"

 About .  

I already e-mailed this report on . I hope that someone of serious Wikipedia administrators will read this report and take serious steps in protecting the Wikipedia dignity

Hello,

I do understand that Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia - but still some kind of very basic ethicalrules shall be applicable and obliging to all editors.I noticed that you have a person whose nick name is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spylab and whose number of edits goes over 60 per day very often spanning 5-11 hours dayly. This person is extremely agressive and intolerant and his/her edits are causing a lot of damage and irritated many people.

The best way to describe his/her behaviour and 'contributions' are given by a few people which can be summarised/quoted this way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Spylab&oldid;=65026476

'I am probably from the USA and like to scrap others' contributions due to what I call ""factual correctness"" - instead of knowing the facts and reporting them!'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spylab/User_talk:Spylab/archive3#What.27s_is_the_problem.3F.3F.3F

'I've noticed that you are editing someone's contribution by altering the text under pretext of grammar corrections - not reading references at all. Moreover, not reading the references nor providing your own - you are demanding new references.

Also, on January 12th you've made 65 edits on various articles in the span of more than 11 hours(merge, clean, copy, revert, etc). Don't you think that it might be seen as something wrong with you if you are spending day after day, hours and hours - practically not contributing anything serious to Wikipedia, only irritating many people this way???'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neo-Nazism#About_Basic_Editorial_Ethics_Here

'When seeing that the existing edition of the Croatia section here, was reduced by User:Spylab to just 6 sentences out of which four were marked by the [citation needed] tag . Moreover, User:Spylab 'completed' his own 'editorial' work by adding {unreferenced|date=November 2006} and {weasel} tags on the top of this page!!! How a serious editor could tag/mark his own edits this way??? I reverted the section demanding explanation for this almost complete section destruction. Ultimately, the existing edits cannot be re-written or destroyed by just throwing claim 'replaced content with info from Neo-Nazism in Croatia because old version didn't focus on neo-Nazism' as he did.

All my attempts to bring the editorial work on the same start and support any further editorial work with facts and serious observations - failed. Instead even willing to discuss the issue seriously, User:Spylab started throwing accusations 'last edit brok 3RR rule', 'you may be blocked' , 'sock-puppetry' etc. and selfpraising (User:Spylab) work as superior and claiming that I do not know what Neo-Nazism is. My attempt (questions) to ask him why he deleted what he deleted already - are removed from the talk page and when I've put back the deleted questions - User:Spylab ignored them completely.

I had impression that I have to deal with an extremely cheeky and primitive personality and wondered how this person could have any access to the editirial work here. Then, I went further and examined the whole User:Spylab editorial work and noticed that User:Spylab commited more than 500 changes within 10 days i.e. more than fifty edits per day - (November 28 - December 7 2006). In that period of time [User:Spylab] was busy by the Wikipedia editing on: November 29 - 9 hours, November 30 - 16 hours (63 edits!!!) , December 1 - 18 hours, December 2 - 7 hours, December 3 - 8 hours, December 4 - 21 hours, December 5 - 12 hours, December 6 - 17 hours, and December 7 - 8 hours.

The content of User:Spylab edits were - spelling check, version reverts, removal of links, copy-paste etc. So it is quite clearly that I had to deal with a mentally challenged person!!!

I just wonder how it is possible that a serious publisher could allow such access to the articles to a person like User:Spylab.' As per his/her own words, as an Neo-Nazism in Croatia section editor, Spylab publicly claims

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neo-Nazism#Page_protection_sought

'Actually, it's not complicated at all. The revert war has nothing to do with point of view, and I am not an expert on Croatia at all.'

My note - how then this person should edit some subject (s)he is not familirar with? Also, all references written in Croatian and given here in the Neo-Nazism in Croatia were removed. As per Spylab question here 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki