Wikipedia is famously the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. This is not necessarily a good thing.
For working on content in controversial areas, it is better to be beloved by admins, than to be an admin.
If a new editor draws attention to their newness in their initial edits, they're not new.
Any editor who argues their point by invoking donations to Wikipedia, has no viable point.
Any editor who argues their point by invoking "editor retention", is not an editor Wikipedia wants to retain.
A sure tell of a POV-pushing argument is when WP:PSTS is truncatedly quoted as "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia ..."
Certain words and phrases are strongly indicative of WP:PROFRINGE proclivities: allopathic (except in a historical context), healing arts, medical (or scientific) dogma, modality, pseudoskeptic, scientism, and Western medicine.
Any editor who uses the word "bias" as an adjective, will turn out not to understand WP:NPOV.
Rejoice when your callow opponent posts to your mature, well-watched User Talk page: the bat signal is now aloft.
Any editor who quotes Mahatma Gandhi's "first they ignore you, then they laugh at you ..." in support for their point, doesn't have a point that deserves to progress beyond the "laugh" stage.
