Thinking you are right when your rank is higher
Openly stressing you are Definitely Right when discussing or reviewing games just because your rank is higher than the person or people you are discussing with.
DeathWind: I do not mean that it hurts to teach a weaker player or suggest certain moves to him or her. There are times when one should be aware of one's actual knowledge of this game. We can't deny the facts most of us are amateur players. It's easy to memorise moves made by professional players, it's the interpretation that is the tricky part. The only time you can slightly hold your stand on is when your information is backed up by professional players's actual teaching or studies. This also reduces the possibility of giving incorrect advices, which is actually very dangerous for a learning player.
I had a personal experience with a player on KGS. We were reviewing a game we have just played. He suggested moves and talked like he knew all the best moves. Whenever I suggest something, he would say, "No, you should not play that, you should play this." I was like WTF? I mean he's only a 4 Kyu. I left the game review shortly after.
On a general note, I am very careful about learning and discussing games or positions with amateur players. Yes, I feel it's good to discuss over games and moves. You can't improve much if you don't review games and analyze positions. There might be a possible danger here though that one might adopt wrong playing moves or habits in certains positions. I am refering to the more complex positions, given my current level in the game. I would not be quick to judge whether something is right or wrong. I would hold on to that until I have clarified with a pro. That is why getting teaching from pros is actually a very essential thing. You learn the right things and decipher correctly the good and bad moves.
tapir: In my experience complaints like this often come from players actively resisting teaching (even when they asked for it). Especially when combined with the habit of making all the comments yourself. When you ask a stronger player for a review: Listen. Some things might not convince you, especially when the reviewer isn't so strong himself after all, but still: listen. Ask some questions that are dear to you, but don't turn the review into a challenge where you try to proof the reviewer wrong. You really don't have to proof how clever you are either, just try to learn as much as possible.
Dieter: As a reviewer, there is a trick: say "this is how I would play" instead of "you should play that move". Only those rare occasions where you really know and if the point is really worth stressing, I think it's ok to be a little sharper in the recommendation. I don't agree with the "listen" dogma. A review is for the benefit of the reviewee. If the reviewer is fed up with being challenged, he's probably busy satisfying his ego.
But it all depends on the difference in rank. As a 2d I do not want to be constantly challenged when teaching the basics to a beginner, not because my ego is at stake, but because I'm really trying to teach someone how to play go. And I'm not the kind spending hours explaining. In a review of a 3k game on the other hand, I shouldn't be too confident about the differences in perception. Any challenge will be an opportunity to review my own "truths".
I think there are far more arrogant reviewers than stubborn reviewees, so this page makes a good point.