotage?" It seems pretty clear that he has appointed himself as Wikipedia's Smut Nazi, and all that he needs to succeed at his mission is for good Wikipedians to do nothing.

<< It's a reasonable disagreement about what the content of the article might be. >>

Disagremeent? Yes. Reasonable? Hardly. Read Arno's original query, and it's very clear that he would like to eliminate the Aria Giovanni article IN ITS ENTIRETY:

Seriously, though, is there any reason as to why the Asia Giovanni article should not be taken out? This website is not a referring service for porn, is it?

The real problem started when mav offered his unqualified and unconsidered opinion about deleting "pointless link[s] to porn sites," which Arno interpreted as carte blance authority for censorship of any and all links to adult content. Subsequently, mav has equivocated about the issue of censorship just enough to keep Arno convinced that he (Arno) is justified in steamrolling over the clear consensus of Wikipedians who believe that Aria Giovanni deserves a Wikipedia article and that an *ACTIVE* link to her official Web site should be included in that article. -- NetEsq 15:55 Oct 7, 2002 (UTC)

NetEsq , I just do not propose to keep arguing with you on this score. It's like arguing with a rabid dog. Your evaluation of me as a 'Nazi' is sickening and defamatory and marks a new low point on your , um, input on this issue.

Your repeated hysterical diatribes on this matter is truly bizarre and you have truly succeeded in disgracing yourself in front of everybody over it. I can only suggest that you place yourself on valium, ritalin or some other of appropriate medication as soon as possible before you go near a keyboard again.

Arno.

<< NetEsq , I just do not propose to keep arguing with you on this score. >>

You could have fooled me. Did your evil twin post this latest tripe?

<< It's like arguing with a rabid dog. >>

I wouldn't characterize it that way; I find arguing with you much more like arguing with a fundamentalist Christian over the Theory of Evolution. To wit, you are remarkably ignorant and petty, but that doesn't stop you from arguing.

<< Your evaluation of me as a 'Nazi' is sickening and defamatory and marks a new low point on your , um, input on this issue. >>

The term "Nazi" is *NOT* defamatory; it is frequently used to describe those who advocate censorship, as you clearly do. That you are sickened by this label is a good thing, assuming that it prompts you to re-examine your attitude towards censorship, but I doubt that it will. You're much more concerned with making sure that the valid contributions of Wikipedians conform to your own Victorian morality.

<< Your repeated hysterical diatribes on this matter is truly bizarre and you have truly succeeded in disgracing yourself in front of everybody over it.>>

I think you've got this backwards: An objective observer would come to the clear and obvious conclusion that you are advocating an untenable position and attempting to provoke me while I am maintaining a calm and reasonable tone. Even so, I would not go so far as to describe your tone as hysterical; rather, it is ignorant, petty, and unnecessarily confrontational. To wit:

<< I can only suggest that you place yourself on valium, ritalin or some other of appropriate medication as soon as possible before you go near a keyboard again. >>

Sounds like a personal problem -- *YOURS*. But thanks for sharing. -- NetEsq 15:13 Oct 9, 2002 (UTC)


--

so what again is the purpose of the link?

If the purpose of the link is to enable the wise reader to gain additional information about a subject, regardless of the subject matter (be it porn, religion, polititcs, anti-US policies, etc), then I am in favor of the link.

If however the purpose of the link is to promote a business (regardless of the type of business--i am not a censor) then I think the link does not belong, unless the link is specifically marked as such, and it can be claimed that knowledge of the subject matter would be incomplete without the particular commercial web site. -- Chris Mahan


I'd say in this case, it's the former. While the site links to other sites that are commercial, probably the link of interest, "bio/stats," is free, and the site itself is, as it says, a "free website." Hephaestos

<< If . . . the purpose of the link is to promote a business (regardless of the type of business--i am not a censor) then I think the link does not belong, unless the link is specifically marked as such, and it can be claimed that knowledge of the subject matter would be incomplete without the particular commercial web site. >>

An interesting spin on the present situation, but (ultimately) one that does nothing but cloud the crux of the matter -- i.e., whether a link to the official Web site of Aria Giovanni should be censored because it might contain "grubby pictures." By way of comparison, consider the purpose of the Playboy site: To sell online subscriptions to soft core pornography. Indeed, since the decline of online advertising revenue, selling online subscriptions is the primary purpose of 90% of the `Nets major properties, including Yahoo!, AOL, and Hotmail. What this has to do with censoring Aria Giovanni's official Web site is anyone's guess. -- NetEsq 04:13 Oct 11, 2002 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of unproductive back and forth on this page. I have already stated my opinion on only having relevant info being placed in articles and have already restored the URL three times because that info is relevant to the article. If, however, there is no value to the reader in providing a live link then the link shouldn't be live. The newer link does have more info in it than the other one did so I wouldn't object to making it live with the current warning. I would prefer it doesn't though because in my opinion it adds little to the article (the previous live link added nothing). Hm, I do see that in addition to breasts there is full frontal nudity one click in [1]. But there is valid info right next to the image. --mav

