Stated superbly. When I see "almost always being right on the underlying merits in a dispute, but going about it in a fairly obnoxious way" with regard to an e

Stated superbly. When I see "almost always being right on the underlying merits in a dispute, but going about it in a fairly obnoxious way" with regard to an editor I imagine things like finding someone doing something in violation of the policy then systematically going around and reverting them (instead of fixing the edits) and leaving them impersonal meat-bot "Your edits are bad and you should feel bad" notes, then when target flips out and starts accusing the correcting-editor of a vendetta, instead of backing off and bringing in help they just cite policy chapter and verse, escalating what could have been an education into an argument-- not because they get off on arguments, but because they suck at interacting with other humans online... Stuff like that. There is a super wide range for potentially less than great behavior on Wikipedia much of which doesn't overlap with what you'd otherwise consider unprofessional or uncivil conduct.