Talk:Scottish Barony Register

Copyvio

I'm aware that user:Fram has been active here and on other related articles. I just thought Fram may be interested to know that much of the article here is, to a greater or lesser extent, WP:COPYVIO from the website of the organisation the article is about, e.g. here [1]. Axad12 (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Specifics of the COPYVIO on this article (once again copying in user:Fram as I'm unsure what action needs to be taken)...

(1)

Lede para, commencing The Scottish Barony Register is a non-statutory register is a direct lift from here: [2] and here [3] (section on ‘Who is the custodian [etc]?’).

'HISTORY' SECTION:

(2)

Paragraphs 1 to 3 are mostly just loosely paraphrased from here [4], although some elements are direct lifts or minor rewordings.

(3)

Paragraph 4:

Only the Crown had the authority to grant titles of barony, which in addition to transferring ownership of a defined geographical area of land, also typically included rights to hold local markets and administer local justice systems. The recipient of a barony grant could then rightfully use the title, such as "John Doe, Baron of Stirling".

Is closely paraphrased from the same source [5], specifically...

Only the Crown could grant a Barony title. As well as land, the grant included Baronial rights, such as holding markets and administering justice. The party granted the title could style himself "John Smith, Baron of Auchenshuggle".

(4)

PARAGRAPHS 5 & 6

As Scotland transitioned into the early modern period from about 1746 onwards, most of the jurisdictional powers and responsibilities that accompanied barony titles began to be steadily removed and centralised under the authority of the Scottish legal system. With their localised feudal authority diminished, barony titles gradually reduced in importance and significance over the following centuries. However, barons still retained rights to sell or transfer portions of their demesne lands, while keeping their barony designation, as long as they held title to some definable area of ground within the barony boundaries, a condition that persisted legally until 2004 reforms. In the latter half of the 20th century, something of a marketplace emerged involving the buying and selling of long-standing barony titles, often associated with only a nominal parcel of land.

Is paraphrased from the same source [6]:

From about 1746 onwards - when most jurisdictional rights were removed - Barony titles gradually reduced in importance. A Baron could sell parts of his land to others, but still retain the Barony title, so long as (pre 2004) he retained an area of land. A market sprang up in the second half of the 20th Century in Barony titles; a Barony could be bought, generally with a small area of ground within the Barony.

(5)

However, in 2004 the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act officially eliminated the underlying feudal system of land tenure that had governed Scotland for nearly 800 years. As a result, barony titles overnight lost the ability to be recognised in the Scottish land registration system.

Is closely paraphrased from the same source, specifically...

In 2004, following the Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 2000, feudal law was abolished in Scotland. This is not the place to examine all the implications of this tectonic shift in Scots Law, but it did mean that overnight Barony titles could no longer be registered in the Scottish Land Register

(6)

Paragraph 7

Although the Act preserved the dignity of baronial titles, it did not establish an alternative register for recording them. Recognising the need to maintain the integrity of the market, lawyers and other parties involved in baronial affairs decided to create a privately operated register. This led to the establishment of the Scottish Barony Register, commissioned specifically to record the ownership of these titles.

Is closely paraphrased from the same source, specifically...

However, the 2000 Feudal Reform Act had specifically preserved the dignity of baronial titles, but without creating any alternative register. Lawyers and others involved in baronial matters decided that a privately created and run register would help to maintain the integrity of the market, and so the Scottish Baronial Register was created.

(7)

Only baronial titles that have changed ownership since 2004 are included in the Scottish Barony Register, which is accessible exclusively to Scottish solicitors.

Is an almost direct lift from here [7], specifically:

Only those titles which have changed ownership since 2004 are recorded in the Scottish Barony Register, which is only accessible to Scottish solicitors.

'PURPOSE' SECTION

(8)

Second paragraph:

Although registering a barony title in the Scottish Barony Register is not legally required, many individuals value the process as a means to establish the legitimacy of their feudal dignities. The Custodian of the Register meticulously examines the titles and supporting documentation provided by applicants to maintain the integrity of the register. This thorough review ensures that legal professionals and their clients can rely on the information contained in the Scottish Barony Register, facilitating professional and transparent transactions involving the purchase and sale of barony titles.

Is closely paraphrased from here [8], specifically:

There is no legal requirement to register a Barony title in the Register, but the Custodian checks the titles and documents presented to him very carefully, and this rigorous control maintains the integrity of the Register. The Custodian endeavours to apply the high standards of the Scottish Land Registers to ensure that the legal profession, and their clients, can rely on the information provided, and that the purchase and sale of Barony titles can be conducted properly and professionally.

(9)

Third paragraph:

As of January 2024, the Scottish Barony Register contains a total of 188 registered dignities, predominantly baronies.

