Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)

As has become routine with Piotrus nominations, this page has been compromised by canvassing. Here Piotrus asks Tymek for his Gadu-Gadu number for "discussions of articles, etc" and, an hour later, Tymek appears on this page to support Piotrus. Gadu-Gadu is a Polish instant messaging client used by Piotrus to spur other Polish editors "to action" and for canvasssing FAC votes for as long as I know him. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have not talked to Tymek about this article off-wiki, your statement is a pure bad faith assumption.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 11:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After the votes of Turgidson, qp10qp, etc, it is a reasonable assumption. I wonder how all of your traditional yes-men learn about the nomination... I suppose it's some sort of extrasensory perception.[1] [2] [3] [4] --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have informed Polish and Russian noticeboards and the MILHIST wikiproject, as well as all the active users that were involved in significantly editing and/or reviewing the article. Your claims that I have informed only "my yes-men", or that all support votes come from them, is a poor attempt to question the validity of this discussion. Why won't you address editors who ask you to provide references for your claims instead?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 11:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because, unlike yourself, I have never pressed any "claims" about the Soviet "invasion" in mainspace. It's not my responsibility to write the article for you. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really resent the implication in the above comment by Ghirla that I was "canvassed" by Piotrus for the discussion in this FAC nomination. This assertion is totally groundless: I started editing Soviet invasion of Poland (1939), just like that, here (I keep an eye on things, ya know?). After looking at the FAC discussion, I did some more editing and payed attention to the arguments pro and con, till I made my mind and expressed my opinion, here (I continued copyediting the candidate FAC article since then). Finally, the assertion that I am one of the "traditional yes-men" of Piotrus (or anyone else) is simply grotesque. Turgidson 12:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended, but I see you in Wikipedia only when you appear on some talk page to vote in league with Piotrus and other GG clients. It's up to you to prove that you have independent opinions. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ghirla, why can't you assume good faith from your fellow co-editors? Most come to discuss out of share curriousity for the subject, and only on days when they find 20-30 spare minutes to do so. Have you also heard of people agreeing on one item of discussion and totally disagreing on another? It is so irritating when you and 1-2 others make it all about the editors and not about the issues. It is very offensive from your part to ask everyone to justify themselves in front of you! ("It's up to you to prove that you have independent opinions.") Only Vyshinsky used to talk like that. Are you in your mind, why do you see everyone as your enemy? :Dc76 12:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to prove to you, Ghirla. Have a good day. Turgidson 12:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: the above claim - that I recruited editors for "yes" vote here - is now discussed in a related ArbCom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 12:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you consult WP:CANVAS? --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The users which you accuse of being my "yes-men" have the right to know that this accusation is being discussed in other places.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 13:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the artcile will be assessed according to what Polish reviewers or their opponents say. The article needs more random, impartial reviewers; but there's been a shortage of those at FAC recently, which is worrying.

Ghirla, you say that it's not your responsibility to help write the article; but that would certainly have been one way to solve the problem. The best thing that could have happened would have been for excellent editors like yourself and Irpen to have long ago added the material that you believe has been deliberately left out. Clearly the books in your countries present a different account than the one presented by western historians, but only you and others who have access to those sources can provide the material that you feel is lacking.qp10qp 14:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that would require working on content and issue, not flaring personal accusations left and right, which is very easy. What if he fails to find sourses supporting his POV or supporting it only to a small extent? He could not then shout accusations as now. IMHO, it is a psichological and inter-relational problem that some users have to a number of subjects, nothing to do with the content.:Dc76 17:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not impressed with your insinuations that "I fail to find sources supporting my POV", because I don't push any POV in the mainspace, in the first place. Your comments show total ignorance of what I do in the project. I see no point in explaining why I never edit articles on 20th-century history, let alone on Polish history. You need to know the whole background before making facile conclusions and airing them in the ongoing arbitration is if it were a trivial chatroom. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]