I’m of the opinion that they aren’t being consistent. And this is the place for me to make that claim.
For example consider this mod note, and this goes to @superdude’s point as well (thank you for making it):
Why was it against the rules for Ruken to say bringing up irrelevant source materials constitutes fear-mongering? Because this was a backhanded insult against Stranger_on_a_Train. The latter member had cited the source materials. Fear-mongering is an accusation of bad faith, purposely exaggerating a claim to create unnecessary fear. Since Stranger_on_a_Train clearly made the cite, and one can reasonably infer that Ruken was referring to him since the post quoted Stranger_on_a_Train directly. Ruken did not explicitly single out Stranger_on_a_Train in that remark but he was clearly the target. It follows that Ruken indirectly accused him of fear-mongering. What_Exit described the post as attacking the poster, not the post.
There is no difference between what Ruken wrote and “people who bring up irrelevant source materials are fear-mongers”. Now look what happens when I do a little substitution. People who think being gay is a choice are malicious. I’ve replaced “bring up source materials” with “think being gay is a choice”, and “fear-mongers” with “malicious”. What if instead of “people who think being gay is a choice”, I just write “conservatives are malicious”? What have I done that makes the rule no longer apply? What difference is there?
~Max