Making accusations of tendentious editing can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if tendentious editing is alleged without clear evidence that the other's action meets the criteria set forth on this page, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment if done repeatedly.[1]
Don't be zealous to the point other goals are lost: Intense caring for Wikipedia's policies and ways can at times lead to such excess of zeal as to be a problem in its own right. Such editors often do not understand why others criticize them because in their own eyes they are "just doing what's right for Wikipedia".[2]
When sanctions are pursued against an editor, care must be taken to ensure that an editor's actions are actually having the effect of disrupting active efforts to improve content. Editors in a discussion may become frustrated when faced with spirited disagreement, rapid altering of an article, or rejection of their edits and react by accusing other editors of misconduct. Being a cause of annoyance to other editors is not itself disruptive and sanctions should not be implemented without indication that an editor's contributions are having the effect of preventing improvement of an article...[3]
When an editor's prior bad conduct is raised in a discussion, consideration should be given to whether the current conduct issues are a de-escalation from the prior conduct and not regard the mere act of repetition as escalation. Improving one's conduct is a sign that an editor is responding in good faith to the concerns of the community and tougher sanctions for lesser misconduct only discourage that editor from improving further...[3]
There may be miscommunication on an important point that leads to a misunderstanding. If an administrator is not aware of mitigating details and takes action based on appearances alone it can lead to disruptive sanctions against an editor, who will be confused as to the reasons for sanction and become less inclined to respect administrative decisions. Central to assuming good faith about misconduct is to understand that the community consists of imperfect human beings who may not always act in a manner consistent with policy for reasons that may not be immediately clear in an initial reading of a dispute...[3]
The effect of a civility block can be far more disruptive than incivility itself, especially when an editor is making meaningful contributions to articles. Editors making uncivil comments should first be encouraged to redact or remove their comments before sanctions are pursued...[3]
All our process was created sincerely to do good. However, it may still have problematic results.
Susceptible to being used to stifle debate or to intimidate other editors out of arguing on the ground that the results of the process are binding and cannot be reversed regardless of changing circumstances or understanding.[4]
Most, if not all, contributors have a political bias, even if they pretend not to or think they don't. Effectively, they are all working to subvert articles one way or another, as politics defies NPOV. Yet attempts to define Wikipedia:political disputes continue to fail in part because people who pretend to be "not political" claim it's just an editorial problem, not a real world issue creeping in. They even refuse to recognize Wikipedia:identity disputes as a distinct type of problem, which is more or less insane. If one group happens to have more resources, i.e., time, than other contributors, their views will prevail. Of all the so-called problems of Wikipedia this one however is least problematic: just invite their opponents who have a stake in correcting it, as Wikipedia is a big visible reference that's hard to ignore.[5]
If you're involved in an action or judgment involving (or by) another person, reverse roles. If the role reversal forces a change of opinion as to whether the action or judgment is unreasonable, then the original action—with the original roles—violates the reasonability rule. Such violations should be kept to a minimum: full compliance with the reasonability rule will result in a minimum of conflict and a maximum of productivity and enjoyment for all who participate. Such is always the goal of a collaboration of any scale.[6]
Policies and guidelines are not the law and do not need to be ruthlessly enforced. New users, in particular, haven't encountered all the discussions that led up to the notability and verifiability policies, so they won't necessarily know that adding unsourced content is a bad thing. It's really important not to come down like a ton of bricks[7] on them—they don't deserve to be treated like they've just kidnapped the First Lady.
In fact, even users who've been around for a while might not have come across certain parts of Wikipedia where those policies are most relevant. Somebody might have a sizeable number of edits that are just small typo fixes, but then they discover that something they like is being nominated for deletion, at which point they'll shout, for the first time, "Don't delete this article—it's my favourite!". In which case, before you chuckle and throw a bunch of incomprehensible tag soup at them, it might be worth considering that they simply haven't done as many AfDs as you have, and so aren't familiar with how they turn out. Hell's bells, you could even try to fix the problem for them.[8]
"If whatever was at stake were truly "clear", then the discussion at hand would probably not be taking place."[9]
It is a big myth on Wikipedia that certain pages, such as some articles on high-profile subjects, featured articles, templates, and project pages are fixed, and can only be edited by those in a position of authority, with a certain level of experience, with a prior discussion, or otherwise with special permission.
Some pages may have some form of protection to prevent some people from editing them. But when this is the case, it is not an endorsement of the current version or an expression of ownership, and the purpose is not to prevent good-faith edits. Protection is here to protect pages only from vandalism and edit warring.[10]
