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 grundle 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 times unitanode reverts haeb reverts grundle 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 grundle 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