User talk:Allconsidered

Thank you for your edits. Please note that while I understand that Ms. Mazahery has denied the claims, I have seen no documentation supporting her rebuttal to the allegations (also please note that the allegations were verified with the DC Bar). I take no offense in ensuring that Ms. Mazahery's rebuttal is equally depicted in the wikipedia page, but it is necessary that any statement be sourced. If you have a source with Ms. Mazahery's rebuttal, please cite to them.

Lastly, please note that disciplinary actions by the DC Bar are not internal investigations. They are public lawsuits which is why the public has access to all pleadings in any disciplinary action filed by the DC Bar. As such, you should be able to access Ms. Mazahery's rebuttal, to the extent it exists. Otherwise your edits are unsourced and not in line with Wikipedia policy.

If you have one side, why not the other? And why deny the truth?
Fine and dandy. However, why do you continue to delete the fact that Ms. Mazahery remains in good standing as a member of DC Bar Association? And please explain how you were able to obtain the so called public documents against Ms. Mazahery, but not the ones in which she rebuts the claims that you insist on posting? You are clearly biased, out of line, and your actions are against Wikipedia policy on many steps.

response
I haven't removed those references actually. Please see my edits, I simply moved it up. In fact, the statement about her being in good standing is both still in the introduction and in the controversy section.

The complaint filed by the DC Bar is publicly available on legal search engines. If you wish to further verify the complaint, please contact the DC Bar and ask them for information about Mazahery. There were no oppositions filed by her that I have been able to find, which is why the statement that she presented evidence in her defense is a particular issue when unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iraniantruth (talk • contribs) 02:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

One additional comment. Please understand, I have absolutely no desire to be biased here. The information here, however, is critical. The DC Bar has verified that two of Mazahery's former clients, including Ahmed Batebi, filed complaints against her. They are recommending disbarment based on the egregiousness of those allegations and their own findings. That is an incredibly significant fact given that Mazahery's page prior to the edit only discussed her representation of Batebi, and nothing else. I have no desire to present Mazahery in a false light, but dismissing the allegations and the pending suit by the DC Bar would paint a false picture. But again, I also agree with you that if she did present evidence in her defense, that evidence is important to reference for an objective page. But please source any statements to that evidence, otherwise it is only conjecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iraniantruth (talk • contribs) 02:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Lily Mazahery. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing.  ~ [ Scott M. Howard  ] ~ [  Talk  ]:[  Contribs  ] ~  02:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Your report at WP:AIV
I've declined your request to block 209.51.184.11. While I understand that the situation is contentious, and while the IP's edits don't look good, they don't rise to the level of blatant vandalism; only if the situation is blatant vandalism or if I'm familiar with the situation will I block without further explanation. I'd suggest that you go to WP:ANI, where you can give a fuller explanation of why this person's editing is so problematic that a block is warranted. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

== Thank you for your guidance. I will do so. In fact, I was not sure how I could adequately explain the issue related to the IP's edits in the format that was presented. Your comment and recommendations are extremely welcome and instructive. --Allconsidered 04:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)