TL;DR: In the last year, the Wikimedia Foundation has fired several union organizers, including those that worked on the Community Tech team - a team dedicated to building features for the volunteer community that edits Wikipedia. As the Wiki Workers Union tries to get the Wikimedia Foundation to recognize their union, it is worth remembering that this is not the first time that the Foundation has worked against the community. Wikimedia Enterprise is a betrayal of the volunteer movement community of Wikipedia editors, as the Wikimedia Foundation is providing privileged access to big tech AI companies to the Wikipedia corpus - a body of work that the Foundation does not own. Movement volunteer communities contributed to Wikipedia under copyleft licenses - licenses that work to ensure that the work remains free (as in speech). The big tech AI companies do not license derivative works under copyleft licenses and often do not even attribute where the works came from. This means that volunteers are working for big tech for free, and the Wikimedia Foundation is selling privileged access to that free labor. It is against that backdrop that the current unionization struggle unfolds.
individuals that have been unmasked in torrent swarms
WMF isn't Nintendo or Hatchette; you need way more than $296M to pursue all that, not to mention $200M of that is the standard practice of keeping a 12 months' rain fund in case something massive happens to current revenue.
But that isn't what you linked to says; the word standing doesn't appear in the text
"Standing" means you have been harmed by an illegal act. You need standing to cease and desist or sue. To have legal standing for a letter, what you're asking to cease and desist needs to be illegal. What I linked to is that WMF counsel believes LLMs likely do not violate the content licenses of their training data. Thus, there is no legal injury and no standing.
Wikimedia knows that the scrapers are violating the licenses with every derivative work created not licensed reciprocally
see what I quoted. If we go by ethics (which I do prefer) instead of the law, we know that these violations exploiting the commons are going to happen regardless of whether Enterprise exists—in fact, they have been happening despite Enterprise (although at a reduced rate) to the point where rate limits have been enacted for the first time in history—so they might as well make the exploiters pay for it to help maintain the commons' infrastructure.