User talk:SynergyStar/L article edits

Good day all. For the record, I would like to report on recent edits to Lexus, specifically the actions of Dino246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), which I consider to be at times borderlining on POV pushing and disruptive editing, among other categories. In the following, I will detail the chronology of edits to this article by this user, using the actions taken (edits) and comments made as evidence. Nearly all of these edits have occurred from September 15 up till now, in a slow-simmering state of contention that has become increasingly controversial, and could escalate into further edit warring. Now, I will provide a review of the edits, with some incidents being more tenacious and problematic than others. Not all incidents are equal, but together they indicate a pattern of editing, and escalating issues.

Please note: I have attached boldface editing to highlight specific issues, hopefully this is ok.

I apologize in advance for the unusual length of this documented report, but such in the nature of reporting on this controversy.

1. Lexus in Pop Culture: "The brand is used to define his lack of taste"

On June 4, 2007, the first edit Dino246 made [1] was the insertion of the following paragraph into the Pop Culture section:

“ Steve Coogan's Alan Partridge character drives a Lexus IS in the second series of I'm Alan Partridge. The brand is used to define his lack of taste and unwarranted arrogance. In one notable episode he befriends a fellow Lexus owner and humour is gained from their self-congratulatory conversations about their "Lexi", which they both describe as a "Japanese Mercedes"

--attempted edit by Dino246

”

Rationale for removal

I removed the previous statement, for the following reasons:

1. It contained biased language, specifically stating that Lexus is used to define "lack of taste" and "arrogance" (further evidence below);
2. It contained no clear statement on significance to the Lexus brand, as many other TV appearances exist and are not mentioned;
3. It contained formatting errors (extra spaces, breaks where there should be none, and non-GA referencing style);
4. It contained an excess of detail, when compared to other relevant pop culture elements in the article, which are brief single sentence events (except the Lexus 2054 mention describing the attached picture).
5. In the trivia section back when it existed [2] a similar mention was included, but since the article became GA, the trivia section was deleted by another editor for being unnotable, along with that mention;
6. In the episode guide section of the article on the TV show [3], the "Lexi" statement is already included, where those scene/dialogue details are more relevant to the article subject.

I removed the statement and commented in the edit summary that this section is not trivia, that the "Lexi" ref is already on the Partridge episode guide, and that the attribution of "brand used to define lack of taste" is not the same as the Alan Partridge article (see following).

I also added this hidden text to the Pop Culture section: "Please note: this section is not an indiscriminate collection of Lexus appearances in media; rather, any references must have specific and notable relevance to the Lexus brand. Please use discretion when adding information, as this is not a trivia section."

Perhaps, if this edit did not have so many issues, and the references were in the proper format, a revised mention could have been formulated.

Biased language

Evidence shows that the statement "The brand is used to define his lack of taste and unwarranted arrogance" is a case of biased language. First, referencing Wikipedia's own article on the TV character [4]:

“ In all of the shows, however, Partridge is characterised as being an insecure, superficial and narcissistic 'wally', concerned largely with the status and level of his public profile and, to a lesser extent, the possessions this allows him to acquire (such as his beloved Rover and Lexus cars and Bang & Olufsen stereo systems).

--Wikipedia article, Alan Partridge.

”

From these sources, I found:

1. According to the Wikipedia article, Mr. Partridge is an insecure individual who uses these brands to bolster his image. There is no causal mention which states that the brands are "used to define a lack of taste and arrogance." Rather, negative effects for the brands are because of association with the unsavory character, not the other way around. Other sources support this:
2. The scenes in question where the Lexus references are made do not clearly state that the brand defines a "lack of taste." I have viewed the "Lexi" scene in question--and yes, the characters are superficial and silly, and they briefly congratulate each other on owning Lexus vehicles and then are joking about other things. Nowhere is the scene making it so that Lexus is the epitome of lacking taste. Not to mention, the other Lexus owner also appears well-dressed in a suit--hardly tasteless.
3. Mr. Partridge actor, Steve Coogan himself says the show chose Lexus for the funny alliterative properties of the made-up 'Lexi' phrase. In Top Gear (season 1, episode 4) Coogan says he could have chosen another brand (something like Jaguar) but that the shortened word did not sound as funny. The video was previously available here, but no longer: [5] No evidence of a "lack of taste" reasons...rather funny reasons.

