There is this strange notion in the US today that "neutral" means "doesn't upset or offend anyone". Or that neutral means "both sides get equal weights". If some corporation pays for getting their articles edited, then it is still a neutral fact that that was what they did, even if it upsets someone at the corporation that the truth comes out.
This is not to say that all sides must be held to have equal weight. Flat earthers should only get a passing mention on the article about the curvature of the earth, though they should be mentioned. Breathinarianism should be barely mentioned in an article on human health.
I've found, when I was working on contentious articles on Wikipedia (all those many years ago now!), that neutrality always highlighted extreme views and held them to the light of day - they seemed, if anything, more bizarre and absurd when presented in a neutral manner. That's really why Scientologists hate Wikipedia, IMO.
Just because there is a non-neutral position doesn't mean that it shouldn't be altered.
Is there a story here?
I also did it to force the editors to get sources and not just make stuff up. There was also often an issue where the fact was good, but was extraordinary and needed a source to back it up. The tag allowed the good info to stay until a source could be found. Unfortunately, sometimes bad info stays too long but it has the tag so at the very least you know that something is potentially fishy.
It was basically more wildly successful than I ever imagined. I really had no idea I was creating an important bit of Internet popular culture - I was just trying to make Wikipedia more reliable!