Jump to content

Talk:Nicholas Alahverdian/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Deletion

I have nominated the article for deletion. The subject is not notable for a wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aroundthebends (talk • contribs) 17:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Page history

Thanks, Dahlia. starship.paint (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Deletions

There may be more. starship.paint (talk) 12:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussions

  • ANI Archive 808
  • ANI Archive 810
  • AN Archive 252
  • BLPN Archive 217
  • AN Archive 268
  • ANI Archive 873

There may be more. starship.paint (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia:External links guideline, regarding official links:

An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria:
1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

Given that the subject of the article is deceased, he clearly cannot be in control of the content. Accordingly, this cannot be an 'official link', by Wikipedia's definition (or any other reasonable definition that I can think of), and should not be described as such. And given that is clearly under someone else's control (it contains content added since Alahverdian's death) linking it at all seems questionable. At present, it seems to be acting as a memorial, as a means to promote Alahverdian's book, and as a repository of links to external media coverage of Alahverdian. Nothing there presently seems obviously objectional in of itself, but nor would its purpose seem to fall within the scope of WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE in the guideline. And since we don't know who is controlling this website (there are no contact details, or any other obvious indication that I can find), there is no guarantee that content will not be added at some point which Wikipedia definitely shouldn't be linking. As a general principle I'd have to suggest that anonymous promotional external links should be avoided, and that given the circumstances surrounding the creation of this article on Wikipedia (including socking going on subsequent to Alahverdian's death) there are even more reasons to be wary of links to a website under entirely unverified control. I thus suggest that the link should be removed entirely. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 05:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Good point, removed. starship.paint (talk) 08:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Related article AfD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Kerr (reporter). starship.paint (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Bob Kerr (reporter) has now been deleted at afd.Dialectric (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Fabrications

