In one sense your standards haven’t changed, and that’s where you require more in terms of evidence of those you disagree with than you’re willing to supply yourself, or to require of those you listen to. That’s a form of confirmation bias, and we all do it to some extent.
But confirmation bias is a form of constantly changing standards—what you do not allowed to your opponents, you cling to yourself, so your standards change about every post or two, requiring in one post “irrefutable evidence”, while not expecting it of yourself in the next (or same) post. Thus you propagate falsehoods in the name of fact-checking. As do many of your sources. And you still don’t require irrefutable evidence of them.
I might add that refuted evidence is much worse to offer, which you’ve done, while refutable evidence is perfectly ok to start with. That’s why we have a court system that hears both sides, usually, though “lack of standing” is a way of saying, “I don’t need to hear both sides.”