Calling All Curators: Attention Please!

Mike Stangel please refer this to customer service

this is not a mike issue or a customer service issue. please stop tagging mike eveytime you post

So if it's a Curator issue, will you lot please get around to doing something about this? Turning the profile group into Driftwood is the *least* that should be done.

I Blocked the person who perpetrated this nonsense (to make sure he couldn't mess around with any profiles I manage), so this is not a job I can finish.

The last link that needs to be broken is the "parents" link to the fake "Stephen Charleton, Capt." profile. If you will check here https://www.geni.com/discussions/145871, you will see that even if it were the correct identity - which it is not - that person *was not* the same person as the Stephen Charlton who was a brother of the goldsmith who claimed Charlton ancestry.

Stephen Charlton "of Terne" was older, born *before* 1600. He married in 1631 Elizabeth Myddelton, niece of Sir Thomas Myddelton, Lord Mayor of London. They, or at least Elizabeth, were still living in London as of 1659 and possibly as late as 1663 (she is mentioned as living and a "cozen" in the will of Elizabeth, widow of Robert Bateman, 5 Jan 1659, w ill proved 8 Mar 1663 - see [S4687] Miscellanea Genealogica et Heraldica, Authors Vary, (London: Hamilton, Adams, 1868-1938), FHL 942 B2m., 3rd ser. vol. 2 p. 222*).

Capt. Stephen Charlton was *younger*, born probably between 1600-1610. He arrived in Virginia as a single man some time in the 1630s (estimated), probably along with his sister Grace, who soon instigated a career of marriage (she was to marry three times in all). A Henry Charlton who preceded them (he is in the Muster of February 1624/25; they are not) may have been their brother (Stephen Charlton tasked to co-inventory Henry Charlton's estate, 2 January 1637/38).

Capt. Stephen Charlton (it is a militia rank, not a naval rank or an indication that he was master of a ship) married twice in Virginia: 1) Bridget Pott, c. 1645; two daughters, Bridgett and Elizabeth, and 2) after 12 October 1651 Anne, widow of Anthony Huffe and Anthony West; no children by her.

I don't want to hear any lip about his "abandoning" a wife in England and becoming a bigamist in the Colonies. That would add perjury to bigamy - and besides, Stephen Charlton "of Terne" had no sister named Grace (I'm not sure he had *any* sisters, if it comes to that).

Private User I agree! The reason i tagged mike is that when there is vandelisim afoot it's either him or customer service or any other curator you can go to about it.. fixing it is another matter... Jason Scott Wills I was chatting with him about another matter and tagged him in the wrong spot when I could have sent it to any old curator.

I hope the curators will take up this issue with Geni. This mess was not caused by a few bad merges from a couple of people with bad information. This one was caused by one particular user who knows there is strong disagreement about his information but makes the changes he wants anyway.

A warning from CS is in order. No user should be changing the tree in the face of a dispute without a public discussion.

For profiles like these I would think the first line of defense should be the curators marking Master Profiles and locking them, which will prevent edits and merges. Since we don't (yet) have relationship locking, this may not prevent someone from connecting an unrelated profile, though. CS can intervene but first we'd have to see what the other users have done to resolve the dispute, what evidence both sides have presented, whether the offending user seems to be willfully pushing his agenda over proper genealogy, etc. We can't just come out of nowhere and administer a wrist-slap without first understanding the entire dynamic.

There's a lengthy history here to support the claim that the sabotage is deliberate.

Yes I know that mike.. That's why i said forward to customer service or who ever has free time to investagate.

Please check out the separate branches for Henry Scarburghe of North Walsham, Gent., Col. Edmund Scarburgh, Jr., and Naomi 'Amy' Davis?

That's a "first" cut a sorting this out & doing some additional MP's.

Check data conflicts & correct as needed ... then guide further work on those areas.... (hope I didn't make it worse! <grin>)

Thanks, Dan - we make progress, slowly.

Henry Scarburghe looks good.

Naomi "Amy" Davis looks good but has a bad "source" attached - SMDB's fake "proof" that "all" Scarburghs in America are descended from Col. Edmund Scarburgh and "Mary Ann Charleton", which as I have repeatedly explained is a grotesque fantasy. (Also, there were Scarburghs who cannot have been his sons, and Scarboroughs who were probably collateral relatives, and some Scarboroughs who had not been connected with his line for at least three or four hundred years, e.g. the Pennsylvania group.) I told him he was wrong, and explained *why* - but he blew me off.

"Edmund Scarborough, Col." is still a bad profile seven ways from Sunday - bad birth place (he was actually born in London and christened at St. Martin's-in-the-fields), wrong mother (she was born a Smith, although the tradition that she was a "Butler" is so persistent that there may have been a short-lived previous marriage behind it), wrong son (he had no son named William, not by his wife and not by his mistress - in fact with his mistress he had three daughters and NO sons).