Much of this article is fabricated. Could someone enlighten me as to how a 15 year old was a lobbyist as indicated in Alahverdian was offered jobs with the city and the state following his speaking up at the City Council meeting where he was publicly supported by Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island AFL–CIO President George Nee and others. After a short time lobbying for increased state aid to local schools, Alahverdian was ultimately hired by Reps. Gordon Fox, Bea Lanzi, Joanne Giannini, and David Cicilline (who later went on to become a congressman) as a page and then as a legislative aide.[16][29] and offered a job at 15 14? I know 14 year olds can be employed but they cannot be lobbyists and I sincerely doubt they would be hired in such high level positions. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 14:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Also In 2003, Alahverdian resigned his position as a legislative aide what 15 year old is a legislative aide? GRINCHIDICAE🎄 14:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
When an article contains numerous claims that appear to be cited but turn out to be unsupported by the citation, all of the citations are suspect, particularly if not available on the web, and the best approach is, in my opinion and experience, to stub the article and rework it using a few of the best refs available.Dialectric (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
The Brown Daily Herald seems acceptable as a NEWSORG to me. It may be slightly exaggerated (eg the avg thing on a college admissions app) but it's entirely possible to have unusual experiences as a younger individual. That said, I agree with the sentiment that this article is dodgy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
The problem is this doesn't add up. We removed controversial stuff because the only available version was archived and not current, why is this not applied to the rest? And more specifically, I know the Providence Journal stuff is fabricated - they do not say that he held these positions, though in an interview he does, it was never independently verified, nor is his "Harvard" status. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 15:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
The controversial stuff was poorly sourced, and otherwise concerning, and I think it's best not to discuss it further until T&S and legal complete their review as indicated above. Legislative aide is verified here. I also think it's better to hold off on efforts rewriting (which I otherwise agree with) until the Foundation updates us with a path forward, partially to save wasted time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Also, the archived articles listed here were deleted from the archive. Dr42 (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I'll answer your question as soon as you answer GeneralNotability's, Dr42. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 19:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
That is based off the 2011 interview, it appears to me they did not actually fact check. Alahverdian returned to Rhode Island when he aged out of the children’s welfare system at 18. but he was a legislative aide from 14-16 for Rhode Island as a legislative aide....while not living there and living in another state's group home? GRINCHIDICAE🎄 15:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
How did you reach the conclusion that reporters of a news agency "did not actually fact check"? Dr42 (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Common sense and the ability to do basic math? Are you seriously expecting me to believe that he was gainfully employed at 14, whilst not being in school (illegal) by the State Government in a high profile position (making $15/hr)? Or how about in his own book, where he claims that upon being entered into the system, at 14, he was effectively held captive, was not allowed to go to school or "speak" to anyone, but was mysteriously allowed to work for the state legislature...again, at 14 while not in school? Because he claims this in his own book, which contradicts the "facts" he spoke in interviews. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 19:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a blatant fabrication if not an outright hoax. Proclamations from a state or city level are meaningless, I have one about myself through City Council and the General Assembly of my state. The proclamation is the only thing here that I think can be verified. I have more questions, in his own book he says between 14 (when he was removed from his mother's custody) and 18, when he was placed into state custody, he was abused and was not allowed to contact anyone, go anywhere, even school until his 18th birthday when he was released from being a state ward. How does this add up into the claims in this article, specifically the article from May 2002 which says that he is a 14 year old student at Cranston High School, which is after he was removed from his parents custody and wasn't "allowed to go to school", meanwhile, In 2003, Alahverdian resigned his position as a legislative aide and became a full-time lobbyist to advocate for DCYF reform and continue his whistleblowing efforts. would be 15 years old possibly 16 depending when in the year, which directly contradicts his own claims (and I suspect why his lawsuits have all been unsuccessful) GRINCHIDICAE🎄 17:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
The WPRI12 video is uploaded by the news organization and could not possibly be doctored unless done so by the news organization. The sources are still available. For the NBC 10 article see https://turnto10.com/archive/man-claims-he-was-abused-in-dcyf-care. That link is available. Hopefully we can agree on those two sources. Dr42 (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Based on the date of the video it is related to this article on their website. "Alahverdian was a general assembly page at the age of 14 but one year later he was living in a series of DCYF funded group homes where he says the other kids used him as a punching bag." Also, this Providence Journal article says "He was 14 at the time and worked as a page and a legislative aide for the state House of Representatives." Dr42 (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
This article is nothing but a complex hoax and needs to be deleted. It's been repeatedly created, re-created and deleted over the past several years from what I'm reading. Delete it with prejudice and salt every possible variation. ♟♙ (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
EnPassant, How is it a hoax? What parts are hoaxy? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
