Well, forgive me if I make any mistakes regarding the specifics of how edit-warring is defined, but I'll give you an honest effort.

As far I can see, Grundle2600 was the first editor to add this content to the article.  This edit is fine as we assume good faith.

Scjessey then reverted the edit.  This is fine, too, as again we assume good faith.  

After this point, there should be no further reverts, correct?  We're supposed to discuss this on the talk page until consensus has been reached.  Any further reverts is edit-warring, correct?  

Well, this content was reverted an additional 9 times:

 Unitanode reverts.
 HaeB reverts.
 Grundle2600 reverts.
 Nsaa reverts.
 William M. Connolley reverts.
 Arzel reverts.
 Tony Sidaway reverts.
 Unitanode reverts.
 ChrisO reverts.

As far I understand the situation, it appears that Unitanode, HaeB, Grundle2600, Nsaa, William M. Connolley, Arzel, Tony Sidaway, Unitanode and ChrisO all engaged in edit-warring.  These editors are well aware that this article is on probation.  They have no excuse as far as I can see.  In fact, many have already been warned and sanctioned for previous violations on this vary same article.  By placing the article on protection, you block everyone.  Why not go after the editors who are actually causing the problem?