The provided reference, [6], found that the 2002 episode left the brand "a tad tarnished by Mr Partridge", not the other way around. Based on the Wikipedia article, the actual scenes, and the interview, a causal connection where "Lexus = used to indicate bad taste" is unsupported and IMHO may constitute original research (adding a claim that is not supported by the sources).

If a mention was to be made of this 2002 TV series, it would have to be rewritten and reformatted.

Re-insertion of biased text

On September 15, 2007, Dino246 re-inserted the same exact paragraph, complete with the same bias/original research, formatting errors, excess detail, and inproper referencing format again: [7]

Dino246's action ignored my edit summary comments, and did not improve the paragraph at all. Because of these problems and because the Partridge references had been removed before on more than one occasion, I followed precedent and removed it again as part of article cleaning up (also fixed website links).

My comments [8] were: " this is a parody character, and that is not explained in this quote, nor is it notable, just another in a long line of Lexus movie/TV appearances" -- in reference to significance and accuracy.

Dino246's response was to revert my edit again, but at least this time a reason for significance was subsequently given (negative brand association). However, punctuation errors, reference errors, and the statement "The brand is used to define his insecurity and superficial status-seeking" were maintained.

With the significance statement added, but undue weight given (excess details, bias), I decided to research and find more references, especially from primary sources, on UK TV branding effects on Lexus.

Rewrite

I found an article in the Times of London by Top Gear's Jeremy Clarkson, summarizing the state of Lexus brand image in the UK, with specific examples including the Partridge series [9], and another Times article on Lexus UK and TV.

I rewrote the paragraph into an overview of notable Lexus TV UK events. My edit comment was: "neg refs not a prob; context and relevance needed; added refs on UK Lexus, rem extra trivia--key points kept; diff sources have diff concl on the impact." The revised paragraph became as follows:

“ In the UK, the LS 430 flagship was introduced in the BBC spy drama, Spooks; Lexus models were also placed on ITV's Coronation Street, the BBC's Judge John Deed, and other programs. Lexus GB models saw sales increases after being seen on ITV's Footballers' Wives. In 2002, comedian Steve Coogan's fictional BBC Alan Partridge character replaced his Rover with an IS 200, calling it the "Japanese Mercedes" and one of many "Lexi"; his superficial character was seen as detrimental to the brand's image. By 2004, multiple hip-hop artists made mention of Lexus vehicles in their songs, an endorsement which Top Gear host Jeremy Clarkson suggested added street credibility for the brand.

--Current version of the Lexus Wikipedia article.

”

This paragraph includes neutral, positive, and negative references, and gives each reference a sentence or so; note that I gave the Partridge sentence the most detail, in deference to the earlier text.

Jeremy Clarkson's thesis was that the 2002 Partridge TV show did negatively affect the Lexus brand, and that 2004 hip-hop songs "overturned" some of that negative impact. In response to my paragraph, Dino246 made only minor edits and seemed satisfied with the rewrite.

As an aside, I should note that the Popular Culture section was formed out of moved remnants of the trivia section, and is still a somewhat more challenging place to edit.

With this first incident, I was concerned by the biased POV expressed in earlier edits and an initial pattern of unresponsiveness to comments. As an editor who is working to make the Lexus article a proper encyclopaedic article, with a preference for neutral information, I was concerned that more explicit POV pushing might occur.

2. Lexus "refers to badge-engineering, not premium products per se"

On September 16, 2007, in the final stages of the Partridge reference conflict, Dino246 edited a Pop Culture statement, which originally was:

“ The term "the Lexus of..." has also entered the cultural lexicon as a description of a high-end product or commodity. For example, in 2006 Dell announced a premium lineup of computers, calling it "the Lexus of our lineup." Further example comparisons include "the Lexus of phones" or "the Lexus of video...", among others.

--Original version of the Lexus Wikipedia article.

”

Dino246 changed the definition of "the Lexus of" from: "a description of a high-end product or commodity" to "a description of a high-end brand produced by a mainstream manufacturer." [10]

In editing, Dino246 also added the comment, "The Lexus of" refers to badge-engineering, not premium products per se."

