Taking a single line from the help pages and applying it without context is neither fair nor accurate. Much of the opposition to this new help page offered objections that were never part off the original suggestion or the help page. Moreover, most of the objections completely ignore the motive of the effort. And the motive really is the most important because if anyone makes a complaint about a stranger creating a profile of a recently deceased person, only then are Rangers and Leaders going to refer the member to the help page. To suggest that this page will become a blanket ban of all new stranger profiles is inaccurate.
From all of the complaints about the particular sentences in the help page, I had not seen any suggested text improvements.
How do you think free websites should support themselves?
This strawman fallacy argument assumes that WikiTree will no longer have any advertising. I am sure that WikiTree will continue to have ads on its public pages. Not creating a few dozen (or a hundred) profiles of those who have recently died in mass-casualty events will probably not affect this much or at all.
Because some profiles contain errors (and there will always be some that do) is no reason to ban them all.
This false dichotomy fallacy suggests that all profiles (created by strangers) of recently deceased will be banned. This is simply not the case. The help page exists as a reference for when a member, Ranger, or Leader contacts a person who is making multiple mass-casualty profiles. Additionally, the help page encourages members to be thoughtful and to be congnizant of the famly's feelings and to consider what they want (or don't want) public.
The problem I have with the policy as created is not that I particularly oppose creating profiles for victims of recent tragedies. It is that the policy is vague and not limited to victims of recent tragedies. There is no time period specified. It refers to family members needing to be "comfortable" which could be an impossible standard to satisfy.
I did not see a post that offered an alternate text to make this point more clear to your desire. Regardless, in cases like this, vague is good. It gives leadership sufficient latitude to pursue or not pursue based on how many profiles were created, how they were created, etc. As a Ranger you should know that this page was created for the purpose of engaging the few members who are creating multiple profiles of mass-casualty events. If someone creates 500 Covid profiles, there is now a place to refer them to and say, "Here, read this, please consider your actions."
And what does it mean that three fourths of the respondents to the last question agreed with the policy? How many was that? What proportion of WikiTreers?
In the original question, 65 votes were cast for "Yes, I agree," and 25 were cast for "No, I do not agree."
25 + 65 = 90 votes. 65 / 90 = 72.22%
Just under three quarters of WikiTreers who made the effort to vote in that question agreed that a moratorium be imposed that completely blocked the creation of these types of profiles for up to 7 years. In the end, there is no moratorium, only a help page that gives some guidance that encourages folks to be sensitive to family members.