:::: sprot only blocks IP (and brand new) addresses from editing - it does not stop anyone from reading, nor does it stop anyone who wants to contribute to create an account with an unidentifiable and untraceable name (i.e., don't give your email address) and contribute.  The edits made by multiple IP addresses on this page, as you know,  have been (not always but  by and large) at best unhelpful but much more often downright offensive and I see absolutely no reason why that should be allowed to continue.  Again, you know I am not talking about the juvenile HI MOMs - they are also annoying, but that is not what plagues this page.  We are plagued by targeted vandalism - changing "Obama" to "Osama", for example, and the regular changing of text that has hidden text clearly requesting that it not be changed right there, plus blatant POV pushing, trolling, etc.  Classic case for permanent sprot. The result, when sprot is in place, is the ability to conscientiously edit and improve the article (which has a changing base of facts so needs constant attention).  But rather than being able to easily evaluate substantive changes that responsible editors make, we are bogged down in having to go through screen after screen of pure and often vicious vandalism. For what positive reason, may I ask?

IP edits also can be used, I suppose, by regular editors who don't want to reveal that they are making sub rosa changes, but I would hope that is not going on here.  

And IP addresses have quite rarely reverted vandalism here - in fact I just looked at the last 500 edits and didn't see a single case of an IP address reverting vandalism. Maybe I missed one, but that claim was not really reflective of what goes on on this page - it is a very small group of actual editors who do the vast majority of the reverting.  

Your comment above about there being only one vandalism on Dec 21 was just one day after sprot was lifted the last time. I said then that I hoped to be wrong, but predicted that vandalism would be back up and it is.  That's why I requested extended protection.

If what  you were unhappy about is the tag itself, I also thought all along that we should have {{sprotect2}} and had thought to change it last time but the block was lifted before I had a chance to.   I have changed it to that less obtrusive tag.  The question of the duration  of the lock is what I am interested in. Two-three weeks is much better than what we had a few weeks ago, and may coincide with any announcement that Senator Obama makes which is also good timing for sprot, but  I'd like to understand why you would want it not to be an extended one, because I can't make any sense out of your position on this, as a person (you, I mean) who clearly is interested in having this remain a high quality page, as evidenced by the excellent work you do here, and the fact that this page has been by far your main area of Wikipedia editing.    | talk