<< If, however, there is no value to the reader in providing a live link then the link shouldn't be live. >>
I remain totally mystified by this assertion. Either the link is relevant, and it should be included, or it is not relevant, and it should not be included. Ultimately, the entire issue boils down to censorship of nudity, and offering a URL that is not clickable makes about as much sense as putting a screen door on a submarine. -- NetEsq 15:15 Oct 11, 2002 (UTC)

I have to agree with Chris Mahan and mav here - the main issue is whether the link contains useful additional information. The 'smut factor' is at best secondary - a link with smut will be found objectionable by some, and thus may be held to stricter scrutiny, but it is rarely if ever on itself reason to reject a link.

As for the specific case, I am with mav: I personally think the link is not good enough to include, but it is borderline, so I would certainly not remove it myself, while I would have done so with the previous link, which hardly contained any information at all.

Finally, I find the level of discussion on this page far below par, and looking at the history, I regard NetEsq to be more to blame for it than Arno. Andre Engels

<< a link with smut will be found objectionable by some, and thus may be held to stricter scrutiny >>
And holding "smut" to stricter scrutiny is categorically wrong.
<< I find the level of discussion on this page far below par, and looking at the history, I regard NetEsq to be more to blame for it than Arno. >>
My position on censorship is a sound one, and trying to assign blame to me (for God knows what) is simply another way to equivocate over the issue of whether a link to the official Web site of a famous international model should be censored simply because that Web site contains nudity.
One thing that I would like to point out is that I have *NOT* actually edited the article in question. Rather, I am defending what I consider to be the valid contributions of other Wikipedians whereas you, mav, et al. are encouraging people to censor links to "smut." The reason that I am doing so is because censorship of pornography is the favorite tactic of oppressors throughout history. It allows them to take the high moral ground and trivialize their opposition, but this will not take place on my watch. -- NetEsq 15:15 Oct 11, 2002 (UTC)
> And holding "smut" to stricter scrutiny is categorically wrong.
Whether or not it is, it is something we cannot avoid. Just like we cannot avoid that texts on pages that are viewed often are under stricter scrutiny for spelling errors.
> My position on censorship is a sound one, and trying to assign blame to me (for God knows what) is simply another way to equivocate over the issue of whether a link to the official Web site of a famous international model should be censored simply because that Web site contains nudity.
Whether or not your position on censorship is a sound one, does not matter. What I was discussing was the way you were discussing the issue, not the issue itself. And I keep saying that it is way below par. The most I can say is that Arno is partly to blame as well (and if you still don't get it, intentional sabotage, Wikipedia's smut Nazi, unqualified and unconsidered opinion,, steamrolling, remarkable ignorant and petty, untenable position have just as little place in reasonable debate (which is what I hope to find in a Talk page) as hysterical claptrap, repeated cyber-footstamping or hysterical diatribes)
I understand your position, and I respect it. However, I also disagree with it. Politeness has its place, as does candor, but (in the final analysis) the work is the important thing. (See generally Debate on Wikipedia Rules to Consider: No personal attacks.)

It has come to my attention that the following has been posted on the user pages of various Wikipedia sysops by an anonymous poster:

-Begin anonymous post-

I wonder if you have been keeping an eye on the Aria Giovanni talk webpage. The situation there is out of control.

Matters have deteriorated to a highly abusive level over a website link. Of special concern is the general conduct and attitude of someone called NetEsq, who claims in his details to be a lawyer.

He has repeatedly abused anyone who opposed the idea of the website link with such tactics as net misettiquete ( eg the use of the word 'you' in capitals and bold to emphasise shouting), a poor grasp of history, the unrepentant use of such termsas Nazi, out of context quotes and attempted alienation ("only YOU opppose it").

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of his beliefs, it is very advisable to bring this most unruly and arrogant person into line.

Given that your name is on the list of persons who can ban users, I thought it advisable to bring this to your attention, before it leads to persons leaving the wikipedia - something likely to stroke Netesq's already aggressive ego.

