I don't get it - I've read through the discussions regarding this whole move, and it was handled in what I would see as the most sensible manner: 1. Article re

I don't get it - I've read through the discussions regarding this whole move, and it was handled in what I would see as the most sensible manner: 1. Article renamed to "Chelsea Manning" within minutes of first announcement. 2. Article moved back and forth over a couple of hours as various contributors disagree. 3. Request for discussion submitted by a user to move back to initial title, on the basis that controversial or unexpected page moves should be discussed or consensus reached before happening. 4. A week or so of discussion results in the conclusion that the page should be left with the initial title for at least 30 days, when a new proposal should be submitted for discussion. 5. New proposal raised as suggested. 6. Subsequent discussion takes place and decision is made to rename article. 7. Article is renamed. What I see in this blog post is a bunch of petty ad-hominem attacks by somebody who's pissed they didn't get their own way. I don't think that amounts to the obviously incorrect and purposefully misleading title "Wikipedia goes all-in on transphobia." Wikipedia is a massive, sprawling bureaucracy - it's true. There are petty rivalries and fiefdoms, and this blog demonstrates that clearly (although perhaps not from the perspective the writer intended.) But I don't, on the whole, see a massive problem in evidence. It's pretty much just excessive melodrama of the sort which one sees whenever a large group of people try to govern themselves, and it'll either sort itself out or Wikipedia will fall and something else—probably something that makes a better attempt at solving the bureaucracy problem—will take its place.