Is closely paraphrased from here [9], specifically:

(Article 9th Jan 2024) The SBR now has 188 dignities registered, most being baronies. Axad12 (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Axad12, when you have a more complicated case and you're not sure what to do with it, instead of putting a deletion tag on it, you can go to WP:CP and list the article there. The editor who removed the speedy deletion tag has already done this for you. -- asilvering (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Out of interest, why was the speedy deletion tag removed?

I note that the article was previously moved to draftspace due to copyvio, and yet has re-emerged with many of the same problems (which seem to be endemic to the unofficial(?) Baronage of Scotland project if the current ANI thread is anything to go by). Axad12 (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The speedy deletion tag was removed because this article didn't qualify for speedy deletion - that's only for the most obviously blatant cases. If you run earwig on it and the whole thing lights up like a Christmas tree, that's time for speedy deletion. More info at WP:G12. -- asilvering (talk) 04:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

If it is genuinely the intention of the project to create 300-400 articles (as suggested on your talk page here [10]) then I foresee serious problems and general timesink for other editors in clearing up afterwards. As an admin would you be interested in resolving some of these issues at root? Axad12 (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "at root". If you mean "by summarily deleting the articles that have already been created", no, we have pretty strict rules about when and how articles are deleted, so I can't do that (not without being de-sysopped, anyway). But if you find or think you've found evidence of serious copyright infringement in any related articles, you can report them to WP:CP for attention. If you mean "by blocking the editors responsible", no, I'm not interested in doing that; if that were to happen it would be the result of consensus on a thread at WP:ANI or similar. -- asilvering (talk) 05:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

No need for you to raise straw man arguments, I was clearly referring to the intended 300-400 future articles.

I didn't mean "by deleting the articles that have already been created" or "by blocking the editors responsible".

I meant "...rather than facilitating the editors responsible", which appears to be your current position.

Fair enough there are some pretty serious WP:CIR issues involved on that project (which clearly need to be resolved) but a fair number of unjustified aspersions have also been thrown at a longstanding and respected editor, both at your talk page and in the ANI thread, simply for raising legitimate policy issues. To be honest I'm surprised to see you let that sort of thing go.

Better, I think, if you were to take some form of action towards resolving the various issues here (whether that be with regard to this article, the relevant users, or the broader project) rather than leaving brusque posts on my talk page after I spent 2 hours of my own time documenting the scale of the copyvio (by going through the whole article, line by line, checking it on Google) in an attempt to clear up a problem caused by someone else. Axad12 (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

But then I'm even less able to understand what kind of administrative action you're suggesting - what tool are you hoping I use on 300-400 articles that do not exist yet? Please remember to assume good faith and don't accuse other editors of making straw man arguments simply because they don't understand what you're trying to imply.

The messages I left on your talk page were about revdel - this is a crucial part of the copyright issues removal process. We do need to ensure that copyright-infringing material is not available in the page history of articles that have had problems. If you don't want to tag articles in this way yourself, that's fine, but then, as I said, please report them at WP:CP. You can also report articles there when you have some evidence of copyright problems but don't want to spend two hours yourself trying to untangle them. -- asilvering (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I accept that I hadn't made myself as clear as I might have done, and consequently you had misunderstood what I had meant. What I suggesting was that, as an admin, you would be experienced enough to be aware of a wide range of possible courses of action that you might take, whether that be as an admin, as a mentor, or as just another editor.

However, the core issue is that there are going to be 300-400 badly written, poorly sourced, copyvio, and likely partly AI constructed articles on the horizon unless some action is taken to prevent that situation from arising. Since one of the editors seems to think that you'll be vetting all of their articles before they go into mainspace I genuinely think it would be in your interests to do something about that. Inevitably, of course, it won't actually be you who has to go through all 300-400 problematic articles at AfC (or when they are already in mainspace), but someone will.

On the subject of WP:CP, you'll be pleased to hear that I've already taken your advice on that score and referred an article there earlier today. However, I wonder why it only appears on the specific page for today's date [11] but not on the overall project page's section for that date [12]. I'm concerned that I haven't made the referral correctly so I wondered if you might take a look and let me know? Axad12 (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

In my mentee's case, at WP:ANI I've volunteered to take a more active role in checking over their drafts as they create new ones, so hopefully that helps clear things up. So far I don't have any involvement at all with the other editors in the project, except to warn them that off-wiki communication is a bad idea, and I don't currently plan on getting more involved there. If you find a systematic copyright problem with the other involved editors, my advice would be to contact them directly first, to give them a chance to solve the issue on their own, but if that fails and the problems are really extensive you may need to open a larger investigation at WP:CCI or WP:ANI. I strongly encourage using a less-confrontational approach first, since people don't usually intend to make copyright violations, and can be trained not to do so, but in general many people are very, very bad at really listening to someone when they feel they're being attacked, so a harsh approach is usually counterproductive - as is clearly in evidence at that ANI thread.

