blatant violation skag river queen has blatantly violated the rr 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 rr and unilateral decisions before blocking it would have been the better decision you said it was close and you are human