Identifying locked profiles

Jadra, the example you describe -- a profile with better info than the locked duplicate -- is something we need to hit hard with the other curators.

A simple solution would be to unlock the profile before merging. Then, follow up with a message to the original curator, "I took over your MP because I had to unlock it temporarily. Please take it back now."

I think our curator etiquette lets us do that. I do it to other curators every now and then, and they do it to me. (Sometimes you really have to change an outdated note, or merge duplicate MPs, so why not when you have to merge a profile with good information?)

David,

You said (above), "It's the profiles that are locked that have nothing worth locking that concern me." You also made that point here, when asking for some profiles to be added to the Locked Profile project:

http://www.geni.com/discussions/111471?msg=806282

I can see that I'm going to enjoy seeing the requests to profiles to the project. If I can use your point to make a pitch: there is probably no better way to raise awareness of how locking is being used than a simple list that provides examples every user can see. Thank you for taking the time to do that.

@Justin - that is exactly what I do - I unlock the MP and make the edits and then let the curator know and offer for him/her to take back the MP. There are a number of curators that I have worked this way with on numerous occasions. You're one of them even :) And Erica Howton, Private User, Private User.

I always tell the other curator please keep it and in fact no need to ask ever again unless the name is Howton. (I think maybe one Howton, the immigrant, is an MP, and certainly not locked).

David - yes, that's the CRUCIAL point that needs to be made. Curators should not lock profiles to keep users out, for no other reason than they can.
Besides the obvious reasons, it is also giving MPs a bad name!

There will always be instances where an 'empty' profile is locked because of its situation in a line of repeatedly mis-merged profiles - ie, in order to keep the relationships around it in place. But those cases are minimal.

Not exactly locking, but effectively blocking is putting private profiles on top of a public tree, like here:

Marcus van Crevelt

Justin - "I took over your MP because I had to unlock it temporarily. Please take it back now."
If the profile is not very important to me, I will just move away. I do not want to take over anyone's MP and consequently I do not intent to write to anyone to take it back.

If the profile is really important to me, and there is very limited info (or none) on it and I have better information I would consider a legitimate action to unlock it, and add what is needed.

I have never locked a single profile or a single field. I have never been in a situation where that was warranted, but then again, our part of the tree is not being continually merged. Also, I dont think it is polite to make somebody's else profile MP without asking their permission first..

I have very important profiles in Croatian tree (famous actors, comedians etc) which are part of my family group. Unless I have a permission from the person who entered the profile I will not make them MP. In most cases I work with the family member to help them protect the privacy of their tree before making a profile an MP.

What about Curators asking permission before making other people's profiles MPs? Is that being addressed?

In response to Jadra:

There are 36 MPs in my family group (up to 4th cousin) at current count, and this has risen over time. Some have locked fields. No curator ever asked my permission or told me they were going to make the profiles MPs before they did, or asked my opinion, or told me why they were making the profiles MPs. Having said that, though I have not tested this, I don't believe that there would be any issue if I told the curators concerned I wanted them to de-MP or unlock.

Here is one. No sources, no About. Totally locked. Miriam Mocatta

Sharon, you say "Curators should not lock profiles to keep users out, for no other reason than they can. ... it is also giving MPs a bad name!"

I am inclined to just add it to the locked-profiles-project and walk away ?

... or do you think I should contact the curator and engage in a discussion ?

It depends

1) - Do you want to work on it with its only manager/curator?

If so, try messaging something like this:
“I see you’ve locked this profile. Is there a reason for that? I’ve found some more great info on it that I’d like us to add to it.”

If you have lots of info, you could also add:
“Actually, it’s so much info, that I’ve started a Discussion on it, and dropped my data into that – so the other managers can contribute to it as well.”
Looking forward to working together on this.

2) If not, then just add it to the locked-profiles-project and walk away.

Private User - I ran Check Public on the private profile parents and they are now public. That was very easy.

People sometimes create private profiles accidentally. I have done it many times and also vice versa, created public when I meant for them to be private.

This person Elias Abraham -- who is a claimed historical profile -- made the parent LIVING, but it was easy to run Check Public since they were 1700s.

