Should we let profiles be protected by the Arborist Project [closed]

Question

An "incorrect merge" yesterday brought this subject to light.   We all know there are cases of two or three people living in the same basic area that get confused and conflated at times.   These people are not associated with any project.   Yesterday's merge was frustrating because it was the second time these two men have been merged incorrectly.   The profile merged into had a clear set of "Research Notes" that explained the three men with the same name and why they were different.   I understand that this was a "mistake", but I think we need to start doing more to protect these kinds of profiles from being merged and then separated over and over.   I would like to suggest that the Arborist Project be given the "authority" to PPP a profile just to prevent "incorrect" merges.

Thoughts?

Comments

I say a resounding yes! Cleaning up bad merges is a huge drain on our time.

Answer 1

I would be hesitant. This scenario is exactly why we have topical projects-to look after sticky ancestral situations. Are we sure there is no project related that could help protect them? If they're often conflated, they would qualify for project protection.

Comments

I thought that was the idea - the Arborist Project would protect those profiles that do not fall under any other project, not that they would protect profiles of their choosing willy-nilly.

---

I understand that,Lucy. I am asking if we're sure there is no project that should have been protecting the profiles. Topical profiles protecting is preferable. I need to be convinced, if for no other reason than devil's advocate. And I don't want to rush into anything. We have a lot of projects out there. It would be better to see a need for a new topical project to develop to protect than for Arborists to do so.

---

I see another problem. The 5000 limit on watchlist profiles. If this is allowed, the Arborist project can only PPP 5000 profiles. what about the rest?

---

One is an Englishman living born in New York.   We could construe him to fall under the NNS project, I guess.  The second and third men lived in Massachusetts.  The fourth and fifth men live in Virginia.  They all have births within a 7 year period of time.   All of these men are named Thomas Baxter and all of these men appear to have a son named Thomas.  And I haven't found a tree outside of Wikitree that has them as 5 distinct men as we have been able to document.

I understand the hesitation and we would need very clear rules, perhaps even a check list to assure that there is no other option.

---

@Louis

The Arborist project does not manage any profiles, that is the reason for this discussion.   This would be something different.

---

If you allow this, you will be creating a precedent that is going to come back and bite you. In practice what happens when the scope of a project is too large, everybody wants to have their profiles PPP'd. You end up with thousands in a few months and who are you going to say no to?

---

It sounds like you don't like this solution, but wouldn't it be better to suggest a better solution instead?  I'm sure none of us want them wasting so much time undoing bad merges.

About objecting to an Arborist Project, it's my understanding these are solely profiles that don't fit into any current projects.  So if you don't want them in a special Arborist project, then users may start creating thousands of 2-to-5 profile projects, whose sole purpose is to block their being merged.  That seems much worse than a single Arborist project.

I don't see a problem with the 5000 limit.  Only the Arborists know for sure, but if they need more room, there's no problem creating an Arborist1, Arborist2, Arborist3 projects, etc.

Turning a different direction, why isn't the 'rejected match' functionality not effective?  Are people really forcing a merge in spite of the profiles being marked 'rejected matches'?  Perhaps then, there needs to be some enforcement muscle added to this feature.  Such as, if a merge has previously been marked as rejected, then permission from someone higher is needed first, to override that.  Or perhaps only disallowed if it's a rejected match and pre-1800, or some similar limitation.  If there is some enforcement of the 'rejected match' marker, then no projects are needed.

---

Hi Rob, Please , my likes and dislikes are not part of the issue here. Lets stick to the argument in hand. I simply do not agree with the current solution because it is against the current WikiTree policy on projects i.e. that topical projects are created to manage profiles around a specific topic. Functional projects do not manage profiles but are centered around a certain activity.

If you would like to change the policy, you need to propose a change in policy, not just a little exception on the side. The rules are there for a reason. The creation of an Aborist 1 , 2 etc  sounds like you might have some kind of a solution there. Just get the policy changed first.

---

All of the profiles listed fall under the US History project one way or another, and can be protected under it, if they pose merging problems. I don't know that we need to add Arborist protection capabilities so much as use the resources we currently have. Then, if those aren't working, we can revisit this.

---

I've seen instances of a project refusing to take on profiles though profile managers wished to have a protection against merges going in the bad direction. It's true the profiles were for people born just a little under 200 years ago and not notable, but it seems some projects just don't want to have a big watchlist.

---

We've allowed those situations (too young and not notable) on the grounds of merging problems in the past. I might need to start a discussion to amend the current guidelines so we allow protection where merges are going to be an issue. It happens less for younger profiles, though, so it may be that Leaders need to carefully review situations to make sure the protection is actually needed in those cases.

---

Thank you, Abby

Answer 2

I like it; and the more I think about it, the more I like it.

Answer 3

I like it too.

Also, this would allow arborists to continue the practice of temporarily protecting one of the profiles in a merge when there is a last name at birth issue (i.e. protect the profile with the correct name to make sure the merge goes the right way).

Answer 4

I agree that arborists should have the ability to protect profiles and perhaps more importantly help set up times for profile managers to discuss the issues perhaps in a google chat or something similar. It's easy to email one or even two managers, but then you have to get the other managers to talk to each other. I have several lines I CAN'T work on because of Last Name Spelling issues creating multiple profiles or just general confusion. Some of these are well researched and others are slim on sources. An arborist would also be a neutral third party that would have a fresh eye on the records. Sometimes after reading something 20 times you just miss the obvious.

Answer 5

I think this is an excellent idea.

Answer 6

I'm for allowing arborists to protect profiles.

Answer 7

I agree with Robin there needs to be someway to protect against bad merges, but I am wondering if PPP is the answer.

It won't protect against the merge it just will set the direction of the merge unless both profiles are PP'd then I don't know what will happen if one tries to merge 2 PP'd profiles.

Who would have the ability to PP a profile?  Would that be restricted to the project leader, select Arborist members, or all Arborist members.

We have talked about this before and nothing happened so that is why the problem still exists.

Hopefully this time we will be given the tools we so desperately need to do the job properly.

Comments

Maybe if you look at it this way. Merges are manual for a reason, so that people with common sense should do it. We have a 30 day time period for managers to give their opinions about a merge. If something still goes wrong after that, you will just have to accept it and fix it.

If this was a case of an arborist using administrative powers to force a merge before 30 days, maybe that is the problem you should look at.

---

@Louis,  Arborists do not have any "special" powers...they have to wait 30 days just like everyone else.

---

:-) thanks So are we back in the same place as before?

Melissa

---

From what I understand the US History Project is expanding, in part to try and meet this need - we should all try and help with a part of this project - whatever your family did is a part of it - I have some that were homesteaders so I can find sources for that information and learn how that is done and pass that on - others helped found and build a small town in a different part of the country so I can learn and share what I find while sourcing my profiles for those people - we can all be a part of this and the profile protection is just one of the benefits