I think there is much disquiet about this as MNHQ have failed to be seen to categorically condemn what has been perceieved as targeted, repeated, vicious attacks on a poster, by muddying the waters by introducing a nebulous debate about expertise and roles into thier response.
The unfortunate implication of MNHQ's response is that the Rev has somwhow behaved improperely, and given people a reason to question her in such an abusive manner.
I believe the onus should have been on MNHQ to put time and space between these malaicious attacks, and any discussion, or direction, on expert roles on MN, and how, or whether, Revs name or role is a concern in this respect (a contentious debate in itself).
They should have ensured that no link could be made between the vindicative questioning of Rev and the suggestion that her role and status is questionable.
To further suggest that the onus is on rev to keep quiet about the suggested name change, and it's implications about her in conjunction with the recent attacks, is further unfair criticism of the Rev.
MNHQ should not have made this link at this time. To the Rev, not just general MN.
The keeping it quiet from MN at large is irrelevant. the Revs pereception of MN's response and the implications to her are paramount.
But of course as we all do now know, MN perception is also relevant.
Shabby I would call it.