Wikipedia:Claims require specific evidence

Claims require specific evidence. Stronger claims, such as about disruption, require even more evidence to show a pattern of disruptive actions, rather than just casting several opinions of imagined turmoil. Otherwise, any person can claim a disagreement as a "disruption" of their thinking, or perhaps violating WP:NPA (no personal attacks) simply by disagreement against their viewpoints (as attacking their issues, rather than a personal attack).

A common form of skirting the evidence is to merely list a short set of claimed actions, but not provide diff-links which clearly demonstrate each claim. For that reason, one of the poorest attempts at unsubstantiated claims is to merely suggest a situation violates a list of Wikipedia acronyms, but give no evidence, as merely "WP:THIS or WP:THAT or WP:THEOTHER". Such a list of WP acronyms is often a warning sign to beware that there is no significant basis to the claims, although some evidence might be listed later, as if a few details could justify all the acronyms in the list.

Incorrect reasoning
Unsubstantiated claims, which lack specific evidence, involve some common fallacies, which can mislead other editors into false conclusions. Some common fallacies of baseless claims include:
 * Begging the question - asserting a claim as if true but without proof
 * Argumentum ad nauseam - repeating remarks, typically with "walls of text" which lack evidence
 * Argumentum ad verecundiam - argument from authority, as if evidence is not needed
 * Straw man fallacy - using a related case, as implying the same conclusion
 * Slippery slope fallacy - implying that 1 or 2 edits will lead to dozens

It does not take long to notice a pattern, of long-winded diatribes which do not pinpoint specific evidence, so that there is less talk-page space for other editors to write real concerns or link to specific facts. In some cases, the smokescreen of excessive text is noticed by other editors as clearly a rambling case of wp:TL;DR ("too long; didn't read"), versus somewhat long text which actually shows specific examples with diff-links.

When just one or two edits are diff-linked, as supposed evidence of the stated claims, then that can be a gross exaggeration of a pattern, while three or more cases would begin to show a pattern. For example, in a claim of wp:FORUMSHOPPING, if only 2 other venues can be cited (as being "all the other forums"), then that claim of forum-shopping would be suspect (discussions in three forums is not many, among dozens). Another example would be a claim of wp:VOTESTACKING where only two more editors were contacted, on one side of a debate, as compared to the count of other editors contacted. Otherwise, a one-vote difference could be combined with an accidental notice, as a two-vote excess, and so three extra would be more evidence of a real pattern, as contacting a "disproportionate numbers of users" who favor one side of a debate (see: wp:CANVAS). Note that the count of three cases (or more) is for claims of a pattern, whereas a single violation could be backed by just one diff-link, as in the case of a personal attack which demonstrated a disparaging attitude toward other users (if strong words are stated).