I don't believe I'm using rollback inappropriately. Removal of content with no proper explanation (and, given User:HW-lied's edit history) is vandalism as well. I have also given him the proper warnings on his talk page and, while I probably did violate 3RR, I thought on WP if a policy got in the way of properly maintaining an article or fighting vandalism, it could be ignored. Just can't find the reference for it, but I recall it being invoked at least a few times. XXX antiuser ^eh? 19:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read when to use and when not to use rollback as an admin will now review your edits and possibly make a determination. Since it's not obvious vandalism, you have to use "UNDO" and give an edit summary in this case. Momo san ^Gespräch 19:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying, though. His edits were vandalism. He was deliberately removing content from an article with deceptive edit summaries. Now he's trying to get that image listed for deletion after his speedy nomination got removed several times (only once by me). If I end up being the one who gets blocked or punished over this it'd be seriously unfair. If you look at my history of fighting vandalism you'll see that 99% of my reversions/edits are legit and stick. And when I do make mistakes, because everyone does, I try to take the proper steps to undo them and always provide an explanation. Sticking to technicalities hinders the ability to effectively maintain WP, and there's precedent supporting that. XXX antiuser ^eh? 19:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see whats happening. He happened to list the image here for deletion and it is indeed in the source article that another admin provided. So yes I do now think it was justified what you did. I'll retract part of what I said at AIV. Momo san ^Gespräch 19:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I found the reference I was looking for, it was WP:IGNORE. XXX antiuser ^eh? 19:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

HW-lied ( talk · contribs) now indefblocked for Disruptive POV-pushing SPA, apparent nazi apologist agenda, offensive nazi-themed username. Momo san ^Gespräch 19:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I see that you reverted my fix to the IP header template at User talk:209.62.173.50. Is there a particular reason for this? I am going to presume that you never bothered to actually look at the host, since a reverse DNS lookup on 209.62.173.50 shows that its network name is 209-62-173-50.itol.com, and itol.com describes itself as "High-Speed Home DSL and Dialup Internet." — Kralizec! ( talk) 17:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well a whois search says it belongs to a company, sometimes the host name doesn't matter like in this case. Momo san ^Gespräch 18:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What does the company name have to do with any of this? Would you also label User talk:68.50.128.120 with the {{ sharedIPCORP}} header because whois shows it is registered to the company Comcast Cable Communications? Regardless, how can you possibly say it "doesn't matter" when there is a world of difference between how we handle blocks on small company networks that may have only a couple Wikipedia users, versus a highly dynamic IP pool that an ISP could use to serve across thousands of customers? — Kralizec! ( talk) 21:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The first line of the SamSpade page doesn't necessarily indicate the name you'd see on the outside of the building where the computer actually is located. For example, my school shows up as "MCI Communications Services". I'm not aware of any tool available to us that can reliably tell the difference between a company that has its own DNS and a building that just uses an ISP, though there may be something Im not aware of. -- Soap ^Talk/ _{Contributions} 21:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Soap, that is exactly my point. Rather than just blindly putting MCI Communications on the talk page (something that benefits no one since anybody visiting an IP's talk page can get the exact same information by clicking the "whois" link that automatically shows at the bottom of every IP talk page), some actual analysis is required. Putting the IP given by Soap through a reverse DNS lookup shows "ns1.me.edu" (which indicates it belongs to Maine Community College System) and "dns.yccc.edu" (which tells us it is at York County Community College).

Speaking as an administrator who processes WP:AIV block requests on an almost daily basis, labeling User talk:208.233.33.1 as {{sharedIP|[[MCI Communications]]}} or {{whois|MCI Communications}} actually inhibits my ability to do blocks because it presents inaccurate information as truth, while something like {{sharedIPedu|[[York County Community College]]|host=dns.yccc.edu}} tells me exactly what I need to know. Hence why I am so irritated about 209.62.173.50 above, because Momusufan stripped out the really important information (that the IP belongs to an ISP's dynamic address pool) in order to parrot the same useless whois info that was already just one click away. — Kralizec! ( talk) 22:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No offense to anyone but I don't want to talk about this anymore. The point is made and that is that. I didn't know it was an ISP and not a corporation. I guess I should have looked into it further. Momo san ^Gespräch 04:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)