There is a whole thread of technical objections on the mailing list, and even more on your pull request, which you are well aware of. But to sum it up for new readers, the BIP does not accomplish its stated objective since the restrictions are easily bypassed by people who are looking to insert data, so it ends up doing nothing but cause disruption and uncertainty for legitimate usage - i.e., people who actually program their money.
Which no one has claimed. But fact remains that nodes can be easily spun up in large numbers at little cost, especially in the case of onion nodes, so all claims of community support that are backed by node counts must be taken with a massive dump truck of salt. Again, there are very good reasons for why Bitcoin operates on Proof-of-Work as opposed to Proof-of-Nodes or Proof-of-Tweets.
Accusing people of forging data to dispute a claim is not a reasonable way to garner buy-in for your proposal.
Widespread community consensus is required for sure, but if a small minority of nodes insist on following rules that are not enforced by a majority of miners, the best they can hope for is that they’ll end up on a minority chain, as opposed to a dead one.