CaptainEek Take a look at my above analysis. Among other things, the timeframe is impossible. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 20:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Praxidicae, I agree that the timeline is nuts, but this isn't a hoax in the Wikipedia sense of the word. There is coverage of him, he does seem to be a real person. He was covered in newspapers. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I cannot explain in detail why this is a hoax on-wiki because it involves oversighted information. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 20:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real. WP:HOAX. The article is sourced by newspapers and websites, good ones, that talk about what happened. It is not for us to decide what is history and what is not, not just for this article, but for all articles here. This article is not an "attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real" since most of the article has a citation or a reference from a reputable, reliable source. Also, the oversighted information was completely deleted at the source. Dr42 (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Dr42, "Deleted at the source"? Huh? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
The oversighted material has been completely deleted from the website where it was archived ("source" being the URLs which were published as citations on the article). They have been completely deleted. Dr42 (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
That argument is invalid and bizarre, Nick. If someone loses their daily printed newspaper, does that mean the articles written in it are no longer valid, reliable news? We source things to archived versions of articles all the time. By the way, I went around and deleted all the puffery you wrote on the various politician articles about yourself. ♟♙ (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Given the amount of disruption that this article has faced, we need to be strict here. If something's not publicly verifiable, either live or via archive, it should be removed. There's just too much deception going on. starship.paint (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed him from the Deaths in February 2020 article as the provided source failed WP:VER, but an IP keeps adding it back. ♟♙ (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I honestly think the article should just be deleted for being the fabricated ego-stroking bullshit that it already is, Starship.paint but I'd also add an addendum that it should be a live source since that was the crux of the argument to remove the deleted information. After all, there's probably a reason (factual inaccuracies) that some of the wild claims here suddenly don't exist on these local news websites and yet other articles from those time frames do...GRINCHIDICAE🎄 18:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps someone can explain to me how this source "fails verification"? Is it also a "hoax"? --Calton | Talk 18:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm working on removing and fixing some of the stuff here but I don't think we should be taking the word of his mysterious family members given recent developments and prior discussion of the sources. We're in a tricky place because of the oversighting of other material (that was sourced, but apparently "not allowed" because it wasn't available online currently...) GRINCHIDICAE🎄 18:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
And here is another problem, of many, we had this phot for a year of "Alahverdian", where the creator among others swore up and down it was him. And yet, it's Jonathan Finersee here. Local news sources, while generally reliable aren't exactly known to verify non-controversial facts. All of the claims of his time as "legislative aide" and "lobbyist" (when he was 14!) are incongruent with his own timeline he published in his book, unlikely given law and just all around dubious. But this is where the local outlets picked this up - from him. With no fact checking. We're being played. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 18:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Also...the DCYF lawsuit was dropped so there is no basis for the claims here. I am not doubting victims but I'm also able to recognize that we cannot put such claims in Wikipedia's voice without actual reliable sources and those simply do not exist. All that we have are local puff pieces parroting someone who had a tenuous relationship with the truth. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 18:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
@Praxidicae: - we shouldn’t delete this. It’ll just be created again. As proven, we don’t have the institutional memory to track every possible article, every possible sockpuppet. What we need to do is clean this up, settle the RFC and any related matters, then admin-protect the article. If he’s dead as reported, there won’t be much to add. starship.paint (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Keeping articles on the basis of "socks will just recreate it" is dangerous precedent. Salt this and all of his other names, tbh. This is marginal for notability and at minimum TNT applied, and probably still applies, given most of the history is questionable and the current body is still eh. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
It might be eh now, but I think it will be better when we're done with it. starship.paint (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: - I think I've given the entire article a once-over, wanna check it? starship.paint (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
It's much better at least. I think some excess details can still be trimmed but eh. Praxidicae knows the subject more than me, so she's more qualified to review. Worth noting that a picture was undeleted on Commons (File:Nicholas Alahverdian and Andre Dubus III.jpg), which can maybe be used with a crop. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I would love to hear from Praxidicae as well. I’m inclined to believe that NA was really a legislative aide at 2002 - in fact it is the very first allegation he makes in his lawsuit against the DCYF, if you refer to this article’s external links. If that was false, it seems like a hell lot of his case would fall apart, so I don’t see as it as logical to fudge that. starship.paint (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
anyone can file a lawsuit and file a complaint. To borrow from ACN: A civil complaint is a press release with a filing fee. There's a reason the case never went anywhere. I can't comment on much of this as I don't want to fall afoul of what was oversighted, as ridiculous as I think that decision was. Everything in this article is so greatly exaggerated, it's pointless. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 14:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Praxidicae - the article exaggerated even beyond the sources before I went through it. I tried to fix that issue throughout the entire article (to reflect the sources). Would you care to check my efforts? starship.paint (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