The problem is the private profiles two generations down which are claimed by the above, but the relationship is that the above is the great grandfather of the 1800s private profile :)

Sorry, meant to say that I did the merges but you'll have to complete the Data Conflict resolution Private User

Thank you Hatte.
Is 'Check Public' something I can do myself or it is it a curator's privilege only?

Private User I'm not sure. If you see it under Actions, then it's available to you, but I believe it is a curator tool.

Often when a profile is private, it means that someone has set the Living Status to "True" even though the profile might be in the 1700s. If you see a private profile from before the 1800s, ask a curator to see if it can be made public. If it is not in a standalone tree or does not belong to a main family group of a claimed profile, then it should be able to be made public. We often try Hunt Zombies on such profiles but that does not always work, especially when people don't put birth and death dates in the tree and either intentionally or accidentally make a profile from centuries ago "Living".

another one

Benjamin Arons Colthof

I do not see that this is a locked profile

I do see a duplicate that could be merged - both are set to public

http://www.geni.com/merge/compare/6000000002888832317?to=6000000014...

However perhaps the profile managers should be made aware so they can determine for themselves

you're right Erica. maybe is shouldn't have posted this here...

This is the same problem as previously @rvk. The manager, Elias Abrahams, has profiles that should be public because they are from hundreds of years ago. Further, Elias Abrahams is a claimed historic profile from what I can see. I made both of Benjamin Arons Colthof's parents profiles public (the copies managed by Elias Abrahams) and merged them with the other, already public profiles. Benjamin Arons Coltholf was not locked, it was a merge that could not go through due to the incorrect living status of his parents.

There's a remaining merge there that I could not complete because it requires choosing between two mothers and I don't know the area, but I bet you do Private User

Both the parents were not public Erica, which is why the merge did not go through.

Elias Abraham is the profile that was the manager of the duplicate parents' profiles that were set to living status = True. I reported him again because it is a claimed historical profile since he shows up as the great grandfather of a person from the 1700s. I think it's likely an abandoned tree. No dates and all living status for long deceased people.

Which is why I should be sticking with CURATED profiles. :)

Rvk we're glad to help you out but I think we meant this particular discussion and project to be about profiles where curators have assigned themselves to the Master Profile. You can see that easily from the blue "curator" note on top of the profile, and an MP shows orange instead of "public" green.

The "locked" profiles you're seeing - the grayed out ones - are "private.". Thats indeed a problem sometimes but sometimes not, so it takes the research.

Anyway the discussion is
http://www.geni.com/discussions/80793
ATTENTION Curators, please assist

Indeed Erica. Thanks for reminding me

Repeat request please! If we (Curators) make a profile an MP, and there is no obvious reason why this has been done, please can we add our reasons for doing this.This is basic courtesy! It is confusing for managers of these profiles and also very frustrating if fields are locked with no source or reason added to the profile.

See my response to this comment on the other thread http://www.geni.com/discussions/110641?msg=808492

Clearly something prompted this comment and your making it in two separate threads. Have you contacted the curator in question? That is the best course.

Hatte Rubenstein Blejer the other discussion is a Curator discussion and so your response is not visible to all participants of this discussion.

I do contact Curators as necessary - but also think that a blank profile (one that has very little information added, and which has no obvious reason for being an MP needs an explanation. Often we want to make a note that cannot be missed on a profile and the Curator's Note is perfect - but no Curator note alongside a blank About section is puzzling!

June I'm afraid that's not my "work method" in detangling the tree. I 1st create the MP to merge together duplicates. It's only at later iterations that I am able to take the time and trouble (each researched MP takes me anywhere from an hour to weeks) to build it out. I also am always hopeful that interested managers have a chance to work with ALL profiles, ESPECIALLY the ones designated MP.

All I am suggesting is that where it isn't obvious why a profile is an MP there should to be an explanation. I know how long it takes to research profiles thoroughly. What is the MP status doing for a profile which has no information added to it? We can make Curator notes without making an MP - I am just trying to understand here! Detangling can be done without MP status and by using Curator notes. Is the MP status identifying the "correct" profile perhaps? I used to use temporary asterisks etc. when untangling messes - does MP status serve the same purpose?