Gosh, I need to cut-and-paste this text; I'm tired of retyping it all the time. XD

AUP 2.7 is written in a way that it is considered a "catch-all" clause/rule.
It states that "minors cannot be fetishized"; because a "fetish" can be anything and everything, it means nothing... and everything, at the same time. It's made to be very broad AND vague at the same time, so anything that the site deems a fetish cannot be attributed to a child-like character. And in essence, "fetishization" isn't necessarily "sexualization"; they are two entirely different concepts.

For instance, a child might "fetishize" their security blanket and/or a plush; carrying them everywhere, not being able to sleep without one or the other or both, crying when separated from them, etc. This is a form of "fetishization".
Another is to hold something/someone in really, really high regard or value, far above anything else. As an example, someone banning everything on a site because "THINK OF THE CHILDREN"; this is fetishizing children by valuing children to an (arguably) inordinate amount of value compared to everything else (children being essentially made more important than freedom of expression, in this example).
Finally, there's the one that most people think of here, and that's "sexual fetishization"; not being able to sexually enjoy a moment without a piece/theme/thing being present.

This therefore puts the onus on the viewer, not the artist, to not "fetishize" minors, as per the rule. Anyone can find anything to be a fetish, ergo if a mod "feels" that something is fetishizing, then it is. Period. End of sentence. There is no arguing this, because anything and everything can be a fetish. Simple as that.

What we're seeing in this second, bigger wave of bans is that they are using the word "fetishizing" as intended; in this case, age regression "fetishizes" childhood, and thus is verboten under the rule.
However, as I stated, ANYTHING can be fetishized; the diaper itself can be a fetish object, but so can pacifiers, cribs, baths, dresses, being fed... you get my drift.

So the issue here is that due to the overly broad and all-encompassing language, anything goes and can be up to the whim of the mod on that day if something is "fetishizing" or not. And they don't need more than what's already being told to people, because of the way the rule is written.
Because 2.7 is so broad in spectrum, everything is included in the AUP that way. So when you say "it's not in the AUP", you're wrong; it technically is. It's not listed outright (no rule would ever make an exhaustive list because then, it becomes impossible to enforce as you need to list everything that exist, which makes the rule impractical at best, unenforceable at worst), but it also doesn't need to be.

As I said in a now-deleted journal, this could be easily remedied, for the most part, by simply changing "fetishizing" to "sexualizing" - which is what the spirit of the rule should be. But it's being abused because horribly poor choice of words, and someone on staff is going ham on ABDL/babyfurs exactly because the rule is made to be abused.

This was a directed attack against our sub-community that's MONTHS in the making.
We've seen a limited strike against a few artists a few months ago, and the staff got away with it. This time, they used a tactical nuke against our community.
Next time, it'll be a strategic strike against everyone. I am convinced of this.

EDIT:
I'm not a lawyer, I just write words good, been doing this whole CoC writing for decades for multiple entities/events/groups/communities, etc.

Weasyl doesn't have this issue because the site has been effectively abandonned by the staff/devs.
So while it means no such issues, it also means that other actually-objectionable content will be there... I, myself, still have two open tickets, over 2 years old at this point, about pro-nazi content. This should tell you all you need to know, IMO.

As for Inkbunny, the fact that the main appeal of this site, or at least its original reason to be, revolves around cub p**n. And that sort of content is actually illegal in Canada under CP laws, unlike the USA (it's not considered CP, however it often is legislated within the Obscenity laws, which is an entirely different ball game). And this means that it can have rather... unsavoury repercussions to Canadian citizens, unlike US citizens.
And while I'm not a lawyer, so this isn't legal advice... while becoming a site's user in and of itself isn't indicative of consumption of that content, due to the nature of the reputation of the site... it could very easily be argued that someone goes to this site for that content, in the circumstances of an investigation or worse. So as Canadians, we're better off NOT joining that site if only for that.

Realistically, there's no "real" alternative to FA as of writing this reply. Everything is either too small, or problematic one way or another. :\

Wishing you the best of success! <3

I joined super early as well.
But I have a tendency, just like on FA, to refresh the main page.

So sometimes, I see things that are... problematic. And I report them. :X

Remember that this is the SECOND "wave"; the first one was far, far smaller in scope and just as unjustified the way it was explained (if at all, in certain cases).
Yip got a "final warning" for no reason and never got an explanation - it was deduced that dirty padding was the culprit, and thus removed all instances of those items from their gallery.
Fang got outright banned for a size-diff padded "suggestive" pic, where both characters had adult proportions (for his style anyway) but one was way smaller than the other.

Not to mention that when AUP 2.7 was originally updated about 18 months ago, a number of artists (and myself, though I'm not an artist) have raised their voices in questioning the future use of the rule.
Myself, I pointed out how badly written it was, how ripe for abuse it was, and I even tried contacting FA staff about it. I was hoping that we could come to a better final product than how it is written, since it's just so broad in scope and badly written. Obviously, also to no avail.
I now regret having purged that journal from my account a few months into the new year...

This second wave is just a targetted strike against our community, rogue admin or not. It feels purposefully designed to drive people away by taking out some of our most popular artists, so that the proverbial "trash takes itself out" from this site. So they don't have to work hard to remove the rest of us.