(outdent) This seems to have disappeared off the radar. I've now deleted some puffery, primary sources, unreliable sources and made some basic grammatical edits. ♟♙ (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Previously deleted content

There might be content hidden behind this link regarding a conviction that seems to have been deleted at some point. Has anyone insight in what exactly is behind this lin? -- Liberaler Humanist (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I know exactly what is hidden at that link, but I'm not going to say anything about it because it would defeat the entire purpose of suppressing it. Primefac (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I know at least parts of what was deleted there. There is evidence suggesting that User:Bezeq2, who is likely the same person as User:Bezeq1 made a false copyright violation claim. There are a lot of mysterious things going on around this article - but User:Dr42 requesting a rename of the account of the lemma person and still editing after Rossi/Alahverdian is claimed to have died only looks strange if one didn't find the protocols for certain trials. I'd like to know how informations that can be verified with court documents is not restored even after this sockpuppet operation has been uncovered. Should those deletions have been made for valid reasons, these reasons should be stated to the Wiki-public. -- Liberaler Humanist (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
The deletion is noted here #RfC: change to article. As already explain, more information can't really be provided as that would likely defeat the purpose of the deletion. I do not know the content that was deleted nor the reason for deletion so I feel I can safely say this: If your only source is "court documents" then it doesn't belong as given it's been less than 2 years, the subject is still covered by BLP and WP:BLPPRIMARY is clear that such sources are not acceptable as the sole source for information. If there are other possible sources then I imagine this is one of the aspects currently be considered so is not something we can talk about. As for "strange", this seems to be one of the problems with making assumptions about the identity of editors with a possible COI. Even assuming a COI is true, it doesn't mean the editor is whoever you think it is as there tend to be several people (family and sometimes even friends) who will feel the same about matters. Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't take much effort to find out about the info that was deleted and the info was from more than 2 years ago, I believe it's from during the 2000s. I can see how the info could be argued to be UNDUE but I don't see if it can be verified, why it is being suppressed. We include similar information on many bios. I can only conclude that legal action was taken against WMF which just raises more questions than it answers. Liz Read! Talk! 01:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I can only conclude that legal action was taken against WMF which just raises more questions than it answers. We were discussing on IRC that it appears some forum threads and blog posts off-wiki appear to have been deleted. Something which arises to slightly more than a cookie-cutter legal threat seems to be one reasonable conclusion. Meanwhile, the socks are flaring up today. Whatever is going on with this article, it stinks.ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: Perhaps I've misunderstood the point you were trying to make. But my point was that subjects dead less than 2 years are technically still covered by BLP. It does not matter how old the material is, BLP still applies if the subject is dead for less than 2 years.

The OP User:Liberaler Humanist, made a big deal over how the material can be verified by "court documents" as if that somehow makes it okay. It's not. In fact, material which is only verified by court documents in BLPs is the sort of material we delete all the time, as required to by policy. Unfortunately there's a common myth that the use of court documents as the sole source for material is acceptable in BLPs, or even that they should be preferred over secondary sources something which is against policy.

Others have said that there are secondary sources, that is more relevant but ultimately not something we can discuss at this time as it's apparently something being considered hence the deletion.

I keep seeing claims of material disappearing and the use of archives. I would note that under normal circumstances we treat archives of material that is no longer available as perfectly acceptable. Unfortunately a problem is some lower quality sources don't really publish corrections. They simply disappear material. And even when they do publish corrections they still kill original URLs without linking to these corrections making the corrections hard to find.

The BLP implications of this have long troubled me and IMO if we have good indications that a source disappeared for reasons beyond normal moving around or removing old material, we probably shouldn't use the source. (E.g. if other links from the same time still work, it's only this one link that stopped working.) It may mean that we remove stuff when the source has explicitly not withdrawn it but instead simply decided for legal reasons it's easier to simply make it unavailable, but I don't see much option as long as sources are not transparent about what they're doing.

