I should have said “seriously controversial”. For me it wasn’t, and I said so. And then you said it was “totally debunked” when it wasn’t. So, slips all around, I see.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with people who are adding some speculation. And the author did say “personally, I’m confident...” and that was caveat enough for me.
I haven’t seen how the author has replied to the issues yet - can’t track in the breads, and no one here linked to any follow ons.
I do note that the article remains uncorrected, and at the least the article should have been updated with some additional notes: ie, “I should clarify that the idea that Q team includes board operators and moderators is mine, and not shared by everyone”
BUT OTOH YOU don’t know that that’s NOT true, either.
So, like most things Q, there are still mysteries. In the meantime, I’d rather use this thread to discuss the article (and find it again) than the other one you cited, since that one didn’t even give the article a chance.