[mmooss]

To partly correct myself, among the many reports OP cites and reviews, it directly refers and links to the following:

> In a report titled Characterizing Knowledge Manipulation in a Russian Wikipedia Fork, ...

The OP describes and quotes the report for 5 paragraphs. I don't understand the GP's claim that,

> I think the article tried to refer to this link https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.10663 As I understand from scanning the paper ...

That link is to a paper by the same name. I don't understand why the GP says 'tried' - the authors provide a link to the paper and describe it in detail - or why the GP would think critique based on "scanning the paper" is valid when, again, the OP authors clearly read and review it for readers in far more detail.

Also, the GP leave the impression, maybe unintentionally, that the OP is based only on that report; the OP reviews many reports in detail.