What do you do when someone threatens you not to touch "his" family tree - twice.
I've explained that this is a shared family tree and information needs to be properly sourced. I have added a number of primary sources to one of the profiles on "his" tree. Another member took action on my posts. This person who thinks it's his tree reversed the action. I asked him why he did that since he has no sources for the information he re-posted. He said it was his tree and no one else can touch it. Is there an arbitration process for this?
Here are several Help Center articles that may apply:
You can always contact FamilySearch to get their input on the particular situation.1
The reporting process works, eventually.1
Community code of conduct • FamilySearch
If a person is not violating anything in above, then it is up to you to communicate with the person and try to work it out.
This is the response I received from family search about 2 months ago regarding a person that keeps changing info and deleting items in over 30 people I follow.
We have reviewed a record that you reported in Family Tree as containing inappropriate content or abuse and have determined that this situation does not qualify as abuse.
Types of inappropriate content to report might include the following:
Offensive or abusive language or content
Information that might harm or embarrass living relatives
Links to external web pages with inappropriate content
Solicitations for businesses or research services
Please do not use the Report Abuse feature to report inaccurate information about individuals or families, such as incorrect names or dates, or to request that the record be deleted or corrected. To correct these errors, work with the other contributors by using the discussions or internal messaging features, or use the Help feature in Family Tree to report your concerns.
Information regarding discussions: https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/what-is-the-discussions-feature-in-family-tree
Information regarding messaging: https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/how-do-i-contact-or-message-a-user-who-contributed-to-family-tree-or-memories0
Paul W ✭✭✭✭✭
It still probably depends on a subjective opinion from whoever investigates a "Report Abuse" claim.
Obviously no two cases will be the same, but I'm sure many FamilySearch employees / volunteers (whoever makes decisions in these cases) would go one way or another, given these examples.
The precise wording in the other user's response might not be considered "threatening" or abusive, so it might be true that this has to remain an issue between the users, i.e. with no FamilySearch intervention. "Edit wars" are often reported here. Sadly, the outcome will often depend on the resilience of either person - i.e., whoever is willing to stick out the longest in reversing the changes made by the other user.2
Displayname ____ is being inappropriate, threatening, etc.
XXXX-XXX change log:
1 Sep 2022 "Get off my tree!"
1 Sep 2022 "Don't make changes without asking me first."
2 Sep 2022 "You'll be sorry."
3 Sep 2022 "If you don't stop I am going to report you for vandalism."
FS Family Tree Messages:
[copy paste entire convos by subject and date]
The reporting process is intended for egregious offenses, which seems not to be the case here.
I don't recommend edit warring, especially not "Is too!" vs "Is not!" Repeated breaking and making a parent child relationship is especially pointless.
What I recommend, and do myself, is work on the profiles around the problem area. Work on the other guy's family. Usually that resolves the problem to everyone's satisfaction. If you would share the person IDs here, we could take a look and suggest how to resolve it.2
Yeah, I don't want to get into an edit war or any other war, but I can't guarantee someone else won't make a change he doesn't like. The ID is LY2Y-8NF. I write about the mythology around this person in his Life Sketch and I've added all the primary source documents we've found in the Sources tab. There are no sources that provide any clues about his parents, wife or children. Because he lived in Virginia in the mid-1600s, an early researcher grabbed every appropriately surnamed person living there and made them his children. I'm sure this is not uncommon in other families. The only fix in my mind is to remove his parents, wife and children in order to prompt more research into his life. As it is now, folks just accept the myth so they can claim to have found their connection back to England. Suggestions for handling this are welcome.0
Here's a link to my write-up about Thomas on my website: https://www.pruiett-parker.com/pruiettthomasprewitt.php. It's not constrained by the character limits on FamilySearch and contains the likely bogus birth/baptism records from England.0
There is actually very little historical record of this man the Virginia colony, except the court records. I would chase down all persons named in those records. Focus on and build from the historical records actually available.
Be more investigative and less conclusory.
Early historical records of Colonial Virginia are in a collection with badly transcribed dates. I have done some digging in that collection and usually the dates can be worked out. So use Search with relaxed not exact terms. Eg: https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=20&q.anyDate.from=1600&q.anyDate.to=1700&q.anyPlace=Virginia%2C%20British%20Colonial%20America&q.surname=prewitt
Result is 26 records, most not attached to profiles:
Also be flexible about the spelling of his surname, and from historical records work up profiles of anyone in Virginia in about the same time period who may have the same surname. Then just as now, people usually emigrate with kin but not always on the same boat.
You can also start from the Virginia, Library of Virginia State Archive, Births, Marriages, and Deaths 1853-1900 collection search page: https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/4231103
I notice the collection also has historical records of persons with his putative wife's approximate surname. That is another untapped avenue of research.2