Wikipedia is the posterchild for sites that have toxic environments - that's why wikimedia foundation spends so much time and money researching ways to stop the editor decline.
The fact that wikipedia is good is a miracle when you see the awful behaviour of many editors / admins.
Looking through your comments, the only prior example you give is of lengthy discussions of punctuation at the village pump. That isn't exactly my definition of "awful behaviour".
You also mention about male editors replace "rape scene" with "sex scene" in articles, but I can't find where that actually happened (and it seems like a pretty clear case of seeing what the sources say).
The fact that wikipedia is good is a miracle when you see the awful behaviour of many editors / admins.