Attention: This site does not support the current version of your web browser. To get the best possible experience using our website we recommend that you upgrade to a newer version or install another browser
For the second time in just a few months I have found a user (not the same one) has apparently changed the names of individuals in three generations of a branch in which I have an interest. Whole names have been changed but (fortunately) sources left attached, so it hasn't been as difficult as I thought to delete the changes and re-enter the original data inputted against these IDs.
My thought is, does a user really have to go to all the trouble of swapping the names (and other data), or is there a program / shortcut for doing this for multiple individuals in the same branch? To me, it would seem far easier to start from scratch when creating a new branch, so why would a user find it easier to hijack a whole branch of someone else's family by using existing IDs? Hence my "conspiracy theory" way of thinking when trying to figure out why several users (this issue has been reported here in the past) should choose the do this.
Of course, I've considered "vandalism", "inexperience" or "ignorance" as possible reasons for someone doing this, but could I be missing something even more sinister here? I hope not!
I got that the first go-round, @Paul W, but I persisted. Eventually, the bad changes were deleted, and the abuser was removed. I know he can probably create another account, but I have not seen him - yet. Hope I haven't jinxed myself. I had encountered the same person on other platforms.
Generally, there is no sinister motive. What usually happens is a simple case of same/similar name confusion and an inexperienced researcher.
One of my 4th great grandfathers is extremely well documented. He married 3 times and had multiple children with each wife. There are several books and websites dedicated to researching the extended family. Just today, I found that someone had given him a 4th wife and additional children - concurrent time period with the existing 3rd wife. As I pulled apart the threads, it was clear that there was same name confusion. And it didn't take long to fix. It can be annoying. One thing I try to do, when I find a case such as that, is to add a proof statement, with the evidence detailing how the family/people are different.
Hope this helps.
Unfortunately, you have misunderstood the problem I am experiencing. I also have similar problems to you on a regular basis, but here I am referring to (as described) whole names / identities being changed. Like, John Brown is changed to William White and his father Charles Brown turned to Edward White, etc. - this pattern continuing for perhaps another generation or two, with spouses identities being similarly replaced by names that have no relationship whatever to the families in question.
Perhaps I should have raised this issue in "Ideas" because I really want to draw this to the attention of the engineers responsible for security issues, to see if they can provide a way to protect this open-edit program from a malicious attack that might see a huge number of complete families effectively wiped-out from Family Tree.
In an individual instance like this, the change log and sources (having them was essential) enabled me to get the individuals / family concerned back to their/its true identity, but what if this individual had changed hundreds of names in this branch?
Apart from issues involving the whole integrity of the program, I think this shows the danger of FamilySearch continuing its policy of a completely "hands-off" approach when it comes to sanctioning users who persist in misusing Family Tree in this way. Other the years, many, many users have reported a completely negative response from "Support" when reporting such matters as "abuse".
In this fictitious example, how could any sound-minded person think it in order to use existing IDs to change generations of my "Brown" family into their "White" family? There has to be a way of controlling this type of behaviour, which - as I say - could cause serious damage to the whole Family Tree project if a malicious user were to apply it far more extensively than I have experienced to date. Worried about GEDCOM? There are potentially far more damaging individuals / pieces of code that Family Tree needs to be protected from.
Good morning, @Paul W
I have also struggled with an abusive participant in the collaborative tree, but it is not a "rogue program" as you mentioned, it is an individual, with malicious or misguided intent.
See also this thread https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/375677#Comment_375677
Paul, I think most people who "hijack" a branch like this are simply utterly clueless. They haven't grasped the concept of the collaborative tree, and are behaving as if the existing names were just a template that they're supposed to fill in, replacing the "examples" with their "real" data. It can take them many generations to figure out that there may be something wrong with their assumptions.
You may wish to try using the Latest Changes feature that can advise you of what changes were made to the record, and has the possibility of Restoring the changed record. The article below was taken from the Help Center found under (?) .
The Latest Changes feature allows you to review all of the changes users make to an ancestor’s record in Family Tree. You can then reverse the change if you feel it is incorrect or contact the person who made it. In some circumstances, you have to click Reference to see the restore option.
It is usually a good idea to reach out to the other user since—like you—he or she likely feels a strong attachment to the ancestor. Perhaps you can work together to achieve a fuller, richer account of your ancestor than you would if you work by yourself!
If you want to see who made changes to a particular Life Event, go to Vitals: Event and click Edit. You are able to see who made the most recent change.
The Latest Changes feature is not currently available on Family Tree Lite. To access it, please sign in to www.FamilySearch.org or the Family Tree app, and use the instructions above.
How do I send a message to someone who contributed to Family Tree or Memories?
Hope this helps.
Thank you for your response, but unfortunately you have not understood the issue. My post relates to IDs that have been "hijacked", whereby a user completely changes the identity of the individual for which the ID was originally created. Hence, there is no shared ancestor involved here, although needless to say I have contacted the user to ask why he should have replaced "my" family members with members of his family.
This is the process I followed when I encountered someone making unwarranted and junk changes. It took a couple of weeks, but it was eventually resolved.
If you have questions regarding inadvertent or potentially malicious errors in records that you are unable to resolve, please contact FamilySearch Support.
Thank you for your additional comments relating to my issue. I have been participating in different FamilySearch forums for around ten years and, from numerous comments over the years, have not read any positive feedback about FamilySearch being willing to get involved in such matters.
Almost every response from Support has been to say (to different users) that such actions do not amount to any form of abuse, so no action will be taken regarding the matter.
Hi Paul,
We are sorry you are experiencing such a difficult issue. Hi-Jacked records happen when users don't know how to correct correctly. We have been advised to have you "fix" the record to the original person. Relationships may need to be changed also.
You should also create a new record of the Hi-Jacked record and replace the old record with the new record (keeping all relationship in tacked for the Hi-Jacked record). Then make corrections for relationship of the original record.
We are enclosing the article "How do I fix a merge that has information from multiple people in Family Tree", in case it may be helpful.
Hope this is useful.
Whilst your advice might work in certain instances of this nature, I found it best to reinstate the names of the persons to whom these IDs had been originally assigned. A number of sources and items of Other Information remained on these IDs, so it would not have been a good idea to allow continued use of the IDs for the names of the individuals the other user had added.
The article provided might have been useful in other circumstances, but was not relevant to my issue, as no sources or other information had been attached that referred to the new identities.
There has been no response to my message to the user who made these potentially damaging changes, but I will be only too willing to offer him any advice required regarding the adding of his (completely unconnected) family to the Family Tree program, should he so wish.
If you would share a PID, @Paul W, I'd like to take a look. From @Sanra's comment "we have been advised", your report has gone past the frontline customer support and been determined not to be vandalism. So it likely is someone using a partner program who is oblivious to the effect on Family Tree.
