What to do with an adopted orphan who is proving to be a problem?

Question

I recently adopted an orphaned profile which claimed to belong to an existing family. After unsuccessfully seeking sources from the orphaned-profile's creator, I now believe there isn't a valid family connection.

In fact I suspect the orphan may be an unintended duplicate of an existing profile of another person of the same name and birth year (but in a different country) !

The orphan's ID number is lower and I've already added a (cautionary) research note to his profile since adopting it.!

What to do now ?

Do I un-adopt the apparently problematic orphan & let someone else sort it - or could some kind soul please help me sort it ?

Comments

To all concerned - please refer to my latest comment on Faunce-176 's profile page

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Faunce-176#comment_6781572

Answer 1

Also Phil, as much as it is commendable to adopt orphaned profiles, there is no reason for you to NOT re-orphan the profile.

It will constantly turn up on your watchlist for you to correct various issues.

Comments

Brad: see [edited] below.

Answer 2

I would tend to agree with you that this Martin doesn't appear to be a part of the family of Alured and Anna Faunce.

I could find no source stating his link to this family.

However I did find a link to a Benjamin and Saba Faunce having a son Martin born in 1808 in Kingston, Massachusetts.

Comments

Brad: Thank you for your response. You, too, have reinforced my belief that this Martin (Faunce-176) was connected to the wrong family when first created in 2018 - see my comments on his profile.

It seems more than a coincidence, in light of the profile for the other Martin (Faunce-255) who, despite a different death year and on the other side of the Atlantic -  has the same name and birth year.

Accordingly I now propose to re-orphan Faunce-176, with appropriate amendments to parentage and a further comment (referring other researchers to this G2G segment) - provided that 'those who must be obeyed' have no objections or unless a better solution is suggested.

Until then I again thank you for your answer/s and wish you happy hunting. Best regards.....Phil (Grace-883).

---

Should 176 and 255 be merged? Is there any reason to keep 176 distinct?

---

Jillaine: Hello. I'll leave you and your fellow experts to answer your commented question.

I've already edited Faunce-176 and re-orphaned the profile.

I will, however, continue my interest as to how this self-inflicted wound to our lovely tree is eventually treated.

(I must confess I had always been under the impression that merges were to be to the lowest numbered WT ID for the LNAB of the merged ID's. If that is so, I foresee all manner of problems for the Faunce-255 branch.

Furthermore, I also understood that one didn't merge ID's for evidently different persons.)

One final comment from me, at this time, should the 176 & 255 matter be re-introduced - as a question - in G2G?

---

If there is no evidence of the existence of -176 and he's been confused with -255 before, then why not merge?

When a merge is done, one can decide which data to keep, so you can keep all the data (including relationships) from -255 when it's merged into -176.