Interesting.
I wonder what they mean by "uncontroversial OR supported by consensus."
I can't wait 'til June 3rd.
Okay, having gone through the edit logs, there was an 'edit war' taking place.
'Jbusch8899' seems to be the primary one putting the controversy in - complete with citations.
'Xenophrenic' seems to be using the rules to suppress the controversy - note, I haven't edited wikipedia articles in a long time, and he's using acronym cites, so I don't know how accurate his citations on the supposed rule violations are. The first time he removed it, it was "rmv assertion of fact pending citation to WP:RS; rmv unnecessary header" - which seems odd since the citations were there. The second was "rvt BLP violation; take your proposal to Talk, please"
BLP seems to be a reference to "Biography of living persons", which is quite the page. Still, at the top of the list: Neutral point of view, verifiable, and no 'original research'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_personshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources - he's saying they aren't reliable. CNN and such aren't?
While I'm going to say that the level of rule enforcement is going to vary on a huge site like wikipedia, especially when it's worked by volunteers, I will state that there's a lot less verifiable information left on various pages, with lousier citations. As such, it looks like Xeno is trying to suppress the information.
Perhaps the answer is to create a wiki page specifically for 'under the gun', where the controversy can be expanded upon.
Especially given wiki's policy on BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."