Since I have found it almost impossible to find the reference to a Profile in the Attention Curators thread, plus this is a time more was said than just 'please merge' and 'done', am copying it here. Also on the off-chance that they actually were supposed to be of different folks, who because seemed similar, ended up having same relatives attached - and as a result of that, were then deemed to be the same person, this will leave a bit more record.
Believe the first comment was https://www.geni.com/discussions/178003?msg=1208178 -
Karl said "I've got two profiles that are the same person but one of them is completely locked and cannot be merged into. I have sent mail to the profile owner and curator. The profiles are:"
-- then linked to the two profiles.
-- then he said
"It is also not clear why this profile is locked so tight, but I do note that the dates for the profile's ancestors also do not make any sense, and I would like to correct those."
Next, I commented,
"Karl - the first one says born 1671, died 1709 in London;
the MP'd one says born 1650, died in London after July 15, 1709.
Likely the second was MP'd and locked precisely to prevent merges such as the one you are suggesting with someone of the same name but who is not the same person."
Karl said,
"both Batdorfs have the same spouses, died enroute to the New World, and have the same children. They describe the same person.
There is disagreement about which parent(s) they have, as I've said already"
Erica merged them, and commented basically she appreciated my concern
"But these are not new entries. The MP was a coming together of old GEDcom uploads that populated Geni years ago. We were tasked with “making them one” and leaving to researchers to resolve genealogy discrepancies.
In other words I can spot a Wikitree copy / paste even faster than you. :).
I’d rather “make them one” and disconnect wrong parents."
And she also commented
"I also need to add that the MP had no notes but Karl’s requested merge profile was detailed. Proof always wins. :). At this level of the tree there are thousands of descendants so the “primary manager” is not as meaningful as it is in nearer time."