What happens when you legalise "fuck off"? Unsurprisingly, wikishitz start getting creative.

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

What happens when you legalise "fuck off"? Unsurprisingly, wikishitz start getting creative.

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:40 pm

No surprise that it's a piece of shit like Drmies who tries to pull the wool over people's eyes over an unsurprising development in the fuck off stakes.

When the Wikipedia decided that no, civility is not a pillar, and MERELY telling other users, repeatedly, to fuck off, shouldn't be sanctionable, meriting no warnings, and especially no blocks, as disgusting as that was as a window into their sick idea of what makes a community, there was a rather obvious good reason not to do this, from a practical perspective.

As we know from society in general, if you normalise a formerly offensive word, then if someone wants to be offensive, they reach higher up the shelf. Wikipediots are iditos, but they're not so stupid as to know they can't reach for more obviously worse terms of abuse.

But they are nothing if not creative. And so Bearcat, in his efforts to find something more insulting than a mere fuck off, has been very creative....
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1039994156
fuck all the way off
Wow.

All the way? The mind boggles. But rather obviously, the offensive intent of "fuck all the way off" here was meant to be higher than a mere "fuck off". He put thought into it.

The truth of rank incivility in Wikipedia being that no, it isn't usually just a case of losing it in the moment and instantly regretting it, they put thought into it, and Bearcat will probably stand by it long after the moment. Don't take my word for it, take the fact he didn't even apologise. They usually want to hurt people's feelings, with malice of forethought, because that's the only power they have, as Wikipediots.

Actually, realising what he actually said, is even more hilarious....
Since when has Wikipedia ever had a "nobody is allowed to ever use a swear word" rule? There certainly hasn't ever been one in the 15+ years I've been here. .... Bearcat (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Uh huh. So if it never existed, why was there a need to make it a formal community polled decision that "fuck off" was no longer blockable? And specifically, not the mere act of using a swear, but using it the way Bearcat did, with the intent to offend a specific person. They definitely had a rule agaisnt that, and for a fucking long time.

Lying sack of shit. They have a rule Wikipedia against lying your ass off too. Never enforced. Not on vested contributors like Bearcat anyway. Welcome to Wikipedia. You will fucking love being a part of it. If you're stupid and have zero self esteem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... er:Bearcat

This was reported by a concerned citizen, and so Drmies decided to do what he does quite a lot, and lie his ass off to protect a toxic user. The more direct rudeness that abounds, the less he stands out as a really disgustingly offensive person himself. He closed the report thusly......
Bearcat, please don't be uncivil. "Fuck off" is not blockable, but it's not very friendly. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
And since it is true on its face, many might have done what I almost did, and simply moved on, rather than click the link to see what was actually said, and realise Drmies has deliberately misquoted the offensive phrase used (such a credit to the University of Buttcreek, isn't he?).

The hilarious part? It wasn't even remotely justifiable. I mean, if Bearcat loses his cool over edits like the one he did here, he's probably on a fast track to an early grave.

As usual, the rudeness was at least a convenient way for everyone to overlook the fact the instigator of his ire had a point. There isn't a source in that biography that states that person was born in Vancouver. Bearcat claims it's easy to find, but of course, he didn't bother to find it and add it to the article. He just insulted the person, and undid their edit.

They have a rule against edit warring to reinstate BLP violations too. Bearcat has immunity, because the people tasked with enforcing all the rules, are people like Drmies. Scum.

Only one thing matters on Wikipedia. Keeping pieces of shit like Bearcat happy.

And so we might be getting to the point in this post where people perhaps understand why people like Bearcat seem to attract people like the person here, who seems to have made it their task of the day to fuck with him.

Good.

Getting fucked with is the minimum price these people need to pay for their arrogance, their open flaunting of the rules that all the stupid little people have to follow on Wikipedia, and even then when they do, it's not guaranteed that a piece of shit like Drmies won't just manufacture a reason to ban them in a way he wouldn't dare with a Bearcat.

If Bearcat has a temper, if he chose his name well, and it appears he does, if he has a hair trigger, if he goes home that day irritated by that person and just explodes, if he punches his wife and kicks his kid AND the dog, and if he gets arrested and charged and that ruins the rest of his life.......

GOOD.

Karma, bitches. :twisted:

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: What happens when you legalise "fuck off"? Unsurprisingly, wikishitz start getting creative.

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:39 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =978314805
just fuck all the way off and stay there forever
That was in September 2020! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Obviously they didn't fuck off, and obviously Bearcat now lives quite a miserable existence, being tortured by people he has been a right twat to on Wikipedia, merely because he could, and people like Drmies have indulged him in that belief.

Good.

Could have easily been avoided too, is the fucking hilarious truth. If he just did what policy requires, and provided a source whenever he was including a birthplace in some random little known person's biography, then nobody would have any opportunity to fuck with him.

He seems quite dumb, actually. I mean, if you actually knew someone was stalking you, and is looking for a very particular kind of poor edit that they can justifiably remove on solid policy grounds, not because they care about Wikipedia, but only because they want to mentally torture you, wind you up something rotten, wouldn't the sensible thing to do there be to just stop making that kind of poor edit?

Relying on corrupt actors like Drmies is all well and good, but he's not exactly reliable, and has previously shown he is at least smart enough to drop someone should the act of protecting their sorry ass start to become a liability for him personally.

Perhaps it is a defining fault of Wikipedia editors, since Bearcat isn't the first one who seems too dumb to realise they have the power to prevent their own torture.

Stupid bastards.

Perhaps he maybe even wants to be tortured? I suppose it would properly mess you up, realizing you've wasted years of your life on a lie. That Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia, you're not an "editor", and barnstars have no real value, unless you literally have absolutely nothing else in your life.

Poor bastards.

No reason not to keep fucking with them though.

Post Reply