This was evidently based on a narrow interpretation of the Dell example, which is a premium brand by a mainstream lineup. However, the other general examples, which can be found on Google, are not. For example, the New York Times called the Tivo3 the "Lexus of video recorders." [11] Moreover, Brandweek mentions the same point, using "the "Lexus" of stoves, the "Lexus" of vacuum cleaners, the "Lexus" of airplanes" [12] as examples. These are simply high-end products, or expected high quality items/commodities.

In many examples, "The Lexus of" generally refers to a premium product, unlike Dino246's restrictive interpretation.

Inaccuracy, bias

The actions in this edit evidently are aimed at preventing Lexus from being referenced as a premium product at all. Ultimately, the comment "Lexus refers to badge-engineering" sums up the biased and dismissive attitude used in this edit, which changed the description to an overly narrow definition (mainstream manufacturers only).

The edit was also explained with an inaccurate reason, claiming that Lexus is only badge-engineered. As reference, I submit the Wikipedia article, badge engineering, which states that

“ "Badge engineering is a term that describes the rebadging of one product (especially cars) as another. Due to the high cost of designing and engineering a totally new model, or establishing a new brand (which may take many years for it to gain acceptance), it is often more cost effective to rebadge a single product multiple times."

--Wikipedia article, Badge engineering.

”

Clearly since Lexus was a newly established brand, as defined by the Wikipedia article, and has engineered totally new models (not all, but many), Lexus as a whole cannot be reduced to badge engineering. These facts contradict Dino246's assertions. I submit that the "Lexus is not premium products" edit was done with a key agenda, to remove Lexus from a high-end product association, and reduce it to "badge-engineering."

Rewrite

I rewrote the sentence to say "The term "the Lexus of..." has also entered the cultural lexicon as a description of a high-end product, or an upscale brand produced by a mainstream manufacturer." and explained in my edit summary that the former definition is valid. This edit was not challenged further, likely because the other text was not removed (as could be). However, the biased tone and inaccurate manner of edits was troubling.

3. Altering of "Lexus-ized" definition to reflect negative connotations

On September 16, 2007, Dino246 also changed the definition of "Lexus-ized" from "the impact Lexus had on rival luxury makes" to "the way rival luxury makes were diluting their national culture and heritage in pursuit of sales." [13]

There are two references for the "Lexus-ized" quote given in the original text:

1. A BusinessWeek writer's book, Lexus: The Relentless Pursuit, which is where I first learned about this statement and its context. The book states that Lexus-ized "refers to the quality of other products" much like "the Lexus of" and cites Jay Leno as the originator of the term "Lexus-ized" (pg. 21-22).
2. A Jay Leno article which I found mentions that "I’ve watched Mercedes-Benz become Lexus-ized. When that happens, you do lose a little of the pure nationalism that made German cars distinctly German and French cars perversely French. But it does say wonderful things about the American workforce." [14] It goes on to talk about American car workers.

Inaccuracy, bias

Now, Dino246's edit is technically accurate from the standpoint of the second reference, but it is inaccurate with the first reference. Moreover, it is also inaccurate with many of the other references one can find by simply Googling "Lexus-ized" or "Lexusized", which generally refer to making something luxurious, or bringing it to Lexus-like standards, be they good or bad.

Once again, Dino246's edit is an overly restrictive and narrow interpretation, with an implicit demeaning intent that is explained by the talk page comment (see later section here on "heritage").

An accurate conclusion, I submit, is that "Lexus-ized" does not always mean dilution of culture and heritage in purpose of sales. It has a general meaning, depending on the author, and in multiple reference sources.

Rewrite

I subsequently rewrote the definition to a more accurate and open-ended statement which defined Lexus-ized as "an expression generally used to describe the Lexus approach to luxury motoring." Once again, a neutral statement with no positive or negative connotations (although I admit this definition could be improved further). This edit was left untouched, but I was left wondering what next Dino246 would edit to suit an anti-Lexus POV.

4. "25mpg is not "low-emissions" other than when compared to a Range-Rover."

