If anyone wants an excuse for their own edit war, just look
here. An editor goes to five reverts, was reported, admits it, and at least two admins looked the other way because he had "good motives". And here's a case where an editor made five reverts in under 24 hours, and an admin declines to block the other editor because he asked me a question and I didn't answer, however I was never informed that the question was asked.
I was blocked for edit warring early July 2013. An anon was adding material to an article that was, in my understanding and that of another editor, a violation of football project consensus. The other editor, Special:Contributions/2001:558:6020:1A8:6826:BBB:7D1A:2F7F, made a dozen reverts to Julian Green in just over 48 hours. I was blocked for edit warring for making fewer than eight edits in that same time frame, but the anon was not. I engaged in discussion on the article talk page and on the anon editor's talk page. The anon either didn't read the discussion or didn't understand it, insisted on telling me that the player had dual citizenship, which is not what the issue was about, and pointed to other articles that also listed hyphenated nationalities, rather than looking at all of the articles that don't have hyphenated nationalities and follow the consensus. So clearly, some edit wars are justified and admins do nothing to block egregious violations while punishing those who "should know better" instead.
[1] Four reverts against four different editors and no block.
20 reverts against multiple different anonymous editors, most unexplained. No action.
