And before any wise-ass points it out, yes, I know I am often incivil myself (I was just then, see), and no, if you actually think about it, it doesn't undermine the point being made. I choose to be incivil to add emphasis and demonstrate my anger, accepting the fact I am an adult and can restrain myself if asked and indeed if required - you will note the rules here explicitly warned you to expect "unpleasant speech". So, unlike Wikipedia, you can't say you weren't fucking warned!
First example up is this spectacularly circular example of circular logic...
That was how Administrator Primefac summarily shut down a user's complaint that editor Winged Blades of Godric was rude in this post placed in an article talk page......Foul language (when used generally) is not any sort of major offence. We always encourage users to use civil language, but we're not censored and editors are allowed to use whatever language they feel best conveys their feelings. Assuming, of course, they are remaining civil. Primefac (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Not sure why he included the last question mark, but it's pretty clear there cannot be any reason for using this sort of foul language to convey such a trivial query.I would be very willing to know....Why the fuck, an encyclopedia cares, who the director dedicated the film to, unless that has been covered by other reliable-media and/or has some special significance?! We aren't a storehouse of useless trivia or a data-dump?....Best,~ Winged Blades Godric 11:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
If editors said fuck every time they made this rather banal observation about a standard (albeit stupid) interpretation of how one best demonstrates encyclopedic worth of a detail lodged in the Wikipedia scribble book, well, that's a lot of fucks. Mr Winged obviously has other quite unrelated issues on his plate to have felt the need here, over and above the sort of day to day stress and questioning of one's self-worth and life choices that being a highly active Wikipedia editor like him induces.
A nice touch is that he appears to be one of these people who uses an automatic signature to convey his "Best" to those he is talking to. Needless to say, he should probably reflect on that. Unsurprisingly, he's never been blocked, and a cursory check reveals no warnings for bad language on his talk page. On Wikipedia, this is indeed a perfectly normal way to speak.
Even though, if Primefac was being honest, he'd have correctly represented Wikipedia's civility policy as "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow" and recognised that it defines the use of gross profanity as something that "can contribute to an uncivil environment". Oh, and that in general, it requires editors to "always treat each other with consideration and respect" and behave "politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." And finally that WP:NOTCENSORED refers only to the content of articles, not editor's speech, which, as anyone knows, is explicitly not protected by the First Amendment.
About all Primefac was correct on, was the fact an editor is unlikely to be blocked for one mere utterance of "fuck". If reported however, it is not supposed to be ignored or excused, it is meant to be acknowledged for what it is, and the editor reminded of what WP:CIVIL says, and ideally, if not seeking to be marked out as a potential problem user, give some indication they accept it and will try to do better.