A week later, on September 22, 2007, Dino246 made a small but revealing edit, changing categorization of the GS 450h from "low-emissions" to "lower-emissions". [15]

Dino246's edit comment was that "25mpg is not "low-emissions" other than when compared to a Range-Rover."

Inaccuracy, bias

Fuel efficiency and emissions are not the same thing (25 mpg is a separate issue from CO2 and other emissions). Although I left the edit in place, judging it to be relatively minor, the rationale for the edit is inaccurate and the intent of the edit, as all previous edits, is to take Lexus down a peg or render definitions and facts less favorably, without regard to factual accuracy. I believe the persistence of negative edits without accurate information stems from a biased POV.

Moreover, the GS 450h is listed as a SULEV vehicle in the US (Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle), which this review for GQ Magazine UK acknowledges: [16]. The title byline of the article is "Boris Johnson's review of the low emission Lexus GS 450H." Clearly, low emission is an accurate term, but Dino246 did not bother to research it and used outside, incorrectly selected information in an attempt challenge factual information.

However, because the situation continued escalating, I decided to leave this edit alone for now.

5. Lexus F1 rumors - disputing, removing both text and sources

On October 1, 2007, Dino246 edited a wiklink and challenged the following text [17], by adding a ((fact)) tag:

“ Additionally, there has been speculation of a Lexus F1 operation in the near future. This racing venture would be in line with Lexus' expansion into the luxury car market and increasing competition with BMW and Mercedes-Benz

--Original version of the Lexus Wikipedia article.

”

This text was added by an editor probably some 2 years ago, and has remained in the article's Motorsport section. As someone who has researched Lexus vehicles, I have heard of this rumor before. Nonetheless, especially considering Wikipedia:NOT (Crystal Ball), I agree it would be good to find sources to verify this speculation.

However it became clear that Dino246's edits are not to simply seek verification, but rather in hopes that the reference of Lexus and F1 can be removed. Dino246 also made no known effort to research the concept of Lexus and F1 racing.

Attempted sourcing

I responded by doing my own search, to which I found several references, the most direct one being at Grandprix.com. The Grandprix.com source [18] talks about a possible Lexus F1 operation:

“ ""Why would Toyota want a second team?" [...] "Toyota has a good opportunity with the Lexus brand. It's got big ambitions to go global with Lexus und knock a big hole in the Mercedes und BMW market. Und they are building very good cars. Und it is a German who is saying that." [...] "A Williams-Lexus team would really hurt BMW," Norbert said.

--Grandprix.com Features column.

”

Maybe this was not the best reference, but I reviewed the site for its credibility. I found that according to the "About" page of Grandprix.com, the site is an outgrowth of the Motorsport Company's F1 newsletter, published weekly: [19]. The main site columnists include writers with press credentials: [20]. The site has been mentioned in the International Herald Tribune and other news organizations: [21]. While the column referenced in question was written in a conversational style, it nonetheless supported the Lexus Wiki editor's statement on F1.

I subsequently added this reference to the relevant article text.

Removal of text

After doing that research, I was dismayed that within 12 minutes Dino246 responded by ridiculing the source as a "blog" and simply struck the text and source from the article completely: [22] No suggestions or recommendation to "find a better source" was given.

Is the source a blog? I don't think so. It is in the "Features" section [23] of the Grandprix website. I think saying this was a "blog" was an inaccurate characterization. I do agree that the source was somewhat old (2005) but that could have been addressed with a slight edit, discussion to reach consensus, etc. In any case, the sentences and references were wholly removed following a challenge and within minutes--no second chances apparently.

Second attempted sourcing

I responded by finding another source, a different reference about Lexus F1 engines, not operations, and added it: [24] Dino246 then edited it to specifically say that it was a marketing venture, not racing venture. I let the basic changes on that section remain, being very tired from being constantly challenged with hostile edits, although I did tighten the section a bit and reference that Toyota has an F1 team.

At this point, I was quite dismayed by what I felt was yet another hostile manner of editing, which I recap as follows:

1. Dino 246 challenges text for sourcing. I think this is fair and helpful.
2. In response, I search for and ultimately add a source.
3. Dino246 dismisses source as a "blog," and immediately strikes text.
4. No offer to help with sourcing, nor allowance of time to make changes is given.
5. I add a different source, in partial support of original claim.
6. Dino246 challenges second source, and rewrites text.

