Re: Eh?
I agree that this is a very unfortunate and ambiguous example. You really do not see what has happened before this comment, and at the point where discontent is being openly vented, there may have already been a lot of behavior that annoys the first person who simply does not like to be coerced, just because others feel entitled to restrict him from acting anywhere outside of their scope of imagination.
At the point where you see this entitlement, and it is done in a manipulative way, that often indicates narcissism, and in case of the open source community, where individuals want to be perceived as "giving" "good" "altruistic", when in fact there is a deep sense of egotism running behind it, that points to covert narcissism, and I do believe that that is what this article is fundamentally about.
It is not easy to tell a covert narcissist, for the precise reason that they do not want to be known as having these character traits.
Usually, when confronted with a toxic person, another participant may get angry and it is important for any moderator that they do not intervene in somebody's language just because the person happens to be visibly annoyed.
This is a mistake that I see made often, and the actions of the moderator really play into the game of the toxic individual who wants to pretend that they're not undermining a discussion with covert aggression.