Edit that Sparked Controversy  There is no consensus for a reverted edit that I made in this article hereafter the reverted edit  Therefore I have not changed this article unilaterally back to my previous version because that would be against consensus  This reverted edit was reverted by KillerChihuahua KC who not only disagreed with it but also said in her edit summary that the edit was disruptive  I disagree with KC that the edit should have been reverted for reasons already explained above  I also disagree with KC that this edit was disruptive and I will now fully and carefully explain why for the record This edit that KC reverted was clearly not redundant to any previous edits made anywhere else at Wikipedia and thus this edit was not made by me in bad faith as part of any disruptive edit war  This discussion of RCOGs position on choice started at the article on fetal pain and I moved it here for valid reasons  At the fetal pain article KC wrote Please provide a source that this government institution is prochoice  abortion is legal in the UK and that the official govt chartered college are to make that safe is NOT pro choice   I therefore investigated and learned that RCOG is not a government institution that most of their members live outside the UK that its governing documents do not specifically limit its activities that many of its members do not have medical degrees et cetera  So I concluded that the best place to deal with all of this would be here at the article on the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists  Here at the RCOG article I added quite a bit of info    in addition to RCOGs abortion stance When I was at the fetal pain article and decided to move to this RCOG article I repeatedly said so in the fetal pain discussion   I did not sneak over here to try to avoid objections at the fetal pain article  KC has elsewhere cited five diffs that she says prove this controversial edit was virtually the same as several contested assertions I had made previously Here are KCs five diffs  in the fetal pain article  in the fetal pain article  in this RCOG article  in this RCOG article and  in this RCOG article  None of these five previous edits cited by KC is the same or virtually the same as the reverted edit that sparked this controversy  Both KCs diff  and diff  show where I inserted a cite to support another editors assertion that RCOG is a prochoice group  KC pointed out very clearly at the fetal pain article that she did not think RCOG was a prochoice group even though she thought RCOG could have a prochoice position on particular issues    There is no uncertainty or ambiguity that KC argued RCOG may have a prochoice