I like what Nathaniel said about working together:
"writes good articles but is unable to work productively with other wiki editors"
...and also what Fennec said about excuses:
"Doing good things is *NOT* an excuse for doing bad things."
...but most of all I agree with Caroline:
"that people are fighting what they see as a moral crusade - that Wikipedia exists to put the world to rights, to speak the objective truth about X issue etc etc."
This desire to use Wikipedia to right the world's wrongs, by getting Wikipedia to endorse the TRUTH, is probably what's behind the worst of the edit wars. I've tried to set a good example by ducking out of these once I realize I'm in them. (It often takes a third party like Caroline, Angela, or Mav, to name just a few -- to help awaken me to the realization that I have departed from neutrality into advocacy.
What an irony that even someone devoted to avoiding bias can least detect bias in their own writing. I mean, I wish I could see it before I click "submit". But, frankly, I can't. I rely on the help of other Wikipedians to set me straight. It's crucial, because I have a blind spot when it comes to my own writing.
Perhaps the best any of us can do is to be humble enough to listen to our colleagues and respect their efforts to steer us back in the right direction when we stray from the NPOV path.
Have a good weekend, everybody!
Ed Poor