This is a copy of the private message sent to Michael. I assume he will probably not read it or respond so I am uploading it here as an update to my original review.

Michael, You say it was another user (not a curator) who is very familiar with this family - I doubt if they are more familiar with the family than I am - I have been researching the Curtis family for at least 20 years and have 50 + pages of info about him alone. I am a direct descendant of John and Ann Curtis.

The mistake concerning the marriage of John Curtis (Convict) and Jane Purrier was originally made back in the early 1980's by another researcher (not me) who did not have access to the records we have today. Earlier this year I was made aware of the problem by a researcher on Ancestry who is a direct descendant of John Curtis and Jane Purrier. I saw the Will of John Curtis made in about 1812 where it mentions 8 out of the 10 children of John and Jane. Jane is not mentioned because she died in December 1800, before the will was written. The John Curtis (accountant) who wrote the will lived in the Parish of St Phillip and Jacob whereas John Curtis (Convict) lived in the parish of St Augustine. Just because both John's had a wife and 10 children does NOT mean they are the same John. John Curtis was a VERY common name in Bristol in the 18th century and 10 or more children was not uncommon
You mention that both the Curator and the other "expert " both agree that John Curtis (Convict) and Jane Purrier were married. Why are they so sure? After all the Parramatta Historical Society believes the 2 John's are different. It would be nice if Geni and the "expert" had both communicated their ideas in the discussion.

As far as I know the only other person who contributed to the discussion on 19 Sept 2020 at 1.23pm when he made one statement shown below:

"I've reviewed the Will of John Curtis described above.
It mentions his children as:

* Charlotte Curtis (unmarried);
* Elizabeth Davies (nee Curtis; widow);
* Sarah Bolt (nee Curtis; widow);
* Frances Mary Potter (nee Curtis);
* Ann Sifton (nee Curtis);
* John Curtis;
* Benjamin Curtis; and
* Thomas Curtis ('now residing in parts beyond the Seas')

No other children are mentioned although a number of views exist that there were 10 or more. It appears unlikely, as John mentions Thomas, who was overseas, so it would be unusual to forget? Any other children

There is no mention of John's wife

Only 8 children are mentioned, not 10, as written in John Curtis' Petition to Governor Arthur in 1803.
Both John's (assuming they are different) are mentioned as accountants; one in his will, and one at his trial.
Has there been an unfortunate mis-identification on this basis? John is a very common surname, as was Curtis in Bristol.

Secondly, the will in question is that of a John Curtis that died in Bristol while still an accountant; somewhat different to the John Curtis, convict.

I suspect we are discussing two different John Curtis'

Will check for birth registrations"

All of these named children are children of John Curtis and Jane Purrier. Possibly the two that are not mentioned had died before the will was made or they were estranged. There were another 2 children (making 12 in total) but they died very young. The chance that the 2 John Curtis's (the convict and the accountant) had 10 children with the same names is virtually zero.

The most interesting part of contributor's comment was where he states
"Has there been an unfortunate mis-identification on this basis? John is a very common surname, as was Curtis in Bristol.

Secondly, the will in question is that of a John Curtis that died in Bristol while still an accountant; somewhat different to the John Curtis, convict.

I suspect we are discussing two different John Curtis''".

This does not support your comment about the other researcher who *is* very familiar with this family agreeing with the curator that John Curtis (Convict) is the husband of Jane Purrier. I am assuming of course that other researcher is the one who contributed to the discussion.
The contributor also says that John (convict) was an accountant. As far as I know this is not correct. His conviction record shows him as a Labourer. I have never found any record of him being an accountant.

I am in constant contact with several other descendants of John Curtis in Australia and we are all very concerned that wrong info is being left on the internet - there is so much already there. It is everybody's responsibility to ensure that wrong info is removed so that a true family tree can be obtained.
Surely it is safer and better to remove the marriage in case it is wrong than to leave it and provide other users with the wrong info.

It is unfair for you to say that I should have "properly discussing it with the other users involved" That's what I tried to do. I contacted the curator and she told me to start a discussion which I did. I supplied info (the will and a letter from the Parramatta Historical Society obtained by another user). The Parramatta Historical Society accepts that there are two John Curtis's, based on the Will and the different signatures on John Curtis's (accountant) marriage to Jane Purrier in Bristol and John Curtis (Convict) to Ann Moran in Australia. They have kept a record for future researchers.
I had asked the curator several times to remove the marriage but most of the time she did not respond to my comments (the last response from her was on 15 August 2020). She had a private communication with the other contributor on 6 September at 8.46am.
This is why I decided to remove the info I did. I DID NOT cut the tree apart as you say. I simply removed as many of the children of John and Jane as I could before she locked everything. We did not want to see incorrect half brothers and sisters of the children of John Curtis in Australia.

One of the comments on 11 August 2020 the curator made in the discussion was "Looking at that letter John CURTIS who arrived on Ganges left behind a wife and 10 children.
This matches to the John CURTIS who married "Jane Purrier and his 12 children (2 who died as infants)".
Why would she make such a statement?. She obviously doesn't consider the possibility that the 2 John Curtis's (who each had a wife and 10 children in Bristol) are not the same John.
I always assumed that a curator would need to be more knowledgeable and flexible to the info placed on the site, be able to accept if wrong info was present and remove it when necessary.

You say "that's bad form in a collaborative environment to remove the info". It is also (very) bad form to leave wrong info on the site so that it gives incorrect info to other users. If I had been able to contact and reason with the curator successfully I would not have removed the info. Alternatively if there was some way of contacting Geni to voice my concerns then I would not have removed the info.
It seems to me that unless you pay high prices for the Geni Pro than Geni is not interested in replying to the ordinary user or looking at their concerns. I already pay for My Heritage and Ancestry. I cannot afford to pay for GeniPro.

You may also be interested to know that I have contacted a researcher in Bristol to try and find the correct first wife of John Curtis (Convict). Hopefully she will have more records available to her that we do in Australia.