Template talk:Copyvio

= No docs? Good. = It would be nice to amend the currently prescribed behaviour, for several reasons. Currently the seems to automatically add the deletion request? This is in my opinion bad.

Copyright violation may be fixed by rewrite. Rewrite to a new location and deletion of the old one means the page's history may be lost. The copyright violation may be only a small part of the page, totally replacing the page would be silly in some cases.

I have been working on the Deletion requests and Policies and guidelines/Deletion guidelines, and directed users to the following page to learn about how to deal with suspected copyright violations: Policies and guidelines/Responding to suspected copyright violation. Right now I have to sleep, so the new page is empty.

Whatever the current copyvio process really is, as far as I can tell is undocumented. So creating a new document is both necessary and simple. We can work out a good procedure etc from scratch if necessary, or document the current system if that's really the best. However:

Certainly, it's not good to fill up the deletion request documentation with info on copyright, so I don't think the copyright violation case should approach the deletion request any differently than any other case. Exceptions to rules are what makes documentation difficult to read and write, and the complexity explodes exponentially, with both number of rules, and with time as changes are attempted. - Simeon 14:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Copyright violations must be deleted, since if they are in the document history they still amount to a copyright violation (it is available for view, so we are "publishing" it.) However, with the new version of the software (1.4.x) there is now the ability to delete only the copyright violation versions from the document history, so a copyvio should no longer require complete document deletion.
 * Here's how to do a partial document deletion. Delete the whole document, then selectively restore the revisions which do not contain the copyright violation. The copyvio is no longer available on the history, and so is not "published" anymore.
 * - Amgine/talk 15:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Too long?
I suspect we could delete the sentence "You may do so on this current page; administrators have the ability to selectively purge old versions containing the copyright violation." (Sorry BRS) For a typical infringer, this will be too long - didn't read. Once they have got to 'rewrite attempt' that is all they really need to know - the rest is for the benefit of the regulars, who could read it at WN:PROD or WN:COPYRIGHT if we get around to saying it there. --InfantGorilla (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)