Patron abuse by adding hundred of conflicting sources to my family tree
The family name Zipf in Baden, Germany is apparently the target of abuse by a contributor who has recently added hundreds of conflicting sources and scrambled the relationships. As many as eight individuals are added to one source without regard to name or date. Individuals are placed in relationships haphazardly with eight or ten different spouses and multiple parents. I am concerned that the work I am doing will be undone by this contributor. He or she has not responded to a courteous email inquiring about this. What can be done?
Answers
-
Hi, Sorry to hear of the problems you have been having.
Changing errors in records is not considered abuse in itself, but from what you have said, this seems to be more than that. There is a Knowledge Article that covers this kind of problem which I have added below.
If you feel your complaint fits into one of the categories mentioned in the article, follow the guidelines to report the abuse for that category.
Kind regards,
Barry
0 -
Meg
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
Sounds concerning ...
As such ...
There are some, actions that one can take; and, options available for you to pursue through 'FamilySearch' "Support"...
Here are some "Knowledge Articles" in 'FamilySearch', that somewhat addresses your problem/issue.
Here is the FIRST "Knowledge Article":
How can I prevent other people from making inaccurate changes to Family Tree?
Now ...
After that ...
As you can 'see', "Collaboration" needs to be undertaken.
But, when "Collaboration" FAILS; and, provided that there is NO "Abuse" ...
[ As, in your case; as, there has been NO response ... ]
Then, there is this "Knowledge Article" in 'FamilySearch':
How do I report changes or problems made by other contributors?
that comes to the fore ...
In particularly, the last sentence in that "Knowledge Article"; which, is very IMPORTANT:
Quote
------------------
If you have questions regarding inadvertent, suspicious or potentially malicious errors in records that you are unable to resolve per the instructions above, contact FamilySearch Support.
------------------
But ...
That Said ...
Once a particular situation/circumstance, really does border on (or, is) that of "Abuse" ...
There is this "Knowledge Article", in 'FamilySearch':
How do I report abuse, spam, inappropriate memories, and other content?
comes to the fore.
Now ...
All That Said ...
As such ...
IF, you have undertaken "Collaboration" with the particular User/Patron in question, causing concern; and, that "Collaboration" has FAILED (eg. NO Response); and/or, there is "Abuse"; THEN, you can, either,
(1) For a "Private" communication ...
Contact 'FamilySearch' "Support" DIRECTLY via the,
(a) Telephone; and,
(b) an "Live ('On-Line') "Chat"
To keep the communication "Private", if you are directed back to this "Community.FamilySearch" Forum, insist that you do not want to do so; and, prefer that the matter be handled "Privately".
Whereas,
(2) For a communication is "Public" view ...
'Post' HERE in "Community.FamilySearch" Forum; and, HOPEFULLY, the "Moderators" [ ie. 'FamilySearch' "Support" (Personnel) ] HERE in this Forum, can TAKE the MATTER directly into the workings of 'FamilySearch' "Support", to help/assist you; and, communicate with you "Privately" via/through either, ("Private") 'Messaging' in 'FamilySearch' (or, the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum); and/or, DIRECT "E-mail".
And ...
IF, you want, keep any 'Post' here, in the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum, to a minimum, devoid of, "Personal" Information about one's self; and, even, not providing information about any Ancestors, just a precis of the matter; and, requesting a "Private" communication directly from 'FamilySearch' "Support" (Personnel).
------------------
Hopefully, a "Moderator" [ ie. 'FamilySearch' "Support" (Personnel) ], here in this Forum, WILL take this matter of yours, into the Workings, of 'FamilySearch' "Support", to better assist you.
------------------
Remember:
You are not alone ...
Most of us have ... been then ... done that ... still do.
Plus, it is a 'Slow' process, the whole thing often takes some time, to resolve.
Good Luck.
I know, that this certainly may not help/assist; but, I hope, that this may provide you with, some additional, insight; and, perspective; plus, an avenue to pursue.
Brett
0 -
The likelihood is that you will have to detach all those sources yourself. As suggested, FamilySearch does not regard this as "abuse", though it is certainly constitutes abuse of the purpose of the system.
I have encountered this behaviour on a much smaller scale, with users adding sources to an ID as a "holding place" while they try to work out which sources are actually relevant to that individual, or who they really do relate to. The trouble is, many such users lose interest after dumping the sources there and never do return to sort things out.