At WP:CP, you did everything correctly - you're just looking at a cached version of the page. If you scroll up to the top of the listings you'll see a "purge" button, and pressing that should mean you can now see your new listing. I put a duplicate button in just now in the hopes of making it easier to notice in the future. Again, thanks for your help with clearing up copyright problems. -- asilvering (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

With regard to: people don't usually intend to make copyright violations...

This article had previously been returned to draft status by Fram due to extensive copyvio and was then returned to mainspace by the article author after he had made minor changes and then added significant further copyvio. Meanwhile, the failure to remove the extensive and blatant copyvio at Newhall House speaks for itself.

With regard to: a harsh approach is usually counterproductive...

That may be true generally speaking, but the user being discussed at ANI is clearly a bad faith user with a serious case of WP:CIR and WP:IDHT. He's also an unapologetic user of AI, which he didn't even deny using. I don't believe that thread has been at all counterproductive, he has actually highlighted the various issues very well in his responses.

Thanks for your help with WP:CP, much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

In my view, the example you describe is indeed very likely to be "people don't usually intend to make copyright violations". Writing is a skill, and people don't learn it overnight because someone pointed out a problem to them - especially not when they're feeling attacked. WP:CLOP in particular causes people problems. (If you haven't read that one yet, I'd advise doing so. Lots more helpful links at the bottom, too.) I really, strongly encourage taking a less aggressive approach first, partly since the aggressive approach does inevitably lead to bans of contributors who could otherwise have learned better, but also since it inevitably leads to a lot of frustration on the part of the editor taking the aggressive approach. And please remember that bad faith means intending to damage the encyclopedia, not "causing other contributors a headache". No one should be feeling harassed on wikipedia, and that does include people who aren't yet good at building the encyclopedia.

We can and do block editors for repeated copyright violation - not only does it create work for others to clean up, but we have a legal responsibility to do this. Don't worry too much about the extra work of cleanup, especially when it's newly created articles. When an editor's contributions are inspected at WP:CCI, the copyright clerks will be looking to see how bad the copyvio is and how extensive it is, and if it's really quite bad on both counts, their articles become eligible for WP:PDEL. So that kind of extensive issue, ironically, can become pretty easy to resolve in the end. Keep an eye on what happens to the articles you've submitted to WP:CP over the next week and you'll get a feel for how the beginning of this kind of investigation works out in practice (please do keep submitting new ones when you find them). If there are enough of them, you might be encouraged to start a WP:CCI yourself, or one of the clerks might start one. -- asilvering (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how you would describe the goings on recorded in the recent post on the ANI thread, but it doesn't look very good to me. Axad12 (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi sorry for the slow response, CP is chronically low on manpower. @Axad12; some of this is WP:BASIC, so I haven't removed it. However, most of the article was structurally and phrasically copied from the source, with elaboration and OR/SYNTH and bad sourcing to boot. Almost none of the cites I checked besides the one you linked even matched the content. It should be good copyright wise. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, re: cites, that is typical of much of the dross that is coming out of the relevant project, every article within which has these kind of issues to some degree. The project also has a heapload of other problems including CIR, COI, off-wiki communication and some other stuff that I forget.

The two major players in the project are creating a huge clean-up job for other users, ploughing on with their attempts to create 300-400 Scottish Barony related articles and apparently refusing to tidy up the copyvio and poor sourcing issues that were pointed out at ANI a while back, here [13].

Personally I felt that the project should have been canned, but I suspect that day may yet come.

Many thanks for your help with this element of the tidy up.

Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12, I really don't think it's fair to say they are "ploughing on" and "refusing to tidy up" when the two users you're talking about both took breaks from editing and haven't really returned. I think it's also self-defeating, since I can't imagine they're going to feel motivated to help out if they're sneered at and their work is called "dross" and so on. -- asilvering (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

In fairness, when has there been the slightest suggestion that either user has shown willingness to correct the huge volumes of poor sourcing and copyvio involved in the many articles already created?

The idea that I'm somehow responsible for them not doing so (either in the past or in the future) is baseless. If they do not return it will almost certainly be because of the huge backlog of corrections that they know that many other users expect them to address before they proceed, and their unwillingness to undertake that work.

Your comment above is reminiscent of when, recently at ANI, you told someone off for opening a thread when they were being racially abused. You seem far more inclined to find fault in those who observe the existence of problems than you do in addressing the issues in relation to the people who cause the problems. Axad12 (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I know what thread you're talking about, but that's not an accurate description of what happened. I assure you that I am not at all more inclined to find fault in people who observe the existence of problems than in people who cause problems. Treating people with respect and assuming good faith is one of our five pillars and is not optional. -- asilvering (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

That was exactly what happened here [14] and, indeed, you quite rightly apologised for describing the complaining user's conduct as 'bullying'. Axad12 (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, you told someone off for opening a thread when they were being racially abused is not an accurate description of what happened, and if you've read the apology you can see that. -- asilvering (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Or you accused them of bullying in relation to how they reacted to being racially abused. Little difference really... Axad12 (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)