From my PoV (so much for NPoV, eh?), there has been a combination of two things going on, somewhat interwoven around each other:  On one hand, there have been a number of very blatantly vandalistic edits on the article lately, most coming from a source using names like "THE FURSECUTION VANDAL," but some coming from usernames designed to look like anonymous IP addresses and possibly anonymous IP addresses as well.  On the other hand, around spates of such vandalism, there have been other edits that have been somewhat contentious in nature but not necessarily vandalism; these edits have come from a variety of sources, including various IP addresses (such as 81.178.225.214 [81] and 68.69.194.125 [68]) as well as other participants, including , , , and .  With some people already on edge from the verifiable vandalism, people became quick to suspect any edit supplying material with a negative-sounding tone as further vandalism.  (Whether or not it was intended as such is a different matter.)  Something attracted the attention of , who had theretofore been uninvolved.  Crossmr's approach appears to be to flag material that describes the subject matter in a positive or neutral light as needing references, and remove material that is more negative or pejorative in nature.  Others (particularly the anonymous/IP-addressed users) have objected to this approach and restored some or all of the deleted material, sometimes from older revisions of the page.  The result of this has been a large number of edit-revert cycles.  In my opinion, 81 may or may not have a favorable opinion of the subject matter but does at least appear to be trying to present things with an even hand, while 68 seems to have more of an axe to grind (quote from above: "the whole point of furry art is to give furries something to masturbate to").