Jimmy Wales wrote:
Thanks Steve, and I want to make super clear that I think people can in good faith have quite varied opinions on different matters.
What I wanted to point out is that we need to be especially vigilent when we have an area where we know there are POV pushers and trolls who are active. As Erik pointed out, in a lot of cases like this, a tiny turnout at IfD will mean that community consensus is not well reflected, because the POV pushers will show up in force to override the small number of good editors who come by.
Imagine this case: 100 good editors, 80 voting delete, 20 voting in good faith to keep 4 pov pushers 4 trolls
End result: 80 - 28, consensus to delete
versus
10 good editors, 8 voting delete, 2 voting in good faith to keep 4 pov pushers 4 trolls
End result: 8 - 10, no conclusion, image kept
Such results are plausible, but establishing a series of rules just to deal with trolls and POV pushers is not likely to be productive. It would be far better to allow them their votes, but to marginalize the effects of their votes. This constant group of 8 miscreants seems to be winning in the second example because they were quick off the mark with putting in their votes. Keeping votes open indefinitely will mean that they can't use their quickness to their advantage. If the image is meant to be deleted the Wisdom of Crowds will prevail over an extended period of time.
Ec