Are there any quality controls in place to prevent fictitious people from being added repeatedly

HESM

Are there any quality controls to prevent fictitious profiles from being added over and over again into Family Tree. These same fictitious profiles were added into WikiTree, and the WikiTree admins took over the profile and marked them as fictitious and made it so the contributor could not recreate the fictitious information. I even received an "apology" of sorts from on of the WikiTree arbitrators who said the WikiTree is working hard to keep the "junk" from FamilyTree from getting brought over into WikiTree.

I am in a "tug-of-war" with another patron who insists on adding fictitious persons into the tree. He adds them, I go merge them into the fictitious person record. He creates them again.

Also, he repeatedly recreates a relationship that is known to be an error. He creates the relationship, I remove the relationship, he recreates it.

I have spoken to this patron on the phone, and explained my reasoning for knowing this information is in error. When I talked with him on the phone, and read the sources to him, we came to an agreement that his information could not possibly be accurate.

When I first spoke to him, he was very antagonistic, but as we spoke and I explained the sources and the known facts, he softened and agreed that the data I was trying to provide was correct.

Now he is suddenly back to adding the false data again, and the messages he is sending me seem to suggest that he doesn't remember our conversation and doesn't even remember who I am.

I'm having a similar problem on another family line as well. Again, the patron who continually adds the incorrect information seems to have some memory problems. I can remind him again and again, and when I explain the sources he quickly agrees with me, but he seems to quickly forget our conversations and reverts back to adding the incorrect data.

I feel like this takes a lot of time and energy to prevent one single patron from doing extensive damage to the tree. It seems like there should be some form of quality control that could help with this issue. WikiTree has been able to implement some quality control. Is there any way that Family Tree can implement some quality control in cases like this?

I understand that most patrons are just doing their best to further the work, but I think that any reasonable person must admit that sometimes patrons can reach an age or mental state that makes it so they are extremely likely to just create damage. Is there any way that FamilySearch can intervene to help these patrons? I have tried everything I can think of to fix this problem.

While on of the patrons that I'm dealing with is very kind, the other one is not. He keeps threatening to "report" me. I really keep hoping that my corrections will aggravate him enough that he will contact FamilySearch and maybe FS will have more success in managing him than I do.

Please advise me as to whether there are any further actions I can take that I have not already tried. The damage is extensive and occurs on my direct lines and affects the task bars of a huge number of descendants. I also can see comments from many other respected researchers who are dealing with the same issue from this patron. This doesn't seem right that one single person can repeatedly recreate the exact same damage to everyone else's tree.

DebDT

We understand the frustration that others may cause due to improper sources and incorrect changes. Thank you for being kind and reaching out to these individuals. As you know, FamilySearch is a shared world-wide tree meaning everyone may add information. You may want to have your tree on another site that only you can add. You can find products that would work and sync with FamilySearch by searching solutions gallery. The article below contains directions.

https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/how-do-i-find-partner-products

You may also add your suggestion to help the problem by using Suggest an Idea in the Community

https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/what-is-the-purpose-of-familysearch-and-family-tree

HESM

I'm not concerned about having my own records accurate. My own records is not my concern. What I am concerned about is the shared tree. This isn't a case of an individual doing his best to try and further the shared tree, this is a case of an individual who when the information is immediately shared with him, he agrees that his information is incorrect and shouldn't be on the tree. However, he isn't able to recall that fact a few days later, and recreates the same errors. That doesn't seem to serve the best interests of anyone. If this is a truly a shared tree, shouldn't it represent the best efforts of everyone it is shared with? I can fully support your response in the case of a disagreement about how to interpret the sources, but in the case when all individuals involved are in agreement about what the tree should be saying, but because one of the individuals struggles with a disability, why would we think that is okay? I'm not asking you to tell anyone that they are wrong--even the individual adding the information will quickly agree that he is wrong. What I'm asking is what can be done to help these individuals who struggle with forgetfulness. It seems that these individuals' contributions should be respected enough to help them in their true intentions. I think this is a matter of FamilySearch's willingness to help patrons with disabilities. I don't understand why FS wouldn't be willing to help in this case. I can certainly continue spending a day a week fixing the issues. I know exactly where the issues will appear, and I know to go check them every week and fix them again. I can then forgive the unkind messages and insults that come through the FS messaging system. I can also call the individual and explain the same information again and again, and the a few days later I can repeat the process and put up with the unkind messages all over again. I'm just trying to understand, though, why FS thinks this is a good routine? Why would FS not be searching for a way to break this toxic cycle? WikiTree is also a shared tree, and it has a method to circumvent these issues. I would like to understand what is preventing FS from doing the same thing that other shared trees are doing. Is it a matter of money? lack of volunteers? I'd like to understand the root of the problem and help find a solution.

