"

 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 1) vandalism or 2) an edit by a banned user? Likewise, can you show that in  Patrecia Scott  IPs 207.210.106.104 or  128.197.11.30 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 1968, 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