How should unresponsive PMs be handled?

Question

OK, I know this subject has been debated many times before but nevertheless I am going to give it an airing once again.

I have to maintain copious notes in my scratchpad ('cos the memory is just not up to the load) where I have to remember to go back to a profile after 7 days, or in the case of a proposed merge after 30 days because in my humble opinion the system is not ideal.

This is the gist of what is on the 'unresponsive profile manager' form

----

Only submit this form once if you want to adopt many profiles managed by xxxx. If it's determined that xxxx is unresponsive, future requests can be handled without delay.

Please select one:

 Open xxxxx-xxx for adoption.
  Open ancestors and descendants of xxxxx-xxx as well.
Please confirm the following:

 I made a Trusted List request for xxxxx-xxx seven or more days ago.
  I sent a Private Message or e-mail message to xxxx seven or more days ago.
  I posted a comment on xxxx's profile seven or more days ago.
Please check Susan's contributions list and select one:

 xxxx has not made any WikiTree contributions for 60 or more days.
  xxxx is active on WikiTree but is not responding to me at all.
The above are required, the comment fields below are optional.

----

One has to complete one of the first two options, which are not always relevant because:

(1) Open for adoption may not be appropriate. We just need the profile OPEN
(2) Open ancestors and descendants as well should be split. Opening ancestors and opening descendants for adoption is not necessarily appropriate. Opening for editing may be.

So basically in this section I see Open for adoption and Open for editing as two different things. The options should be (IMHO)

(1) Open this profile for editing
(2) Open this profile and ancestors for editing
(3) Open this profile and descendants for editing
(4) Open this profile for adoption
(5) Open this profile and ancestors for adoption
(6) Open this profile and descendants for adoption

Then we have to confirm three actions. Now I don't think that this is necessary under the following circumstances which relates to the options below that so I will come back to the tick boxes.

We have to confirm that:

(1) xxxx has not made any WikiTree contributions for 60 or more days.
(2) xxxx is active on WikiTree but is not responding to me at all.

I believe that if there was another option

(3) xxxx has made no contributions in the last 365 days and the profile has a date of birth more than 100 years ago

this option should remove ANY requirement to fill in the three check boxes or tick boxes

My reasoning is that if someone has made no contributions for a year and the profile is over 100 years old based on date of birth or death there is no reason why this profile should not be Open and therefore any of the first three suggested option should be applicable provided they meet the date of birth criteria. Caveat here that this should also apply to an undated profile.

This might help the increasing frustration that I sense amongst those who are frequent contributors and WikiTree Wombles tidying up where ever they go. (Can we have a WikiTree Womble badge? !!)

I am among those wombling around WikiTree all day, and my frustration levels are getting to explosion point unless something is done.

If this was a rant it ends here /rant

Answer 1

Your talking about two separate things.

1. Opening profiles for editing. If over two hundred years old there is no need for jumping through hoops merely use the open profile request form. If under 200 years old, what your really asking for is a change of policy to require all profiles over 100 years old be open.

2. Unresponsive Managers (open for adoption etc.) are an entirely different consideration.

Comments

Sorry but the Open profile request form only applies to people born before 200 years and the particular one frustrating me at present is just shy of that by 16 years.

No I am not asking for all profiles over 100 to be automatically open, I am asking for the procedure to be changed so that we do not have to jump through hoops when a PM has not been active for 365 days. I stated this quite clearly in my original text, and is relevant to profiles that are between 100 and 200 of which there are many, many more than those over 200 years old.

P.S. The profile manager in question has not made any contributions since November 2013. There should not have to be ANY delay in case like this.

---

I want to add my voice to David's.

I haven't used the unresponsive PM form in a LONG time. But now working on the db_errors project, I'm finding the need for it.

I was surprised to see that the form requires us to request trusted list access. I have no interest in adopting the profile. And I don't think I should be required to request such access to report a profile manager who has been active for more than a year. And why do we have to Private message them AND post to their profile? We should have to use only one method to contact them not all three. That's nuts.

If a person Has been inactive for over 365 days AND has not responded to ONE attempt to contact them in 30 days, we should be able to request that ALL their open profiles be orphaned for adoption AND we should not have to be required to adopt those profiles.

And I don't know what you do with their unopen profiles. Delete them?

I'm just stunned by the number of abandoned profiles and very inactive members. What is Leadership's intent here?

---

@Jillaine Thanks for the support. I was beginning to feel a bit like a voice crying in the wilderness.

---

@ David +1

@ Jillaine +1

Answer 2

Many profiles managers have not been active for a long time! The seven day period that is part of the "unresponsive manager report" is desirable to reflect whether the manager is truly "inactive" by there response to a message, Trusted list application request coupled with reviewing there contributions.

Comments

And what about semi-unresponsive managers? -- they have made recent edits, and merge rejections, but don't answer attempts to contact them, publicly or privately. (I don't mean to hijack the thread -- and my specific unnamed case is already being dealt with).