-End anonymous post-

In other words, this anonymous poster, failing in his recalcitrant and petty attempts to oppose the consensus of Wikipedians in re the Aria Giovanni article, is now seeking the assistance of Wikipedia's sysops in getting me banned from Wikipedia. -- NetEsq 18:56 Oct 11, 2002 (UTC)

(1) As far as getting you banned, he has little hope of that. You're a useful contributor, and arguing forcefully is something I personally admire, so it certainly won't cause me or any other sysop I know to take any action, especially when it's only been suggested by some anonymous coward.

(2) Take it easy on Mav. He's young and enthusiatic and hardworking, and is concerned with creating useful policy here. But the fact that he is (with good reason) seen as a leader here should not make you think that his opinions are "pronouncements" or that he is arrogating any authority--he's just another Wikipedian like you or me, who has earned respect by virtue of hard work, though I and other sysops still disagree with him at times and will continue to. If you think his opinion on a matter of policy is not what you'd like, bring it up on the mailing list.

(3) The specific issue here is whether (and how) to include in this article a link to Aria's official site. That's a no-brainer to me: of course we should have a link, and of course we should have this article. She's a well-known model, and she has a website of her own. If people continue to remove that link from here, I will consider blocking their access, because they are clearly damaging Wikipedia for no reason other than personal distaste. We're not here to take a position on taste; we're here to report on what people want to know about. Mav suggests making the link non-clickable; I have no particular opinion on that one way or another. If that makes you both happy, go for it. But it seems silly to me; if the link is there anyway, make it work. I mean we have a link on the Goatse.cx page, for Christ's sake. I do think a disclaimer is appropriate, so I'd include that too.

--LDC

<< Take it easy on Mav.>>

Contrary to how things might appear, I have a great deal of respect for Mav, even if I am more than a little confused by his position in re non-clickable links. The only real concern that I have is that Mav's position on censoring "irrelevant links to porn" is being used as carte blanche authority to censor extremely relevant, albeit unabashedly blue material. This concern should not be interpreted as an indictment of Mav's position, which I think is both understandable and defensible. Even so, the ongoing Edit War over the official Aria Giovanni Web site is a conflict between one defiant rogue and the overwhelming weight of the consensus, and it should serve as demonstrative evidence of just how slippery the equivocal slope of censorship is. -- NetEsq 20:42 Oct 11, 2002 (UTC)

NetEsq, I'm a bit tired of being called a censor by you. Those types of allegations are not merited by the facts and are insulting. If not wanting to have irrelevant links and info in articles is censorship then I guess the mass majority of old hand Wikipedians are censors. I have already clarified my original post on the village pump and several times above AND I think the current link is relevant IN SPITE OF THE NUDITY because of the biographical and other info at the site (I personally think the website is distasteful though). Please stop spreading lies about me. Oh and the whole thing about non-clickable links is just to make sure that people going to a site really want to go there -- not everybody reads the whole article or disclaimers before clicking through and if a website doesn't have any info on it then there is little reason to have an active link. BTW, just because I am the most active Wikipedian doesn't mean that what I say is policy so stop trying to blame me for the actions of this 203 person. --mav
<< NetEsq, I'm a bit tired of being called a censor by you. Those types of allegations are not merited by the facts and are insulting. >>
I respectfully disagree. The question is one of degree, not kind. Censorship of irrelevant links is still censorship, and (as I stated previously) censorship is sometimes justified, the same way that something as horrific as homicide can be justified. However, I believe that the bar for the burden of proof when it comes to censorship should be set extremely high; I took issue with your statements because I perceived them to be equivocal.
<< [S]top trying to blame me for the actions of this 203 person. >>
For the record, I do not blame you for the actions of this 203 person. Rather, I consider your position on censorship to be both reasonable and defensible; I also think it's pretty clear that 203 has no interest whatsoever in trying to understand the nuances of when censorship is appropriate. -- NetEsq 14:20 Oct 12, 2002 (UTC)

I might have a bit more "neutral point of view" with regard to the discussion between NetEsq and Arno if most of the recent vandalisms of the aforementioned link hadn't originated from the same Sydney-based ISP, not to mention the last one which apparently came in the most cowardly fashion from a public library in Canberra. Hephaestos

NOTE to 203; If you take out the link again then your IP will be blocked for 24 hours. If you are using multiple IPs/computers then there will be a 24 hour block for each of those IPs for each erasure incident. I'm sorry it has come to this. --mav

Excellent article!! Who came up with the idea of writing this? Oh... All of us? :) Where _did_ thos G-rated images come from? LOL -Snorre/Antwelm 14:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/i/Talk%7EAria_Giovanni_Archive_1_293c.html"