Being nice is expensive, and sending bad code imposes costs on maintainers, so the sharp brevity of maintainers is efficient, and in cases where the submitter has wasted the maintainers time, the maintainer should impose a consequence by barking at them.

Sustaining the belief that every submitter is an earnest, good, and altruistic person is painfully expensive and a waste of very valuable minds. Unhinged is unhinged and that needs to be managed, but keeping up the farce that there is some imaginary universe where the submitter is not wasting your time and working the process is wrong.

I see this in architecture all the time, where people feign ignorance and appeal to this idea you are obligated to keep up the pretense that they aren't being sneaky. Competent people hold each other accountable. If you can afford civility, absolutely use it, but when people attempt to tax your civility, impose a cost. It's the difference between being civil and harmless.

A better analogy: Attempting to pee in the community pool to research if the maintainers are doing a good job of managing the hygiene standards.

Enforcing formal behavior makes the deviant behavior more noticeable.

Proper analogy would be 'rude SWAT team', not 'rude bank tellers'.