HESM

DebDT, the more I think about your response, the more troubled I am. If you tell the patrons who are actually doing research and following the sources to "get out of Family Tree and go get your own software and leave all the space for the patrons who are contributing junk," then what kind of shared tree is that?

I thought the idea behind Family Tree was to make it source based and accurate. Is that not the intention?

DebDT

You misunderstood what I said. What I was trying to say was in addition to Family Tree, you can have have another tree on a different site where only you change it. We can try to help those that are making mistakes like you have tried to do. As always our hope is for everyone to understand and input correctly.

Guests also can go the Family History Libraries around the country. This is most helpful for those with disabilities. Perhaps you can suggest some to the guests that are changing information incorrectly, to try their local Family History Center. Also calling our contact phone number is good for many people who struggle to input data correctly.

As stated previously, put what you think would improve FamilySearch in the Suggest an Idea section of Community. You are kind in repairing the mistakes that others make. Thank you for what you do in making sure information is accurate.

https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/what-is-the-purpose-of-familysearch-and-family-tree

HESM

I want to comment that tonight this entire situation came to a crisis. This older gentleman got angry at me for correcting the errors (which I've discussed with him before), and he first threatened to report me (and Kevin, who seems to be another patron who has tried to help him) to the "Civil Liberties Union tomorrow for Descrimenation against Handicap people and report [me] to the Media."

When that didn't stop me from using Family Tree, he then told me he was going to "remove my Parsons line off. And will Stay off."

He then proceeded to spend the rest of the evening deleting life sketches I had written, changing names to dashes or question marks, deleting birth dates and relationships, and deleting death dates. The destruction was extensive. As he would delete it, I would put it back on (because I was following). He would then message me and threaten me more. I tried to explain to him that Family Tree was shared and that many people had added that information and that it was all merged together. He replied "When I first Started on here Nothing was on here except my name. Then I put my Families on here. Had reasons. Then Yall deleted it.that not sharing. Dont add any more."

Well, I continued restoring the data he was deleting, and I think that he has finally gone to bed because he finally responded with "Will see about Tomorrow." Of course, I can barely wait to see what tomorrow brings. Maybe the media will put me on TV as the ACLU comes after me?

My point for sharing this, though, is that FamilySearch really needs to have a better help system and plan in place for these sort of problems. I reached out to Support because I had already spent a huge amount of time and taken a lot of abuse in the process. I was reaching out to you in hopes that this tug of war would not go critical--which it now has.

I'm hoping that in the morning someone from Support will take this more seriously and take some action to stop the abuse that has taken place all evening. If you look at the change histories for these records, I think you will have to admit that this is malicious destruction and should not be allowed in Family Tree. I'm hoping someone from Support will take care of this issue before this man wakes up in the morning and begins again.

Look at 9WN6-559 Richard Parsons, and L89D-G8N Jonathan Parsons, and GDND-TPB Elizabeth Feathers, and KGCS-JSP Lydia Patterson, and the family around them. Take a look at the change history, and then tell me that FamilySearch shouldn't have gotten involved before it came to that.

I can go paste this entire conversation into the IDEA section if you really want me to. But I'm really hoping that Support has already had an idea that this sort of thing might happen. I'm hoping you already have a solution.