"==Should this page be unprotected?==

 Unprotect Augusto Pinochet - See Talk:Augusto Pinochet. Veriverily isn't explaining his objections to text he keeps reverting over and over again.  
The page is already protected. Is this a request for unprotection?  
Yes, please unprotect this page.  
Sorry, but in spite of your efforts I don't think the discussion has reached enough of a resolution right now to avoid a resumption of the revert war as soon as the page is unprotected.  
Veriverily only chooses to lodge personal attacks against me as long as he manages to censor any facts that he feels might reflect negatively on the U.S. by means of a page protection. There cannot be a discussion unless the page protection is lifted. If we have to wait for Veriverily, the page might as well be protected permanently.  
Refer to the large number of people who have put effort into this article - Ed Poor, Cadr, Cantus, Eloquence - while 172 seeks to sabotage our efforts at working together and impose his own agenda.  The Talk pages are available, so one can see 172 is lying.  Although I have aired my frustration with 172 several times there, the issues have also been much discussed by me and others (i.e., ""only"" yeah right).  As Cadr said on this very page ,  ""Agree with VV. A lot of constructive work was being done on the page; the problems are almost enitrely down to the user he mentions."" (in ref to 172)  As soon as the protection is off, 172 will continue his activities.  V

Unprotect Augusto Pinochet. Cadr and Veriverily refuse to back down one inch, and no one else seems to be paying any attention. Is this page just going to be protected indefinitely?  

See brief discussion below and, for the patient, that at Talk:Augusto Pinochet.  It tells a very different story. - V 
To summarize, it is 172 who refuses to budge and alter one word of the intro he wrote.  All other parties have written several draft intros each to try to accommodate objections and concerns.  172 dismisses these efforts as ""partisan bickering"" and ""bullshit"". - V 
Veriverily's comments are misleading at best. ""All other parties,"" according to Veriverily, are the users (Cadr, EdPoor, AstroNomer, and himself) voting in the minority in the most recent round of polling. His preferred version does not have a ""consensus"" behind it. This was really the winning position in the poll: ""Yes, it should be asserted, in both the intro paragraph and the CIA role in coup section, and not marked as controversial.""  
Consensus had been reached before 172 started trolling; the poll was started afterwards and brought in random buddies of 172.  The poll voters he cites consist mostly of users who had no role in editing or contributing to the page and visibly no understanding of the issues and were voting ideologically.  Even so, the margin was only 8-5, far from overpowering.  Furthermore, one does not vote on whether to be neutral. - V 

I wasn't  ""brought in"" to vote. Nor was I voting ""ideologically"", rather my vote was determined by my familiarity with the issues. Perhaps instead of attacking anyone who voted differently from him V V should present more compelling arguments  

Who am I attacking?  And saying I ""should present more compelling arguments"" supports my supposition that you were not aware of the talk of these issues, because if so you would have seen the thousands and thousands of words arguing these very points. - V 

I wasn't  ""brought in"" to vote, I wasn't voting ""ideologically"" and I have made (minor) contributions to the article.
 

Regardless of who the poll may have ""brought in"", I think part of the purpose of listing this page at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, where it has appeared quite regularly for a while, is to ""bring in"" opinions from members of the community. Regardless of whose ""random buddies"" they are. Nor do I see why the fact t