It's rather annoying, to say the least, to have somehow else stand as a critic of work, and seemingly not contribute much genuine assistance. Instead, yanking out sources and then attacking the second source (which itself was only necessary because the first source was attacked), is the method.

I feel these edits were not done in good faith. At the very least, I would have hoped for a bit more common courtesy and reasonable explanation without the hostile tone and dismissiveness. However, tired of the conflict, I let the edits largely stand.

6. "Heritage is very tangible. Companies [...] have it, brands coined in 1989 don't."

Because of complaints from Dino246 that the article did not talk about the theory that "Lexus' success is limited against companies with years of automotive heritage," (paraphrase) [25] I added the following paragraph, along with multiple other criticisms of the brand that were included in sections throughout the article.

“ Additionally, automotive analysts have noted Lexus' relative newcomer status in the luxury market, compared with the storied reputation of its European rivals, as a limiting factor for its initial sales acceptance in worldwide markets. Rivals Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Porsche have stressed their decades of heritage and pedigree in an effort to promote their products, whereas since its inception Lexus' reputation rests primarily upon its perceived product quality and the shared history of its parent company, Toyota. The intangible characteristics of automotive legacy, built up over many years, are regarded by some reviewers as a challenge for Lexus, although their impact is debated. Ultimately, a number of analysts have stated that Lexus will have to build its own legacy over time by investing in technological innovations and producing substantial products. ”

Originally, the word "heritage" was used in virtually every sentence, closely reflecting Dino246's usage of the term on the talk page and in later edit comments. In response to Dino246's insistence that the heritage issue be added, I had researched and wrote this generous full paragraph on the theory, with details and multiple sources. Moreover, this paragraph only makes a small concession that "impact is debated," favoring Dino246's view on the importance of heritage, although the sources I found include mentions that the heritage theory is not absolute, and question the power/relevance of the heritage argument.

Word choice

After finishing the inclusion of criticism in multiple sections of the article, which required a lot of editing, I did a stylistic final proof. In keeping with a flexible and broad writing style, I applied synonyms to several nouns and pronouns throughout the article to add linguistic variety. For instance, I changed "F-Sport vehicles" to "F-Sport line." Other sentences still use "vehicles."

For the "heritage" paragraph, I found that the use of "heritage" in every sentence seemed a bit repetitive. So, I looked up synonyms for heritage, and found one: legacy. This was from the first entry at Thesaurus.com [26]

There was already one synonym for "heritage" in the paragraph: "storied reputation," and one companion word "pedigree"; now I added "legacy" as a second synonym. I think this was appropriate as for instance Mercedes-Benz has used the phrase "the Mercedes-Benz legacy" on its website to refer to the years of history/heritage the brand has.

Removal of text

On October 2, 2007, Dino246 objected to any synonyms for heritage and replaced both instances of the word legacy with heritage. [27] He also removed the phrase "intangible characteristics of automotive legacy." In response, I acquiesced, realizing that nothing less than the word "heritage" in 3 of 4 sentences was necessary to placate this editor.

Rewrite

However, the removal of "intangible" was not necessary, IMO, as it was in one of the sources I found and cited: [28], final paragraph:

“ Brand heritage is an important intangible in this section of the luxury car market, though, and BMW and Mercedes have it. Lexus doesn't have that kind of renown yet, but it's well on its way there by producing cars like this.

--Mike Hanley, Cars.com

”

According to this statement, heritage, or specifically brand heritage, is intangible. As a result, I changed the respective sentence to its original form: "The intangible characteristics of heritage, built up over many years, are regarded by some reviewers as a challenge for Lexus, although their impact is debated."

...and added the edit summary comment, "well ok if you don't like that term, but I think it's fair to mention that they are intangible characteristics as stated as well in sources." I also moved the "intangible" source to the exact sentence of its direct relevance. That source is quoted twice in the paragraph.

