semi protect request do you know how to put in sem protects i'd like on on pseudophilosophy and patrecia scott as alienus is using new sockpuppets to edit these thanks hello this request for semi protection on two articles is out of process the user making the request is in a content dispute with multiple editors and has provided no valid evidence nor requested checkuser to support the claim that any banned sockpuppets are editing editing from anon ips is not reason enough particularly when the request for semi protection comes from an editor with a who wishes to protect his version of the article talk most requests for administrative intervention come from editors with an interest in the topic that doesn't invalidate the request or change the fact that alienus is not permitted to edit wikipedia by the order of the arbcom hope that helps there's been no actual evidence that any vandalism or editing by alienus has occurred at those articles claiming an ip address is a banned user without proof is inappropriate and contrary to semi protection policy which states semi protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred as a response to regular content disputes since it may restrict some editors and not others see the protection policy for how to deal with this in the case of a static ip vandal hitting a page blocking is preferable to semi protection to prohibit anonymous editing in general talk i'm pretty satisfied that the thing that is quacking waddling and shedding feathers is in fact a duck when making a claims contrary to wp agf it might be a good idea to actually have evidence can you show any edit in the recent history of pseudophilosophy that was either vandalism or an edit by a banned user likewise can you show that in patrecia scott ips or are the banned user alienus as claimed all i see is a content dispute and edit warring by laszlowalrus and for that you are not permitted to semi protect an article in fact the content in the latter article that laszlowalrus keeps removing is in the nathaniel branden article in the close relationship between rand and branden came to an abrupt end when rand discovered that branden was having a sexual relationship with a third woman actress patrecia scott rand then expelled branden from the objectivist movement talk look more closely good day that certainly is not an answer it's your responsibility to demonstrate that you're using admin powers appropriately if necessary i'll bring this up at rfc for admin conduct talk i encourage you to do whatever you think is best regards umm i'm editing pseudophilosophy and the gentleman in question seems only to remove the sections that he does not support most of that is cited material or documented on ayn rand's own page it is not novel or disputed just not liked i think we need to be wary of such edits and protections if he is doing this elsewhere that is even more problematic i have noticed that at least one time he reverted on the basis of 'alienus' from an anon ip it did not look like a sockpuppet edit and i think the continued use of this justification is being used as a trope for a campaign it should be ignored and forgotten it's accepted practice to treat anonymous ip edits that c