" 

 :The fact that you don't think you did anything wrong is concerning to me; edit warring is disruptive to the project and is never allowed regardless of the subject matter.  The fact that you were repeatedly restoring content related to a sensitive topic area (a person's Balkans-related ethnicity) just makes it worse.  Please note the following sentence from the policy on edit warring: 

 ::'Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version [of an article] is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: it is no defense to say ""but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring"".' 

 :Further, you actually did violate 3RR with these four edits:    . Just because the fourth edit was different doesn't mean it isn't a revert since it still undid the work of another editor. ""An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert."" Doesn't matter that you added a reference, it still broke 3RR. 

 :Finally, second opinion on what? Your block has already expired, and it's perfectly valid to warn you about the Balkans-related rules when you've been argumentative in that area.  Even if you hadn't been edit warring, your ad hominem sarcasm and allegations of non-neutrality are sufficient cause to formally remind you to work civilly with other editors, most especially in subject areas where disagreements have already caused significant disruption to the encylopedia. 

 :If you really think I made an error in judgement, you're welcome to open a discussion thread at the administrator's noticeboard so other editors (including admins) can take a look at the situation. —  "