Good question,Mike.
In my work as a furniture restorer/conservator,and during the seminars,classes,and professional gatherings which that process has entailed, there have been many memorable characters in whom ego and near megalomania seemed to nearly overrun the real talent that lay beneath the human crust.
Competitiveness, inability to relate to other people, poor social skills, just plain ol' nasty person, substance problems, big fish in little pond, fanatic belief in one's own superior and unique abilities, over-exalted pride in one's own craft skills, and on and on -- the whole catalog of flawed personalities with whom we are all familiar in one context or another.
Are such things interesting? In a clinical sort of way, they may help round out the picture of a person and their achievements. Do I feel a need to know of other people's feet of clay? Prob'ly not - unless they are my competitor!! ;~`) & LOL.
I would say that for whatever reason, individually motivated people who practice a skill requiring a limited amount of human contact are probably doing just that, because they are comfortable in that context. A file is either sharp, or it isn't. No argument, no nuances, no negotiation -- it cuts suitable to the task or it doesn't. Chisel, scraper,sandpaper and the results are quantifiable. People are not.
However, given all of the above, in my profession I have met very few craft folks with whom it's all bad, all the time. There can be common ground if you are willing to look for and cultivate it, but that is generally in non-monetary uncompetitive terms. Then, there are individuals who are like some little mountain fice dog that just natcherlly gotta hump yer leg, so ingrained is their inability to cede any recognition of another's skills.
I guess that in answer to y'r question, warts are publishable, for the purpose of illuminating the person's career, skills, and output. I know that you would use such background no more than necessary, and in good taste.
Now, an anecdote. Some years ago a very important American wing chair went to auction and fetched in some millions. A prestigious museum facility received the contract for conservation and 'detachable' museum upholstery. The question of "what was the original upholstery layout?" brought together in one room, some twenty or so of leading experts, museum staff, and others of the chattering class.
After considerable examination of the multiple overlaying tack holes, and speculation, it seemed that about all of the group was leaning toward one conclusion. Across the exam table was one man, well known in the longrifle community, with landmark publications about Southern furniture. His work is strongly based on the tell-tales of work marks and techniques that a craftsman leaves on his work.
The argument see-sawed for a while, and finally he cried out in exasperation to the 'consensus', "Can't you just SEE it?". To him, the evidence was right there, and easily readable to his exceptional eye and mind. As my witness of the incident related to me, "There he was on one side of the table, and there they all were on the other side. I'd say it was just about an even match."
To such a person, from whom I have taken a carving course, and listened to in some few lectures, I am willing cede a great many foibles, short of drunken sociopathy.