Removal of text

On October 3, 2007, Dino246 again struck the world "intangible" from the text [29], ignoring the reference and the fact that I stated it was referenced. The comment made was: "Heritage is very tangible. Companies that established the motor industry in the first half of the 20th century have it, brands coined in 1989 don't."

This shows that the editor is operating without checking or respecting the source, and also making a statement that smacks of original or unsourced research -- "heritage is tangible." I think an argument could be convincingly made that heritage is intangible, and furthermore the source, an automotive journalist, backs that up.

I have left the edits in place, however this pattern of hostility and dogmatic actions is disturbing to me. I have thus collected all the documentation of what has transpired. I earlier also made requests to multiple editors for additional input to build consensus, but for the past two weeks there have been none.

7. Comments which demonstrate a biased POV

On the talk page, Dino246 has said:

"Lexus may be the best-selling luxury brand in the US but in the rest of the world it struggles to sell against long-established rivals with heritage and this isn't made clear here."

Without any sources, this can be an original research rationale for the "Lexus-ized" redefinition earlier (which defined that "Lexus-ized" meant giving up heritage). The article does say that Lexus is struggling in Europe and has grown slowly in Japan---this reference was there before Dino246 even signed on to Wikipedia. The reference to heritage has been added.

However, Dino246's stated POV is biased because:

1. The causal link between heritage and sales is a theory, one of many on Lexus' worldwide sales, which Dino246 presents and approaches dogmatically as "fact", and
2. Lexus is not struggling in "the rest of the world," more accurately according to sources in the article it is doing well in Russia, Canada, China, South Korea, Taiwan, and experiencing rapid growth elsewhere, while having slow growth in Japan and difficulty in Europe. Dino246's characterization of Lexus internationally is misleading.

Additionally, Dino246 consistently refers to the Lexus division as a "brand" or "badge-engineering" or "marketing", insinuating things which are not entirely accurate.

In the discussion about whether to add a mention of a recent Lexus classical music promotional event, Dino246 has also interpreted what Jeremy Clarkson wrote to be a positive (the hip-hop mentions, which add street credibility) into a negative:

“ Had Lexus merely wanted to show the power of the sound system then they could have used the cars to amplify a rock or hip-hop concert - line them up at Glastonbury maybe. This would have been much more in keeping with the 'bling' image that Lexus has in the UK (as noted by Jeremy Clarkson and referenced in the article). Lexus were/are clearly trying to 'correct' this image to make Lexus more acceptable to the conservative British luxury car buyer. The LSO events are relevant to the article in as much as they acknowledge that Lexus GB realises that the Lexus brand has an image problem in the UK. Perhaps the LSO events can be added to the pop-culture section as a response to the Clarkson quote. This would at least put this particular publicity drive in context allowing readers to better understand Lexus' ongoing rocky brand development in Britain.

--Comments by Dino246 on talk page.

”

There is no source whatsoever that states that the recent Lexus classical music event was in response to rap music mentions. Most mentions simply states that this event would appeal to Lexus' regular customers: [30] However, Clarkson's description of Lexus in popular music as a benefit for Lexus is interpreted by Dino246 as yet another reason why Lexus should suffer, and thus any event must be to "correct" the earlier positive benefit. This is unsourced and rather skewed reasoning, and it seems to be fishing for anything bad to conclude.

Advocating a mention of classical music use as a way to 'repair' brand image constitutes original research, but considering the pattern of biased editing and POV pushing, is not surprising.

8. Conclusions and request for assistance

Throughout these past few days, I have referred to the Wikipedia definition on disruptive editing: WP:DE, which says that the definition of Disruptive Editing is:

“ A disruptive editor is an editor who:

• Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
• Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
• Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.

--Wikipedia guidelines on disruptive editing.

”

I think it is pretty clear, based on the evidence and compared to WP:DE, WP:TE, and Wikipedia:Civility that Dino246:

1. Edits Lexus in pursuit of a a negative POV for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
2. Misrepresents reliable sources, and ignores the content of sources.
3. Manufactures original research.
4. Acts in a scolding and impatient manner towards other editors.
5. Has a partisan agenda.
6. Attempts to impose one's own view.
7. Has a pattern of edits displaying a bias.
8. Uses citations which back some of the facts one is adding, but do not explicitly support one's interpretation or the inferences drawn.
9. Does not seem to practice much civility, if at all.

