I assume the 'editor' you're referring to is yourself, which poses a question.  Why do you appear to have assumed proprietary interest in, and control of, this particular article?  I don't know you from Adam (or Eve), but it's obvious from reading your commentary that, at minimum, your ego is involved here and reading between the lines it's not a stretch to see you have some personal biases at work.  I suggest that it's never in the best interest of WPDia to have one person assume as much control and oversight per article as you've taken upon yourself.  Doing so is a slippery slope which leads to articles having a personal slant instead of a presentation of facts in an impartial manner - especially when it comes to articles of a political interest. Also (all your assurances aside coming as they are from, and given the full weight of, an anonymous screen name on the internet), it allows the possibility of agenda driven manipulation of content, which certainly doesn't suit the purpose of WPDia, and IIRC (from my previous work here which is of a narrower and more specific focus) is directly against WPDia policy.   

 One other thing, my understanding is that these discussion pages are to work towards improvement of articles by rational communal discussions of issues raised on articles, not for someone to assume control of an article and the discussion and make demands of participants that do raise issues on articles - raising issues on articles are not personal attacks and shouldn't be taken as such.  The demeanor you've exhibited in discussion here appears intended to drive off both participants and discussion and assume a proprietary control here - and that's not what the WPDia project is all about.  It's certainly not the intended purpose of these discussion pages. 

 The focus of this discussion should be the article so why not drop the proprietary and non-productive attitude and see if we can encourage participants to both return and express their concerns so we can have a rational communal discussion leading to the possible improvement of the article?  Thank you.