:::Well, I guess that turns into a query for you.  Did you protect the article  prompted by JMHamo  against the activity he asserted was edit warring?  When he wrote above that "two editors" are "beginning to edit war ... again?"   

 :::BTW, I'm not sure why JMHamo came to an individual, rather than going to a board, but perhaps you know.   

 :::It would appear from his note that JMHamo was referring to the most recent single reversion I made  which he (hence, the extreme "irony") in turn reverted, without any substantive rationale or discussion whatsoever.  The issue there, as you can see, was wp:lede.  I then raised the issue of his tag-teaming with substance-less reversions in contravention of wp:lede  on the talkpage here. 

 :::RidiQLus (the editor with whom JMHamon tag-teamed deletions) later, in talkpage discussion, indicated his rationale as "His intro shouldn't have the negative aspects of his career, only the positives.". This, despite my having pointed out that wp:lede provides that "the lead should summarize the most important points in the article — including any prominent controversies". 

 :::You protected the article in the form that RidiQLus and JMHamon reverted it to.  Which had no competent support for its form.  It was clearly in contravention of wp:lede.  Talk page discussion that has ensued at the guideline  which I had initiated  has come up with zero support for violating wp:lede in that fashion.  And yet, that's the form that you saved the article in, prompted by one of the two editors. 

 :::WP:PROTECT states: "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists."  Here, we have such a case.  The issue is wp:lede, which is clear.  The only substantive support for the tag-team deletion by RidiQLus and JMHamon  the baseless assertion that the lede "shouldn't have the negative aspects of his career, only the positives "  is clearly an improper point to support, as referred to by wp:protect.