Blatant Violation 

Skag River Queen has blatantly violated the 3RR. There was not yet a consensus. I asked to have the article protected a MONTH ago.
Main article: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
'When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm' The blockquotes *do* overwhelm the article. SRQ made a unilateral decision to change TWO quotes instead of the one under discussion. In addition the blockquotes make the article look choppy. BRB  

"Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment."
To place such undue emphasis  sensationalizes the article re OLD NEWS, making it of tabloid quality.  I would have rather the both of us been blocked  than the article. That would have left the possibility of someone without a negative POV and intent to harm to reasonably edit the article. To personally make changes because of the violation of the 3RR and unilateral decisions *before* blocking it would have been the better decision, you said it was close, and you are human