As I have a little time, I thought I'd list a few contradictions I've seen.

Civility

On the one hand, we have a WP:CIVILITY policy, one of the five pillars. This policy suggests that we should treat Wikipedia as a working environment and interpretations imply we should follow a collegial approach. Now, leaving aside the bitchiness and bullying that happens in most offices and the sniping and snobbery that happens in most academic hierarchies, these models still don't fit Wikipedia. ^[1]

• Wikipedia is an environment where it is expected that you can discuss openly, with no fear of reprisal, that an editor can be removed from the community - be it by block or ban. No one would think twice about discussing a block for a "disruptive user" - yet imagine a workplace where the team could suggest a team member being fired, in front of their face.
• Wikipedia-speak is chronically uncivil. We have invented terms that are so broad that they no longer hold any meaning.
  • "Vandalism" is defined as any edit which intentionally harms the encyclopedia. In other words, it encompasses malicious blanking of pages, replacing names with obscenities and writing the words "JohnBoy is Ghey" across the top of an article. Yet, when this is applied to a good faith but wrong edit, it is associating the editors work with someone who just writes "ssssshhhiiiiiiittttt". This is why "vandalism" is such an all-encompassing useless word.
  • " Troll" - Although not exclusively a wikipedia term, "troll" and "trolling" are frequently used within the encyclopedia. According to the definition, it's not specifically targeted - sneaking a comment like "The moon landings were faked" into a discussion about "moon rocks" would be an example. Yet, on wikipedia, it's often used with regards to editors who are disliked and as a personal attack.
  • "-cruft" - an interesting suffix designed to belittle work which an editor sees as unimportant. This might be Pokemoncruft or Roadcruft or anything that the user believes unworthy of the encyclopedia.
  • "Hat collecting" is a term used when referring to (typically young) editors who appear to be just attempting to collect user-rights as if they were badges or hats. Whilst this can happen, in general editors work in a number of areas before they find their niche - and some areas require user-rights to work in.
  • "Net-negative" is a term which means an editor is causing more problems than they are adding positive. When an editor has been around for a while, and has racked up tens of thousands of edits over a period, suggesting that they are a "net negative" dismisses the hard work they have put in to the encyclopedia. What's more, looking at the long term goals of the encyclopedia, if they have contributed good work to the article space, that work will be there long after the petty disputes have gone. Phrases which marginalise editors hard work are not needed when discussing the removal of disruptive editors.
• Wikipedia essays are regularly misused to create an uncivil environment. There's the obvious problem essays like meta:dick, cunningly kept off wiki so it cannot be deleted, but more than that there's more insidious uncivil essays. The essays in themselves are not problematic, indeed they are generally accurate and well written, unfortunately certain editors read only the first line and interpret the rest from that.
  • WP:ROPE or " Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope" is an essay based on the idea of giving certain blocked users enough rope and let them hang themselves. However, it is also used for editors who are deemed disruptive but not blocked, for constructive editors who are temporarily blocked and all sorts of other situations.
  • WP:CIR or " Wikipedia:Competence is required" is an essay which explains that some editors will never be able to edit the encyclopedia. It states "... if WP:COMPETENCE applies to an editor, it is usually not appropriate to tell them so." - Yet, I've seen many editors do exactly that.
  • WP:NOTNOW is an essay which is designed to help very new editors who run for RfA before understanding what adminship is and who it is given to. Yet it is regularly given as a suggestion to candidates who are not quite ready for adminship. Though often well meaning, the person who links to this essay is actually suggesting that the candidate is a new or inexperienced editor, while this is not this case. This happened so often that a counter essay WP:NOTNOTNOW was set up.
  • WP:RANDY or " Wikipedia:Randy in Boise" is an essay regarding the wikipedia philosophy that "Experts are scum" - we (for better or for worse) allow anyone to edit and worry about verifiability and sourcing. The problem comes when editors refer to specific editors as a Randy or a Randy-enabler. Besides the fact that it's stereotyping editors from Idaho, the essay isn't about Randy, but Wikipedia philosophy as a whole.
  • WP:PRAM or " Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram" is regularly used as a veiled ad hominem attack, implying the subject is a baby.
  • WP:STICK or " Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass" is often used in the hope of silencing an inconvenient opponent. The essay itself doesn't suggest that a link to it should mean "Your arguments are unanswerable and I'm tired of ineffectually trying to rebut them", but it often does.

Notes