Further to above....
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility#Request_for_comment_on_the_specific_term_"fuck_off"_–_sanctionable_or_not![/url]
It was a simple question......
Should the repetitive usage of the term "fuck off" by an editor targeted at other editors be considered "sanctionable"?
....and the responses of the Wikipedians was entirely predictable.
Many believe context matters. They think you're the kind of person who thinks a Wikipedia Administrator would enforce this sanction literally and robotically. If you don't know btw, a Wikipedia Administrator is someone selected by the community for their good judgement and cautious disposition.
An ever present sub-text to the context matters argument is of course the idea that it is acceptable to repeatedly tell other editors to fuck off if you think it is justified, such as if you felt provoked, or you have anger issues, or you were protecting freedom and democracy. The relevant context being if you can convince enough people you were jusitified, you would escape sanction. Of course, they ignore the context that the policy already says rudeness on Wikipedia is never justifiable, that you can only ever ask for mitigation of the sanction not a nullification of the charge.
Some of course invoked the terrible spectre of this being the first example of Wikipedia banning usage of a word. They're not into banning stuff. Except the Daily Mail. Fuck off Daily Mail and all those who read it, as I'm sure some editor of limited imagination has said at one time or another on Wikipedia.
Some stated their view that this proposal had no business being made because this is the internet. If you are offended by repeatedly being told to fuck off, or think those who do so are rude, then you are not strong enough to survive on the internet. These people apparently didn't get the memo that Wikipedia is not the internet (even though the proposal is being made on the talk page of that very memo).
Some claimed this was a ridiculous proposal because the behaviour was already sanctionable, this was just unnecessary creep. It was presumably to fool those people that Softlavender demanded the evidence that this was currently not considered sanctionable, be removed from the proposal.
Some argued this proposal was not needed because it is possible to be rude without telling people to fuck off. These people didn't seem to realise the proposal is an addition to the policy which (theoretically) already empowers Administrators to sanction editors for being rude without telling them to fuck off. The proposal merely saught to close an apparent loophole where somehow, Wikipedia and the rest of the world have diverged as to whether or not repeatedly telling someone else to fuck off is rude or not.
Some simply said fuck off.
Finally, there was this.....
No I have on more than one occasion used "Fuck off" and similar expressions quite deliberately, to draw the attention of the community (Admins really) to the repeated poor behaviour of other editors, ultimately leading to those other editors being sanctioned. There is a strategy used by some POV pushers here of seemingly remaining within the rules of civility (and other rules) while all the time subtly adding bigoted and biased content to articles. I have found that using "Fuck off" gets more reasonable editors to finally notice this stuff. Now, in a perfect Wikiworld, this tactic would not be necessary, but we haven't got close to that level of perfection here yet. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
All in all, just another reminder that Wikipedia has absolutely no intention of growing up and becoming a mature and responsible project.
Wikipedia is, in reality, a place where someone can say this......
Considering a large proportion of admins and even Arbs or former Arbs routinely use this phrase on their talkpages when dealing with trolls or disruptive editors, we're going to have a lot of blocked admins under this proposed shutdown of free speech.
.....and they are neither asked for evidence to back it up (extraordinary claims and all that), nor are they reminded that on Wikipedia, you have no Free Speech. This was of course the same person who demanded the examples of this behaviour not being sanctioned be removed from the proposal, presumably because the person in question isn't and never could be an Administrator (because of this sort of behavioural problem), and they are someone who routinely tells people to shut up if they don't like their opinions.
It is "debates" like this which have ensured that the majority of nasty behaviour in the Wikipedia community comes from a hard core minority of experienced editors. There is simply no desire to stop them.