But what do I know...
I'm just a stupid dog.
Bark bark bark.

It's only "not present" in 2.7 if you expect an exhaustive list of "do's and don'ts", which you generally will not find in any rule of this type. Because otherwise, all you need is a "smart" person to do something that's not quite explicitly on the list, but still would otherwise fall into the same type of actions, to bypass the rule until it is updated with said thing.
And repeat that ad nauseum until every single thing that could potentially be part of the rule is written - which is unreasonable from both a user and admin perspective.

That's why most good rules will be written with verbiage that is narrow enough to properly explain the nature of the rule (so called "spirit of the law") while not being unrealistic in how it is written (so called "word of the law").

In this specific instance, "fetishizing" is used instead of "sexualizing" because they are NOT the same concept whatsoever, the latter requiring a very specific response that is generally agreed-upon with "reasonable persons" (an actual legal term). Ergo, it's giving sexual feelings to a reasonably sized group of people, and not "fringes".

Compare that to "fetishization", which has a far, far broader definition, not singled out with the sexual definition that most people expect here; it also includes the concept of having a very strong attraction to a person/object (like how some religious people will "fetishize" Jesus/God, or how a child will throw a tantrum if they are sent to bed without their special plushie, as examples), but also includes holding things/people/concepts as having a prioritized value over other things (people going "SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN" as an example) as well. It does not necessarily require a sexual component to be fetishized.

Now, consider what most ABs and DLs, separately, consider the "important" thing:
For DLs, the diaper itself might be the "fetish item"; without it, they aren't really a DL. They are just wearing underwear. So, the diaper is the "focus of the fetish".
For ABs, the simple concept of "childhood" might be the fetishized item; without that being part of the image, they are just adults in absorbent underwear. It doesn't mean it's sexual, just that this is what they crave, want, desire. Ergo, they "fetishize" it.

And this is how AUP 2.7, when it was updated 18 months ago, was so problematic: the requirement is NOT a sexual attribute, but a fetishized attribute. And due to the extremely broad nature of that word, everything that the admins that have attacked ABDL/babyfurs on this site in the past few months, especially the past few days, are well within the scope of 2.7.
And this is because the width of what falls under the purview of 2.7 is so damned broad and generic.

And this is why, 18 months ago, I tried REALLY HARD to have that verbiage changed to "sexualize" instead, which is what most people here would consider what 2.7 actually means. But the staff weaponized that vague vocabulary to use it the way we are right now.

I had said, back then, that this is what we could expect. I was told I was wrong, paranoid and overreacting.
I guess I didn't overreact enough.

DISCLAIMER:
I'm not a lawyer, but I do have nearly two decades of community management, CoC writing for sites/events/groups, and nearly 10 years of staffing/running conventions.

It's called "prepping the field" or "laying a minefield", and basically how banwaves work; you make a rule change that seems innocuous at first. People raise a stink about it (we did), and you wait until it not only dies down, but is somewhat forgotten and people are back in their "old habits".
This means that while the behaviour of the people hasn't changed, they are technically now breaking the rule.

You wait until a fair amount of time passed; this means that there's a lot of "evidence" on site of people breaking the updated rule. And you keep track of those people and infractions, because you don't want the information to spread so other people sanitize their accounts or stop doing whatever the rule says they shouldn't be doing.
You want to ban/suspend all of the people you don't like at once.

And then, you strike a bunch of accounts at the same time in a coordinated fashion.
The affected users can't tell what exactly caused the issue. They can't bypass the problem, too much could be the issue.
And so, either those users leave en masse, or they try something else which may or may not get them banned. And the admins wait again for a little while, and then ban those that still break the rule in spite of the minor change.

And that way, over a short-ish period of time, you get rid of a group.

Thor from Pirate Software also explains how it happened in WoW here:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cADaFm__ApQ
Different platform and target, but same damned goal in the end.

It's not a conspiracy; it's literally a community management technique.
It can be used for good or for bad, just like everything else; you can use it to catch and ban trolls, or other individuals that abuse a site/system, or you can use it against groups of users (like what we're seeing now).

And if the simple fact of "losing users" was bad, then banwaves wouldn't happen since you wouldn't want to lose trolls and toxic elements. Which is why sometimes, you need to lose users to benefit your community as a whole.
Otherwise, if all you care about are numbers, then the community WILL die off from a problematic part of the community that makes everyone leaves.

The issue at play here is that it's potentially a rogue admin with beef with babyfurs (for whatever reason, it's all speculative at this time) doing actions against that segment of the community's population. Or it could be a concerted action against our group.
What would be conspirational would be to assume the reasons behind the usage of this strategy. Which I absolutely am not; I'm merely stating facts and related possible strategies that would fit the bill of what we're seeing and experiencing.

As for the owner coming back, unless you can Lazarus the corpse of Dragoneer... not gonna happen.
And we don't know if Sciggles is okay or not with this turn of event - as you stated, she's in the hospital right now.

As for rule revision...
I'm not holding my breath; if they refused to do it 18 months ago when Neer was alive and Sciggles wasn't sick, why would they want to do that now?