If I'm seeing correctly, they did tidy it up and resubmit it - where it was then removed (I don't quite understand why - perhaps because they didn't reply to the talk saying so?).
That said, that looks like quite the controversy. Adding that kind of thing to wikipedia is tricky because it can be hard to represent in a neutral way. Same sequence of events could have happened to me, or anyone else. Fortunately other editors are there to help, but you do need to talk with them.
(edit) Basically Baryphonic started out fine. Discussing on the talk page was the next logical step, after which you can edit the text to fix the issues. Often this kind of change takes several iterations to iron out the problems.
The article I linked in my original comment is different though and the user Valjean maintains a number of pages that they revert edits from and don't really engage in BRD in good faith.
There are articles in Wikipedia which will _always_ convey a certain perspective. Edits to them will always be reverted. The reverters will not engage with the audit process. The senior staff will not challenge those reverters. The procedure to handle this situation will not work. Arguments will be made that make literally no sense and will yet be accepted. If you persist in trying to make those changes your account will be banned on spurious grounds.
But definitely give me an article/situation on Wikipedia where you feel that this is the case, and I'll take a look with you. Diffs appreciated!
I sense that this conversation will lead to a great deal of wordy justifications for the unjustifiable. I've already said that's part of the dissuasion process, I'm not interested in participating in it.
These discussions were already had at great length on reddit r/wikiinaction and resulted only in the subreddit being castrated.