An old latin name for this combination of name calling and being told you don't know the answer is argumentum ad hominem
From Wikipedia:ad hominem:
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short
for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which
a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact
about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument
In short: rudeness and name calling are admissions of defeat.
Otherwise, material relevant to the question would be posted instead of an attack.
I would not be surprised if high rep users were involved from time to time, even though they should "know better". However, if high rep users have genuine criticism of a moderator, it is important that gets some kind of a hearing in the community. Otherwise it will drive the high rep users away and one would be left to wonder what part of governance was broken.
It seems the Skeptics model is that a collection of content is being curated and things that don't fit are routinely deleted. That's fine. And there are discussions of the comments-as-answers and deletion policies as other meta questions. But deletion might be partially incompatible with community, where occasionally something like the following might happen:
Here, a very high rep user (>40K), whose ID I have redacted, left a comment that consisted of a few sentences of calling the other poster names, and then a somewhat relevant argument. As a 3rd party, I flagged it rude. We can't see the deleted comment, but what follows is interesting -- the comment author wonders where his comment went and his tone is oh so polite and professional instead of abusive -- and now they get an answer that is also polite and professional but also a well deserved public reprimand.
If a community is desirable, and not merely a collection of pristine content, then these kinds of interactions might need to be left on the site for a while.