Guild Wars Wiki talk:Copyrighted content/draft B

/Archive 1

Reverting copyvio
The draft looks good to me. Support. --Dirigible 04:51, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Submitted this as an official proposed change. Some relevant discussion is here. Reviewers, be sure to check out the handy diff link at the top of the article. Note that this proposal also adds a (minor?) note that certain images should be tagged with arenanet image. --Rezyk 13:49, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Bump. Couple of days more and I'm adding this revision to the main policy. --Dirigible 04:01, 23 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I'm opposed to a couple of the changes. I don't think the part about deleting and restoring an article should be part of the policy. I can understand that in some situations it might be necessary, but I would rather not advocate it. LordBiro 05:27, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Can you give us some reason why you object to the line "if necessary, a sysop may delete the article and selectively restore the revisions before the violation and after the revert" being included, besides a dislike for tampering with article histories? If that's the case, I feel the same way, but I don't think that the above line is encouraging revision deletion; it's acknowledging the possibility of it being necessary and putting this On Record by making it part of the policy. This way when it does happen that an article is removed + restored, no one can complain about why it happened when it's not part of the recommended course of action suggested by the Copyrighted content policy. Secondly, having the possibility of revision deletion on record gives you the chance to make a case that you not only have the tools to properly deal with copyvio, but that you are also willing to use them if the necessity arises (i.e. if the copyright holder demands the material to be removed). We can add another line that suggests that this shouldn't be used unless it's really needed I guess, but I'd like to have it written down that revision deletion is a concrete possibility, especially when dealing with relatively serious issues like housing copyright infringing content.--Dirigible 07:17, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
 * How would you feel about this wording instead: "if specifically required by the copyright holder, a sysop may delete the article and selectively restore the revisions..."? Or is it your concern that the bar should be set even higher (like requiring explicit community consensus, or a DMCA takedown notice)? Also, what other changes are you opposed to? --Rezyk 14:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Sorry I haven't replied more quickly to these! :(


 * Rezyk, yes, that change about "if required by copyright holder" is perfect and exactly what I was meaning! My concern is that "if necessary" is very vague. On GuildWiki there were a couple of occasions where sysops removed content from the history because they felt it violated NDAs with ArenaNet, and no consensus was reached before carrying out these actions. I would hate to see the situation repeated, where a sysop feels a copyright violation had taken place and decides to remove it from the history. This is really as much to protect sysops from being blamed for acting unfairly as it is to protect the history! LordBiro 05:44, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

New version
I'm officially re-proposing this now, after having made the above change ("if specifically required by the copyright holder"). --Rezyk 06:02, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
 * 24 hours more and then I'm merging this with the main policy. --Dirigible 19:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Merged. --Dirigible 19:06, 8 May 2007 (EDT)