As some of you may remember, we had a forum a while back for altering COD:LEAK to be more lenient, Forum:Altering COD:LEAK. Since said forum, I have been contacting Activision to further enquire about COD:LEAK, and if we still need the policy in place given their lax attitude towards many other sites. For the past Month I have been e-mailing Activision's legal department directly about if we still need this policy, and for the exact legislation why, as if you look at the contact we received, we were never told the exact legislation. For this full month I received no reply, despite constantly reminding them of a deadline response, and given the nature of these e-mails a one month reply is far too long for any response if one was going to be given.
For the reasons above, I feel it is time we broke free of the shackles of COD:LEAK and finally be on equal footing and be able to create pages on maps, DLCs, weapons and what have you as soon as they can be confirmed as true, instead of having to wait for official announcement. I feel this could greatly benefit us, as many other sites already report on this leaked material and we would finally be able to keep up, instead of having to spend our time removing the information, we could be adding it. In the e-mails I sent, I stated multiple times that lack of response would lead to steps to remove the policy, so Activision cannot complain that we are going though with this forum. I also told Activision if they wish for us to reinstate the policy again they will need to contact us directly, and not Wikia as it was us that tried to contact them in the first place.
I understand people may be put off by the fact this was put in place over Activision bringing up legal issues, so I would like to stress I have made sure to go though the proper channels, and ensured I waited a reasonable time before putting this forum in place. Also, I have been speaking with Callofduty4 in regards to making this forum, hence why we will be sharing our signatures on this introduction. 
21:38, February 15, 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
Support — I support this partly because Wikia will be contacted about any infringing material and they will remove it on a case-by-case basis. I also support this because as we've seen, Activision don't really seem to care about whether or not we have it. 21:42, February 15, 2014 (UTC)
Support — Per basically everything said and it'd also help the news. http://i.imgur.com/GhKJh.pngP90Deathmanhttp://i.imgur.com/uceaHlB.png21:43, February 15, 2014 (UTC)
Support — As long as "leaked" information is held to the same reference standard as everything else I see no reason not to retire the rule. Raven's wing Talk21:45, February 15, 2014 (UTC)
Support — Per all above, it would also mean we'd be able to stay as up to date as other sites.
22:31, February 15, 2014 (UTC)
Support — The altering of LEAK to be more lenient was an idea that if we couldn't leave the article entirely, than the amendment would do. But since Activision doesn't seem to mind, the rule can be retired. 
Argorrath おしゃべり
23:09, February 15, 2014 (UTC)
Support — Why should other sites be granted leniency towards leaked material while we're 'punished' for it? It doesn't make sense. Per all above. 
Kylet357 · talk 23:55, February 15, 2014 (UTC)
Support — I came into this forum opposing it, but since the leaks will have to be comfirmed true and not just rumors, I support it. Also, per Raven's Wing. Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 02:38, February 16, 2014 (UTC)
Support — Per Raven's. http://i.imgur.com/KUDLq.png 07:41, February 16, 2014 (UTC)
Support — It is unfair to the wiki to be unable to display leaked material. I think the removal of this policy will be beneficial, and could help increase activity for the wiki. Per all above. Legos-Rule-15 (talk) 23:06, February 17, 2014 (UTC)
Question — didn't we decide that instead of rushing to a vote we'd actually discuss the forum first? or is there simply nothing to say? KλT 09:35, February 16, 2014 (UTC)
- We did, however the way I wrote it likely led to the way the responses are. I'd sort of gotten used to writing up forums to go straight to vote. Chances are we can still hold an official vote after 2 weeks or so so if there are any neutrals or opposes they can be addressed before the final cast. 10:03, February 16, 2014 (UTC)
I don't really like the idea of doing this pretty much entirely to spite Activision. Has anybody asked Wikia staff for their opinion or recommendation? Joe Copp 17:42, February 17, 2014 (UTC)
- This is not out of spite. It is because the policy is a hindrance to us and we would do so better without it. Furthermore, Wikia would likely just bring up Activision's rights again, which I have not been able to get directly from Activision themselves. Asking Wikia about this would be like asking a ticket officer to get your car back from the impound lot. 22:09, February 17, 2014 (UTC)
