"
You realize, No September, that you're essentially giving in to trollery here?  John Kerry and George W Bush attract trolls, predictably.  Well, the solution they've come up with is pretty good; semi-protect, and put a trollery warning on the talk page.  Why was so much more censoring action done here, while allowing MONGO to edit without accountability and locking up the talk page and refusing to hear of the matter on his talk page, effectively giving him total control of the article?  This is not a ""value judgement"" case; policy provides for a specific case just like this!

Do not edit or revert a temporarily protected page, except to add a protected page notice, a link to Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute or Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, or a similar disclaimer about the current state of an article, unless there is widespread agreement that the page was protected in violation of these policies.
Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over.
Admins should not protect pages in which they are involved. Involvement includes making substantive edits to the page (fixing vandalism does not count), or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page before the protection. Admin powers are not editor privileges — admins should only act as servants to the user community at large. If you are an admin and you want a page in an edit war in which you are somehow involved to be protected, you should contact another admin and ask them to protect the page for you. Not only is this the preferable method, it is also considered more ethical to do so as it helps reduce any perceived conflict of interest.
 Important Note: When a page is particularly high profile, either because it is linked off the main page, or because it has recently received a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is not appropriate to protect pages in this case. Instead, consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself.
Why weren't these policies complied with?  This is not a special case; the policy provides for cases just like this.  WHy are you ignoring this, and why is this being ignored at the requests for unprotection?  Moreover, If MONGO is so innocent, why is he refusing to discuss it, unless he is mocking editors who raise concerns?"