Let's take a look at Ms. Warfare's latest project, Wikipedia's article on "Incels":
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 7#Ideology
Some incels support the works of fringe social psychologist Brian Gilmartin, author of the book Shyness and Love which gained popularity among incel communities, and clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson.
Yet Gilmartin's book itself is not even cited, even though it is said to part of the "incels'" foundational canon. Gilmartin is a professor of psychology at Montana State University (Not that this is some giant deal, although any job in academia is hard to come by.) The "fringe" label is cited to Peter Baker of Elle magazine, not a scholarly source at all.
https://www.elle.com/life-love/sex-rela ... -celibacy/
Elle provides no background on Mr. Baker which would support the conclusion that he is qualified to render such an assessment.
From the talk page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... #Gilmartin
Dave Dial wrote:
Gilmartin should not be referenced.
There you have it. I'm convinced.
You also occasionally use bizarre sources, such as translations/reprints of articles that are already being cited in the page (discussed elsewhere on this talk page) or opinion/blog pieces.
GorillaWarfare whose own promotional bios freely use blog posts as well as social media profiles, linked in, youtube etc. As for opinion pieces, the references section is loaded with them.
Further down in the page, the editor who'd referenced Gilmartin is threatened wth a topic ban for what strikes me as a perfectly reasonable argument:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 8#islamism
Dave Dial wrote:
The following editors: Dave Dial, Jorm, GorillaWarfare have recently suggested that this article should primarily focus on misogyny and violence and exclude other topics; with the rationale that this is where media coverage primarily focuses. By analogy, Islamism in the media primarily focuses on terrorism by groups such as ISIS/AL-Qaeda. Yet the islamism article has 14 subsections that do not mention militancy. Doesn't that show that there is a precedence on Wikipedia of broadening the focus?
What I think is that at the very least, a topic ban is coming for you.