Link to the community poll on this issue - last section of this page:
It's pretty rude to assume bad faith on the part of one of the five bureaucrats on that wiki, implying that they're mis-representing the community in passing on this request. Please consider using slightly less snappy responses. :-)
I'd suggest you to not jump to conclusions, mister; because in my opinion the rudeness is comming from you here. It's you which is assuming bad faith on my part for asking a valid question as to whether the requested change has community consensus. A question that is being asked on a regular basis for this kind of requests, for what is worth. And I've patched a few of them.
As the right honorable member must know; the criteria for requesting wiki configuration changes is documented at m:SITECONFIG. One of such criteria is to provide a link to the community consensus, being also a Phabricator custom as well. I don't care who is requesting this change if I cannot find the most basic information and being a bureaucrat or WMF staff does not give you carte blanche to be exempt of following the rules. Moreover, the higher the roles an user have, the higher the diligence the user must exercise. This task lacked information and my question was pertinent.
And I said that because in this case, it might have helped a lot if instead of using an appalling non-descriptive task summary as you did; you'd have invested a couple of minutes of your time to describe the issue and provide proper information to all of us who work in this place; as the message boxes when creating a task requires. Currently the task reads to me something like "because XYZ" said so.
Had you done that, nobody would probably had asked anything here. Instead you prefer treating volunteers with contempt as you've done, not only for not having the courtesy on writting a proper task, but also to dismiss people for asking a valid and recurrent question in the site-request queue; assuming that we do so in bad faith.
I think you owe us an apology here.