, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes and no. Yes because, well, it's a technical decision made by the developers; they change the config files at the direction of their bosses, the userrights change. In theory, it is a decision we could make without consulting the community. In practise - look, I've been an editor for 6+ years now, most of those as just an editor (I've been contracted here for, I think, 9 months and change). I know how silly a decision that'd be, both for practical reasons (people would get totally up in arms about it, and for good reason) and ethical ones (we owe a duty to involve editors in decisionmaking wherever we can, because we're a bottom-up organisation, not a top-down one). So generally speaking, I think editors should be able to disagree and I think editors should at least be asked their opinion before a change is made. That's what I believe, and that's why I held that RfC.
That's also why arguing with me is likely to be futile ). Not because this is a WMF decision, not because this is my staff account, but because we asked people what they want and they said "give this to rollbackers too". I believe this was a perfectly valid expression of the community's opinion on the subject, and that it's much more applicable than the 2008 RfC, which was held when the community was in a much different state, addressing an (in some respects) radically different question, and not explicitly prohibiting these actions. So I'm not going to be persuaded by appeals to that, and it's not me you should be looking to persuade - if you want the situation to change, as said, hold your own. If you don't want to do that, I'm stuck in a situation, hired as a person to ensure the community was listened to, where the only way out is to ignore the opinions of those editors who spoke up when presented with the opportunity. And I'm not going to do that.   13:59