"

One good reason would be that it would be wrong, on procedural due process and substantive due process grounds.  Make that two good reasons.  Lionelt has reported 5 ""reverts,"" none of which hold up to scrutiny.  First revert is actually changing a paraphrase of the source into a direct quote of the source, while eliminating references to primary sources (eg, I Corinthians) bolstering POV arguments of the editor, not relying on secondary sources. 2nd & 3rd ""reverts"" are actually an accommedation to the removal of the citation of the primary source by moving the table displaying the primary sources including the Corinthians source in context in parallel columns [originally produced by me four years ago] higher in the article to allow readers to decide for themselves what the primary source said]. ""revert"" 4 eliminate a redundancy in another New testament reference covered by the table as well as an unsourced claim and is not a reversion. ""revert"" 5 is simply not a reversion, is an attempt to flesh out a paraphrase of a source, from the source, a point which I actually don't agree and it's not my point of view, nor I think the point of view of that person making the complaint.

In addition, the complainant is required to document his attempt to work it out on the talkpage which he has not done. You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too >
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

My repeated attempts to get other editors to discuss content, talkpages have the perverse result of being used against me.  I used the term, editors, when there's really only one other editor, Esoglou, who is currently under sanction, and who used to be sanctioned under the handle LimA.  Lionelt's involvememnt stems from a cry for allies at the Christiannity noticeboard:
 Origin of the Eucharist 

History2007 has referred above to a past problem with the article Origin of the Eucharist.  The problem is again as acute as ever.  Only two editors are active in opposing the lone editor about whose apparent aims I say nothing.  I would be grateful if editors with greater knowledge than I have about Wikipedia rules would give advice.  One solution with which I am toying is to let the lone editor have free rein, so that nobody then reading the article would take it seriously.    

One thing I am not sure about is this. Does Eschoir have a possible WP:COI issue there? That may be one way to resolve it. As I said before, I have 1,500 pages on my watchlist, so I can not get involved in details there right now, and that is why we need a general 9-1-1 call system or a Mayday button (perhaps built into the WikiProject Christianity banner) as Lionel suggested so editors can be called for help.   
What an interesting idea: add it to the banner. Well, if you like the ""Click here in case of emergency"" button I just added to the top of this talk page, it should be relatively easy to add the button to the banner. It would take a consensus, of course, and we'd want to coordinate with John's redesign of the banner. – Lionel (talk) 
Lionelt has helped very much, and I express my appreciation.  As for Eschoir, I think he just enjoys stirring others up.  In the past, another favourite target of his was Free Republic (see the archived talk pages).    

Foor these reasonns thiis action should be dismissed with prejudice.  "