General agreement that the block was controversial in that the BLP issues were unclear enough to be sanctionable, and has been reversed. Black Kite (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
BLP: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that:.......is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research);"
No original research: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves."
There was no lack of clarity here. They all understand the policy basis of the reverts, they are just choosing to ignore the politicised nature of the objections. The very same Wikipediots and their Administrative protectors, would quite willingly choose to interpret these words of policy the way the reporter did, if the beneficiary is a public figure whose opinions they like.
You could make some very biased changes to the biography of Hilary Clinton, for example, using nothing but the highest quality of sources, if this really were how BLP is meant to be applied. If it were commonplace, as one Wikiepdiot even claimed. If they deny it, let them face the inevitable consequences for such dishonesty.
The real proof this is institutional bias at work, is the fact it would not take much effort to remove the source of ambiguity in the policy. If what Calton did here is correct, if that really is a legitimate interpretation of this policy, so obvious they choose to do nothing about the aggressive and dismissive way he has reacted (all blockworthy given his history, yet funnily enough overlooked), then that is easily clarified on the policy page, so as to avoid the possibility that following this interpretation can lead to an AE report.
So why not do so? Because the flexibility of allows is exactly how they manage to achieve biased outcomes at AE. It gives them sufficient room to make the necessary fudges, depending on who is reporting who.