I agree that the term Qanon was often used by Anons without objection for the first few years. I've read Q since the beginning and often saw the term Qanon used on the 4chan and then 8chan boards, without anyone objecting to it.

Everyone posting there knew that Q was Q and the Anons were the Anons, but people often called Q Qanon or Q Anon or similar variations, as though Q was the top Anon - named in a way, but ultimately also anonymous. I didn't start seeing Anons objecting to the term Qanon until October 2020. That was when Q posted:

There is 'Q'. 1 There are 'Anons'. 2 There is no 'Qanon'. 3 Media labeling as 'Qanon' is a method [deliberate] to combine [attach] 'Q' to comments _theories _suggestions _statements [and ACTIONS] made by 2. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU CANNOT ATTACK THE INFORMATION [primary source 1]? DO YOU ATTACK [& TYPECAST] THROUGH USE OF OTHERS? Not all 'Anons' are authentic [injected].

This makes sense and I see why it's good policy to make sure Q and the Anons are referred to separately. But someone who noticed this often wasn't the case on 8chan before October 2020 isn't necessarily a shill.

I agree that the term Qanon was often used by anons without objection for the first few years.