My opinion is that edits exclusively changing neutral pronouns to other neutral pronouns (including from "neopronouns" to themself) should be rolled back, as they're fairly clearly inconsequential edits. Had I noticed the edit before I noticed this meta post, I would probably have rolled it back for that reason.
Some answers to anticipated objections in this particular case:
Changing to themself improves clarity.
I guess the driver for this opinion is that xyrself is not an especially common word, but I don't agree that that alone justifies an edit, any more than would be an edit of "werewithal" to "means" or "apportionment" to "distribution" or any other change from a single less common word to a more common synonym.
Xyrself is political.
How? It's just a neutral pronoun. If the poster had attempted somehow to make their answer entirely about the pronoun or about gender politics generally, then yeah sure. But that's not what happened. If anything, it is the act of changing the pronoun that comes across as potentially political in my opinion, particularly given the fact that the context in which it was used was otherwise devoid of any gender politics. Certainly a change from themself to xyrself would be construed in that way, given they are synonyms. I don't see how the reverse change is any different.
Xyrself is less readable
Xy words exist in English, what's the problem?
The use of neopronouns attracts the wrong type of attention
This is an opinion evident in Yannis' statement that:
the use of the neo-pronoun in the answer is unnecessary and would probably prove to be a distraction
and additionally is part of the editor's justification for the change. To me this is a point of real disagreement. They're entirely right that it's distracting people, not least the flagger who described the use of the word as "deliberately provocative", but I don't see why we should pander to people who think something so innocuous is provocative. We would never countenance editing out a reference to a spouse as "husband" or "wife" because it was triggering people who take issue with the existence of same-sex marriages for example, I don't see how this case is any different.
I recognise that that might give the mods a hard time if they were absolutely inundated and having to spend inordinate amounts of time clearing up such posts. If that were the case, I'd probably acquiesce on the grounds of necessity.
The neopronoun was not referring to a specific person who had stated that was their correct pronoun
I mean...what's the problem then? If it was referring to a specific person who had specifically pointed out that that was not their preferred pronoun then that absolutely should be edited...but in the absence of any knowledge and particularly in the case of a reference to a hypothetical person (as in this case) it's effectively impossible for anyone to take offense at the usage.