Tony is right that these lists of long-term and indefinitely protected or semi-protected pages should be reviewed periodically. The place to find this information is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports
There are about 3000 indefinitely permanently protected talk pages; they are almost all user talk pages and were protected at the time that the account was blocked. Most of those can be unprotected. They run back to 2006.
There are 39 indefinitely fully protected article titles, the vast majority of which are soft redirects to Wiktionary or pages salted to prevent recreation. For the others, most are quite recent, and it would probably be appropriate to ask the protecting admin to review and, at minimum, set an end-date. In addition, there are 1478 indefinitely protected redirects, many of them to prevent forking.
There are 1900+ indefinitely semiprotected articles, with many of them indicating they have been repeated vandalism targets. These include articles on recent US presidents, certain high profile musicians, politically charged subjects, and those with a wide and opinionated fandom. These should, of course, be periodically reviewed; however, if someone decides to unprotect many of these articles, I would hope they don't just keep it on their watchlist but actively review new edits regularly for a few weeks afterward.
There are also 300+ indefinitely semiprotected redirects, which include repeatedly recreated articles previously deemed inappropriate, and titles associted with attempts to fork articles. These might bear review as well, either with a move up to full protection or semiprotection lifted on a trial basis, but again they would need to be monitored closely if they are unprotected.
Of the approximately 400 talk pages and talk page redirects that are indefinitely semi-protected, almost all are user talk pages, many of admins who carry out antivandal work. There were about 30 article talk pages indefinitely semi-protected before Tony carried out his review, and there are quite a bit fewer now.
There are some opportunities to improve practices here, and to really take a look and decide which articles (and rarely, article talk pages) need this indefinite protection. At the same time, I really do believe that if an admin is going to reduce protection on a page with an extensive history of problems, he or she has a responsibility to keep an eye on the page for at least a couple of weeks afterward to ensure there isn't a fresh outbreak of inappropriate behaviour. Since so many of the articles involved are BLPs, and even on non-BLPs the problems were related to inappropriate addition of information about LPs, this is an area where special sensitivity is required.
Risker