Starting a new thread, so I don't derail other threads here.

My daughter was harassed on Wikipedia.

I stated she was treated with insolence. For some reason, people are finding excuses why they should ignore "insolence" as "harassment." This is a technicality that is bullshit to find an excuse to further ignore what has happened. I regard insolence as worse than harassment. FT2 says "harassment" is an "upgrade" from insolence. Why fight over the words when you know shit went down on Wikipedia. My daughter was pulled into it when that wasn't needed to happen at all.

FT2 said the case was sorted out by the community, but there was no decision by the community to block me. There was the person involved user that is being regarded as "part of the community" who is also took part in the harassment towards my daughter.

Is FT2 and others trying to justify it is ok for a Wikipedian to harass my family on Wikipedia and then further cause more harassment by trying to get me blocked?

FT2 says he is willing to help in dispute resolution. I don't see those words being lived up to in this case.

Why does someone like Chris Selwood get justice but I get told the harassment at me and my family was deserved? Lot of Wiki-admins are unwilling to help. They are very selective of who they are willing to help. It's disturbing.

I got a lot of questions about this.

That's not what I said. I said that the word insolence does not mean what you think it means, it does not mean something worse than harassment, and you should not have used the word "insolence" as it has a strong connotation of meaning that the person accused of it is really right. Socrates, for example, was "insolent". The word is listed in the thesaurus as a synonym of "impudence" (another word meaning showing insufficient respect to those who supposedly deserve respect based on holding a position of power) and not as a synonym of "harassment". If it was harassment you should have called it harassment.

Hearing the word "insolence" people may have viewed it through this lens - it is so often used for unfair or unfounded complaints that people may not have looked at the merits, instead assuming this to be another instance of the same.

And when I try to explain how you failed to communicate and why things might have happened you accuse me of "making excuses"

But anyway, once again, do you want to complain about the past or do you want to get something done in the present? - you're doing a terrible job of explaining the situation to those not familiar with it (I did not know until your previous post that a real name was involved, and I _still_ don't know what happened generally)

(posts related to this from the Taxwoman thread should probably be merged to this thread)

I disagree. Keep those post in that thread since they are coherent to what is being discussed there.

To FT2: Are you willing to acknowledge that there may have been a failure to communicate from the beginning rather than it being a later "upgrade" to a stronger charge, and to investigate the original situation on its merits?

Random832, just cause I been exposed to a different society than you doesn't mean I failed to communicate to you. If there is a failure of communication, then blame the words. You rather blame me. Given what has happen here with the harassment toward my daughter and how you further tried to blame me at "you failed to communicate" is an example of insolence!

Do you understand, now?

Would you mind, for the purposes of this thread, telling exactly what occurred that involved your daughter, providing diffs where appropriate?

Well, I wasn't there, for one.

I didn't say it was anyone's fault. I didn't assign blame. It is what it is, and all we can do is try to fix it now.

Thank you for trying to clarify that.

I'm working on a new statement, now.

I think that it is extremely important that Arbcom examine this again and take whatever action is necessary to clear this up.

There is no reason why some situations should be examined seriously and others are not.

The best place for Arbcom to examine this is either by emailing them (see WP:ARBCOM for contact details, although it's often 50-50 whether you get a reply - make sure you request an acknowledgement) or by posting to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.

Posts to WP:ARBCOM can only be done by those not blocked. Those that are blocked get ignored. Those that use their IP to post get outed. Those that create a new account to post get outed and accused of malicious behavior. E-mail sent tends to get ignored. It is a circular mess.

We can still find out in this thread if FT2 will accept, reject, or recuse himself from further the dispute process related to this, or maybe he'll at least acknowledge reconsideration here in full disclosure.

Post it to your talk page? Someone can always port it over to RFAR from there.