Judicial allergies to issues of judicial bias and misconduct

What happens to judges when they are requested:


1) to read a large pleading with a lot of exhibits;
2) that requires them to do a lot of research;
3) to rule on an issue of whether another judge committed misconduct?


In my experience, even a judge who is an otherwise nice and jovial person, would turn extremely nasty, rude and disrespectful to the party and attorney who caused the judge to read a lot and have to make these tough decisions, forgets about all rules of civility, yells at parties and attorneys, accuses parties and attorneys of lying without allowing them to properly rebut accusations, disregards procedural and substantive rules applicable to the proceedings ... You name it...


Why the issue of judicial misconduct tees off judges so much?


They are angels who can never make mistakes and can never commit intentional misconduct?


Yet, incidents when judges are disciplined do happen, more rare than rogue judges deserve it, of course, but such discipline does happen, see, for example, here, here, here, and here.


As of late, three judges were even convicted for crimes tied to their judicial office - two in Pennsylvania by a federal court, and one, again, in Pennsylvania, by a state court.


So - judges are definitely not saints.


I just think that judges should lighten up and not think that by making a motion pointing out judicial bias or misconduct a party or attorney is committing a sacrilege.


After all, is it so difficult to just do your job, even if it involves a sensitive issue?  If it is, maybe somebody else should do that job.