If there is still a lack of response (after a further attempt to contact them) just start gradually detaching those non-relating sources - you'll soon be able to clear them, even if you spread you efforts over a number of sessions.
It's sad that FamilySearch is so reluctant to help in extreme cases like yours, but it considers users need to sort such matters between themselves.
1 -
Paul W - So, it seems that you are saying the tacit support at FamilySearch goes to the disruptor and not the poor shmoo who has to clean up the mess AND that the disruptor is free to keep right on lobbing genealogy bombs! Not comforting at all.
2 -
FYI
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
NO, that is NOT actually the case ...
Literal "Abuse", is one thing ...
Actionable "Abuse, is another ...
'FamilySearch', NEEDS to take, each case, on its own merits ...
As, I indicated above:
There are 'Protocols', that must be followed ...
And, again, it is a 'Slow' process, the whole thing, often takes some time, to resolve ...
Of course, there ALSO needs to be, amicable, "Collaboration"; &, "Conciliation", between, the Users/Patrons.
But ...
That Said ...
Of course, easier said, than done ...
[ Sometimes, there is NO, amicable, "Collaboration"; &, "Conciliation", between, the Users/Patrons ... ]
[ Such is life ... ]
[ That is were, 'FamilySearch', has to set in ... and, does ... ]
Just my thoughts.
Brett
0 -
I have encountered this same problem with someone dumping dozens and dozens [and sometimes hundreds, because she also duplicates herself] of duplicate sources on a page in a very short period of time . . . one of the pages where she is doing this is on the page for one of the victims of the 1692 Salem witch trials . . . as soon as I delete them, she comes back and adds them back. 😐️
My question is how this is happening . . . there is not enough time for her to add them back one at a time . . . she is literally adding dozens of them back before I can finish deleting them one by one . . . I am obviously missing out on some feature here on familysearch . . .
0 -
If hundreds of changes are being made in a short time, that sounds like a GEDCOM upload. Is there any way to tell if that is the case???
0 -
The only changes I am seeing when she does this are the dozens and dozens of duplicate sources which suddenly appear. I have not [yet] noticed any additional family members being added at the same time. I also always look to see if there has been a merge, but that does not appear to be the case.
0 -
On the other hand . . . regarding GEDCOM uploads . . . on another page recently the same contributor created more than two dozen duplicates [in a very short period of time] of a page for a woman who is documented to have lived in the 12th and 13th centuries . . . said contributor has also recently added dozens and dozens of duplicate sources to that woman's family members . . .
0 -
GEDCOM-upload-based changes are labeled with the "GEDCOM data" reason statement, but there are other sources of data synchronization that are not automatically labeled. It sounds to me like this contributor is using one of those, and is likely totally unaware of the havoc she is wreaking. (I believe that all three of the "big/main" genealogy programs -- Ancestral Quest, RootsMagic, and Legacy -- have the capability of both downloading from and uploading to the Tree, at least in some fashion, but I haven't used any of them in many years, so I don't know for certain.)
0 -
Unfortunately, she is very aware of what she is doing. Her trail of disrespect for the ancestors is a long one, going on for many years here on familysearch. I have edited away many of her derogatory comments from pages after she does what she does. Of course, those comments are still viewable in the edit history of those pages.
0 -
@benotforgot I have successfully dealt with a long time vandal on Family Tree. If you would like to send me an example PID privately, I'll take a look.
1 -
Okay, I reviewed and this is a typical content dispute over a medieval brick wall profile with no historical records and no surname. The profile has over 40 watchers.
The edit warring is rather minor, not anywhere near the threshold at which FamilySearch might make the profile Read Only. I see no apparent vandalism; many duplicate profiles and contributor "sources" that are not historical records are par for the course in a content dispute. It is likely that one or more parties are using offline genealogy software, contributing bulk to the mess when attempting to synchronize their offline profiles with Family Tree.
I see @benotforgot and another party addressing each other's behavior, rather than the profile content, reason statements etc. @benotforgot, I recommend you refrain. It takes two or more to edit war. So, try not watching that profile for a few months. Disengage.
Taking a look at the larger place and time period, I see FamilySearch has rather many historical records not yet attached to profiles. I would work on attaching them.
0 -
Update from familysearch regarding some of the actions of the referenced contributor . . . "Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Appropriate action will be taken."
1 -
"Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Appropriate action will be taken."
Yay, you made it over the threshold!
Save the email and case number; if the problem behavior starts up again, follow up in the email chain. Don't engage the contributor, and don't use the Report Abuse button on the affected profiles.
0