From the beginning, Dino246 has claimed that the article is biased towards Lexus, when a GA review and other editors have not found that. Nonetheless, I endeavored to improve the article to suit Dino246's criticisms, but I found that my edits were challenged if they did not comform to a particular POV. Moreover, the comments and edits by those accusing longtime Wiki editors of lacking NPOV, were IMO exceedingly biased themselves. In fact, I and others have removed multiple statements from the Lexus article in the past in an effort to make it more NPOV.

I feel I have done my best to accomodate Dino246. I have rewritten whole sections of the article, added paragraphs and sections, in response to requests by this user, and coincidentally 2 recent IPs with virtually no editing record, for more criticism. I have tried to extend courtesy by being patient, saying "thanks", and accepting criticism. However, in response to these overtures, I feel that I have been harassed, attacked, and overall been treated inappopriately. I feel very little can be done to satisfy this editor.

After enough exchanges to make clear what Dino246's intent and attitudes were, I have refrained from a direct confrontation, as I do not wish to antagonize this individual and receive retaliatory action. I am at present sharing this page with trusted administrators. Ultimately however, I think that Dino246's fixation with this article involves edits that are not in the interests of making a better encyclopaedic article, with fair discussion, but rather to restrict, narrowly define, and attack.

Finally, I would like to point out a recent edit which Dino246 made to the Alfa Romeo 156 article (in the midst of challenging the Lexus article): [31], adding "The car was the first saloon featuring hidden rear door handles and prominent front door handles to give it a coupé look. "' Astonishingly, this "first" claim is made without any sources whatsoever. If an editor can get away with adding favorable or innovative statements to one article without source, yet attack another article's already multiple sources and maliciously remove or edit text, I think there is a serious problem.

At present there is a poisoned atmosphere for article edits, especially since Dino246 seems to be making inflammatory edits, constantly criticizing, etc. I feel it is very difficult to assume good faith here. I truly feel that this user, who warns is "monitoring the article" yet claims to have "no axe to grind," actually does have an axe to grind (as shown by the types of edits and comments) and has been doing it for two weeks now. Quite frankly I feel this user has done very little constructive editing if at all. Rather all edits and comments have been pushing a POV. There can be no fair editing when this user is constantly standing by to revert and manipulate things to satisfy that POV.

Thank you for your attention and understanding, and I would deeply appreciate it if some proactive steps be taken to restore an environment of civility, trust, and peaceful editing to the Lexus article. There definitely is room for different points of view, but is there room for a POV based on hostility and little regard for accuracy, a true NPOV, and good faith? I feel that this will require a lot of vigilance and attention from my fellow editors and administrators. I respectfully request assistance, and thank you for your understanding.

Sincerely, Enigma3542002 03:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Response from Dino246

Is it in the spirit of Wikipedia to conduct trials of editors behind their back and without giving them the opportunity to respond to 'evidence' presented against them? I am not going to stoop to respond to each accusation in turn. Suffice it to say that I think that the spirit in which Enigma3542002 has approached his presentation of the source material against me is entirely in keeping with the way he uses source material to support his promotion of Lexus on Wikipedia. My edits to the Lexus article have always been minor and corrective. I make regular small edits to articles across Wikipedia when I come across inaccuracy, bias, or unsourced statements, and my recent editing of Lexus has been with the same purpose of adding credibility to Wikipedia. I do not believe it is healthy to Wikipedia when a single editor takes effective control of a particular article, especially when that editor is a self-professed fan of the subject and makes virtually no effort elsewhere in Wikipedia. I think it is especially rich when someone who spends an inordinate amount of time 'fixing' others' edits to his project article accuses someone else of disregard for NPOV. I apologise if my off-article comments or justifications for edits have been curt but the content that I have created on the article itself has never been anything less than impartial and sourced and where my standards have fell short I have accepted counter-edits gracefully. I would have appreciated it if Enigma had approached me civilly to discuss his frustration at no longer being the sole keeper of the Lexus article rather than investing so much effort to prepare a public file against me and letting me stumble across it quite by accident. Dino246 12:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)