William Scarburgh the Baconian rebel was probably a collateral relative of Col. Edmund Scarburgh - the theory that he was a first cousin once removed, by way of William Scarborough and Samuel B Scarborough, Esq., is probably the best anyone is going to be able to do. There is very little evidence to support it, but it accounts for most of the traditions, including the "cousin" relationship with Sir Charles Scarburgh and with the Accomack Scarburghs.

The root of it all, to put it bluntly, seems to be "Sir" Michael Dave Barnes using Geni as a drafting board to "prove" that he is of "royal" descent through the Scarburghs (disproved), Charl(e)tons (disproved) and Cauntelos (disproved) all the way back to Geoffrey de Poiret and Hawise "Fergant" (disproved).

There were several instances where he was explicitly told that his theories were wrong, and why they were wrong - and in every single case he just blew off the evidence and denied its validity. *After* I locked him out of the profiles I managed by Blocking him, he scavenged up some others and overwrote them to re-establish his theory.

At last report he was still insisting that the will of Henry Scarburgh "proves" that Col. Edmund Scarburgh's wife was "Mary Ann(e) Charl(e)ton". It proves nothing of the sort. What it proves is that Henry Scarburgh - who, if you will notice, is of an undocumented collateral line - had a grandmother who as of 1676 was known as "Ann(e) Charlton". Just that, and only that.

Excuse me, Porhoet, not Poiret - momentary brain fart.

Michael, if Gustave Anjou had anything to do with it, you can bet there's forgery somewhere in it. It's what he was all about. But he's not the only fraudulent genealogist - merely the most notorious.

Dale at least got his fingers smacked early on and has just been boring everyone with his fantasies instead of mucking about with other people's profiles. No one caught SMDB before he had wreaked considerable havoc.

I wouldn't be supprised it there is bad data there.. just not sure where...

This "Backus case" needs its own thread....

ok will move the discussion there

Private User - re: "I Blocked the person who perpetrated this nonsense (to make sure he couldn't mess around with any profiles I manage)" -- FYI -
Once upon a time, blocking a Person meant they could not "mess around" with profiles you manage - but that stopped being the case long ago -
now all blocking accomplishes is that they cannot send you a message.

Lois:
http://www.geni.com/account_settings/blocked_users

Blocked Users

Prevent specific users from contacting you *or performing actions on profiles you manage*.

If it is true that this is no longer so, the Help section requires an IMMEDIATE update. Mike Stangel are you there?

re: blocking actions ... but it may not block them if there are any co-managers which collaborate with ... nor would it (I suspect) prevent a merge which may be done by someone else and thus 'bring in' the blocked person.

It only blocks them from editing your private profiles iirc

They updated it here: http://help.geni.com/entries/21453997-How-can-I-block-another-Geni-... - And you will note - NO MENTION there of ANY blocking of anyone's ability to edit profiles - private or public.

Do not believe if you "block" a family member that it will now have any affect on their ability to edit Private Profiles you manage that are also in their family group - It says it will remove Family Group Relationship (to you! - not to your family!!) - so guess it may mean they cannot view your own profile any more than any other geni-user can plus any profiles they could only access because you were in their family.

Think "block" having any effect on Profiles you manage may have gone away when they allowed a profile to have more than one Manager - which was way long ago.

BUT where Maven linked to - still not fixed/changed. And looking at where she linked to -- I remember tagging it and complaining about that poor documentation long ago!!

Jason's statement is different from my understanding (expressed above) based, in part, on the Help FAQ I linked to, and in part on what I had read in the past. [possibly an irrelevant - possibly important something I am missing - what is "iirc"? ]

Definitely Documentation needs major upgrading here!! Maven, and Jason, and I are all long-time pretty competent intelligent Geni users - that we have three different ideas of what "Blocking" does - and cannot solve it by looking at the Documentation - is not good.

Mike Stangel is all of what Private User said true?

Would like clarity so this issue can be solved once and for all

Private profiles cannot be edited if the sole manager is blocking you, or if there are multiple managers and all of them are blocking you.

Permissions for editing public profiles are now split into "basics" and full. The permissions on editing only "the basics" are looser because a) they don't affect the tree structure, and b) all changes to basics are recorded in revisions, which means you can see who changed what and you can easily change it back. "Edit basics" permission does not honor blocking.

Full-edit permissions on public profiles first check whether the profile is within your max family (you may edit), or whether it's in a project that you have joined (you may edit). Otherwise, you may edit it only if you are collaborating with one of the managers and the managers are not all blocking you.

i see thank you mike it does make a little clearer

Well at least I'm spared SMDB's whining and kvetching as I kick his little sand castle to pieces.

Wish I didn't have to, but when a pretty fantasy meets the ugly facts....

Any clarity on the editing of events within timelines would be appreciated.

From your description, any event can be changed/deleted if collaborating with a manager of the profile concerned. There are no revisions for events (so they are unrecoverable) and no warning or message will be given to the managers of that profile.

Is there any reason why I shouldn't remove all of my collaborators, as events are the basis of our family tree, and they contain all of the information? It seems a safer alternative.

Collaborators removed. I'm not sure what collaborating did anyway - perhaps this was the only 'advantage'. I'll advise the rest of our group to do the same.