- how do you know what wikia's response will be? they might have better luck contacting official company representatives than us. KλT 23:15, February 17, 2014 (UTC)
- They'll have to go though the same channels I went though. And unless they [Activision] were ignoring my emails based solely on the email address, I see no real difference getting Wikia themselves to send emails will have. 23:47, February 17, 2014 (UTC)
- I really, really doubt that wikia uses the generic legal email to contact them. I know for a fact wikia staff have direct lines into acti. Its worth the effort if you're this passionate about the policy don't you think? Assuming the worst won't make anything easy
- Fine, then we can put this forum on hold while we wait for Wikia to contact Activision. And in response I would like to hear exact legislation why we must adhere to this policy instead of just hearing "Because legal says so". 00:31, February 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Also, I would like to point out that I was using a direct e-mail address to contact Activision, in fact it took me about a month just to get that e-mail address. Also, I don't really see what you mean by Wikia using generic a generic email address. 00:42, February 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Also, I don't like having to hold this forum longer than is needed (as if we leave it too long, momentum will go, and forum may die). So can we try and get a response from Activision within 2 weeks? If we still haven't heard from them in that long, we'll have to assume they're still not replying. 11:40, February 20, 2014 (UTC)
- Who has talked to staff, if I may ask? Joe Copp 16:25, February 25, 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I'm hoping Kat has, since he brought this up, as well as him knowing more staff members than I do. 17:19, February 25, 2014 (UTC)
- Who has talked to staff, if I may ask? Joe Copp 16:25, February 25, 2014 (UTC)
- Also, I don't like having to hold this forum longer than is needed (as if we leave it too long, momentum will go, and forum may die). So can we try and get a response from Activision within 2 weeks? If we still haven't heard from them in that long, we'll have to assume they're still not replying. 11:40, February 20, 2014 (UTC)
- I really, really doubt that wikia uses the generic legal email to contact them. I know for a fact wikia staff have direct lines into acti. Its worth the effort if you're this passionate about the policy don't you think? Assuming the worst won't make anything easy
- They'll have to go though the same channels I went though. And unless they [Activision] were ignoring my emails based solely on the email address, I see no real difference getting Wikia themselves to send emails will have. 23:47, February 17, 2014 (UTC)
- how do you know what wikia's response will be? they might have better luck contacting official company representatives than us. KλT 23:15, February 17, 2014 (UTC)
Support — It'd help more wikian to contribute more without any kind of legal problem. http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/009/1/b/fennekin_animated_by_thunderboltelemental-d5qw861.gif Maxxis<FENNEKIN!> 05:51, February 20, 2014 (UTC)
Support — Yeah, fuck EA! -- <choose><option>azuris_</option><option>
Azuristalk</option> 01:49, February 21, 2014 (UTC)
Support — Yeah! Let's get sued again! (In all seriousness, that's a pretty old policy that came out of a one really odd event. And since it has been quite some time, let's just kill it).-Diegox223 Zed's dead, baby.
03:25, February 21, 2014 (UTC)
Support — Per All 
Bats a.k.a Rarity Filly 04:36, February 21, 2014 (UTC) oh look I am back again
Support — Per erryone 
N7 TC 10:22, February 21, 2014 (UTC)
Comment — On second thoughts the one good thing about COD:LEAK was that we didn't have too much speculation added to articles before release so maybe we need to make a new policy to reflect that. N7 TC 17:04, February 25, 2014 (UTC)
- Ya, I mentioned in the main header we should only add the content if it can also be confirmed, like if someone leaks some game files or something. 17:18, February 25, 2014 (UTC)
Comment — On second thoughts the one good thing about COD:LEAK was that we didn't have too much speculation added to articles before release so maybe we need to make a new policy to reflect that. I'd like to add on right now, Drift0r has posted yet another video about leaked information, seen here. Now, if we retire the policy, we can actually use this information, just like he's been able to.
20:24, March 3, 2014 (UTC)
- My problem with the stuff he talks about in that video though is that none of it is backed up, and he may even be just making some of it up. He just asks us to trust him that he has the info. Joe Copp 15:37, March 5, 2014 (UTC)
- 2 Notes about the video and Drift0r in general. A) He was 99% correct about Ghosts when he leaked it last year and B) IIRC, he mentions either in the video or somewhere else that this years source is less-legitimate and trustworthy than last years. http://i.imgur.com/KUDLq.png 15:43, March 5, 2014 (UTC)