With
conflicting, vague, and possible out-of-my-control requirements -
no "interpersonal disputes", no "causing conflict", etc. -
copyediting
may be all that's safe.
That's a pretty pessimistic view of life. I avoid conflicts on
Wikipedia, and yet I've tackled some pretty contentious tasks, like
rewording most policy documents, deleting some policies, and edited on
a couple of controversial articles.
The point is I can run afoul of these "rules" despite my best efforts.
I can't speak to your edit history.
Sometimes, you have to accept that
to avoid a dispute, you just have to let someone else have their way
for a while. Or wait two weeks and try again :)
Given that community norms have changed in the last two years, I'd be
likely to do a lot more of that were I allowed to stay under
acceptable conditions.
Or not even
that. Last time I was being stalked, my simple attempt to
fix the capitalization in an article "provoked" an edit war, as the
user was simply reverting all my edits (my restoring of such edits was
then offered by the AC as proof of my bad behavior).
What do you want us to say? Edit wars are bad. If someone acts like a
[[WP:DICK]], then get help - don't risk being mistaken for one.
Read my appeal. I went to the ArbComm asking for help. They diddled
and dawdled, and then ignored me, and eventually at least seemed to
decide that I was at fault, presumably because they never really
looked at the case.
I wasn't worried about being mistaken for anything, as it was a fairly
simple situation to explain. Persistent vandals have been around
almost from the beginning.
VV