Theory C: Zezen and a number of these victimized Wikipedians have been researching such high-level insider project capture for months or years, in cooperation with outside experts and academics, so the WMF got wind and retaliates quick to silence them, because they are afraid to retain their jobs and position as a systemic bully and malign agent

Theory C: Zezen and a number of these victimized Wikipedians have been researching such high-level insider project capture for months or years, in cooperation with outside experts and academics, so the WMF got wind [of it] and retaliates quick to silence them, because they are afraid to retain their jobs and position as a systemic bully and malign agent

Hint1, Hint2, for now. See the likely list of targets from the post before and this sample technique that they have been using thereby.

Update A

The WMF is still keeping mum in public on my Meta, so let me elaborate, but only a tad, for a couple of reasons. Yes, a big chunk of our research analyzed and predicted what the newest WikiMedia "Public Policy Dep" later wrote in their recent Medium posts: What You’ve Heard Is True. The EARN IT Act is catastrophic for free speech and for privacy — and for Wikipedia

and in their previous article:

[...] the Proposed Approach to Address Harmful Content Online in Canada, the Draft Online Safety Bill (OSB) in the United Kingdom (UK), and the Basic Online Safety Expectations (BOSE) that are part of the Australian Online Safety Act of 2021 are particularly concerning. These laws share the same objective: to ensure people’s safety on the Internet by holding large online platforms accountable for illegal, as well as legal but harmful content that spreads on their sites... 

(Of note is that they published both of their articles after this post here and after my earlier related materials: do check the timestamps.)

But it has been and will be even worse than what the WMF is revealing there, or maybe they really are not aware yet. In fact, it has already been worse for a while already: since from around 2016 and especially since 2018, as industrial-level AI, tracking and targeting, all this enhanced by preselected key human agents and automated actors, have been aiming to...  well, partly and more or less: to earn money by instilling WP:THE_TRUTH mandated by the paying institutional actors (aka "lobbying activities"), let me keep it at that "safe" level here. 

For now let me rehash and summarize the old but still valid paper 2007 Communication, Power and Counter-power in the Network Society, MANUEL CASTELLS and use an equally quick and ready quote and graph from the Balkan SHARE colleagues: 

[...] Given the increasing relevance of content moderation in public discourse, it is important to adopt a labour-oriented perspective to understand how algorithmic moderation functions. Contrary to popular fallacy that contraposes machine moderation to human moderation, indeed, current moderation presents a mixture of humans and machines. In other words, humans are pretty much “in-the-loop”.

The aggregated supply chain of all the human involvement is visually presented thus:

Source: FORGOTTEN HUMANS-IN-THE-LOOP. LABOUR-ORIENTED CRITIQUE OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION OF ALGORITHMIC CONTENT MODERATION, 

which quickly results in e.g. EA’s guidelines for hate-speech seem to ignore the existence of other languages, as Japanese players keep getting bans for using the word ‘nigero,’ which means ‘run’ or the ol' Scunthorpe/Horniman problem.

Source: www.oftwominds.com

It is the Board members and the (AI) Engineers who are the most costly chips in this "PC Content" loop. That is why apart from selling the WP content to the highest bidder, the WMF is also cutting costs by trying to target the pre-categorized groups of the presumed "innate wikibaddies" groups, mostly based on age-old admin rulings, past usage of the "non-PC" keywords, assigning a version of the ORES Machine Learning (aka "social") score, myself and you included, which is then shared with and fed to "consensus manufacturing" (aka cybernetic) digital platforms (FB, Google, etc.) for automated handling of content (aka "Abstract Wikipedia") and the users (you and me), thus mitigating the “viral” spread of any "dangerous" non-PC statements.

Do also take a peek at ProPublica and WO for some concrete $$$ numbers or this WMF vs lobbyists' SLA's article, or this old graph for now:

Have I given you enough of such hints for now?

Do pipe in below if you wish me to further explain such sapienti sat stuff, outside of my paper, or to recreate the old (some forcefully "disappeared") draft topical essays.

Ver. 1.1.7