A related issue is how we deal with completely dead sources. The classic response to a complaint at BLP (or anywhere really) that something is wrong but it's sourced is either show us a source which contradicts it or complain to the source and get them to issue a correction. But the latter is not possible when the source is completely dead, and convincing some other source to publish how some long dead source got some very minor thing wrong is generally difficult. This is something with troubling BLP implications we don't really (IMO) have a good solution for.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not a transparent proceeding. The Foundations organs are not supposed to be making content decissions. If meassures were taken due to legal reasons, this needs to be communicated. -- Liberaler Humanist (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
The WMF has, as far as I am aware, made no content decisions regarding this article. Please keep speculation and fear-mongering to a minimum. Primefac (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm refering to the note posted under the title "RfC: change to article". -- Liberaler Humanist (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Read through WP:OSPOL, then stack the listed "reviewers" from above in the order listed, then re-read my most recent statement. There is no contradiction here. Primefac (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
As the issue doesn't fall under any points of the oversight policy, this doesn't make it any less mysterious or more transparent. And none of that would require the involvement of T&S. The usual oversight process doesn't involve the Foundation. Given the ongoing sockpuppet effort to falsify information, there should be some sort of information what is going on here. -- 04:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberaler Humanist (talk • contribs)
I do not see how in the world you can make that claim, given that you do not know the backstory or the other issues surrounding the removal. Primefac (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not surprised that there is RS news coverage, Starship.paint, as there were multiple lawsuits filed against individuals, judges, educational institutions and other groups that would prompt local news coverage. But the fact that even Wikipediocracy pulled their articles about this person due to legal concerns makes me think more is going on behind-the-scenes that we may never find out about. To be honest, this whole mess (including one sockpuppet group promoting the article subject and another sockpuppet group trying to get the article deleted) sounds like it should be the subject of an investigative report. Or a movie. I mean, who or what is behind all of this activity when the article subject has been deceased for nearly a year? I mean, who would care this much? Sorry, this is WP:NOTFORUM. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
No reason to think they're two sock groups imo. Probably just one sock group deciding they'd rather have no article than the current one (probably to recreate it in a years time once everyone has forgotten about this incident). Pure speculation on my part, of course. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, I'm really not an authority on sockpuppets. I guess one person could simultaneously want to promote the article subject one month and then turn around and decide it needs to be deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Liz, I think the issue for them is that, after receiving scrutiny, the text has substantially changed from when they (the sock) wrote it to be unduly self serving. It also had a fake picture of Alahverdian, and now it doesn’t. I don’t know why he wanted a fake pic of himself on his article, but I think they’re not happy with the state of the article now, and would now rather it be deleted for the time being. God knows what the point of all this is. Could be a unique type of troll, I guess, but nobody trolls a guy for 1.5 decades, from before he was even notable, and continues after he’s supposedly dead. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: - I'm sure the socks wanted to delete the article once they saw the RfC and realized that the content had a high chance of being included. As for the fake picture, well, the article has Alahverdian's wife stating that he moved out of the country and had been receiving threats. Something to ponder. starship.paint (exalt) 05:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
There's so much wrong with all of this but at the risk of falling afoul of our seriously broken BLP policy, I would take anything his "wife" says with a grain (or dump truck) of salt. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 20:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I want to let you all know that the Foundation has received a significant number of communications about this article and some of the related content. We've been reviewing the messages from the Alahverdians, as they have made several different claims regarding both defamation and copyright. They have offered to provide us with supporting court documents to help understand the situation, but thus far we have not received them. At the moment, we don't have a clear picture of what's happening with this article. If we get anything that requires Foundation action (e.g., a correct DMCA request) we'll do that ourselves. If we get other documents and the info would be helpful for the oversighters to respond, we'll share it with them. At the moment though, please don't take our silence to date as meaning anything one way or another, since we were closed from December 24-January 3 and are now still talking with them and waiting to get documents they've said they'll send us so we can review the case. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I hope you will be also reviewing independent court documents (which I can't link to for obvious reasons) relation to this? Obviously we can't use them in this article, but they are certainly useful to see if what certain news articles (again, which I can't link to for obvious reasons) state is true or not. If a statement is defamatory it has to be false, not an inconvenient fact people wish to hide. FDW777 (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Legal doesn't (generally) deal with content issues, but as mentioned they will pass on relevant info to the OS team for review. Primefac (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, whoever. All I ask is that things are looked at properly (I hope people will do an excellent job, just that there is significant concern at Commons and lots of globally locked accounts, so a large pinch of salt may need to be involved). FDW777 (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
A death certificate would be a start... Nick (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. I've not been impressed with their behavior with regards to all of this, across multiple projects. I have reason to suspect that things aren't necessarily on the "up and up" here. As such, I would recommend that WMF legal scrutinize everything sent to them very carefully (which, given the message above, I presume they are doing already). Waggie (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
What if they don't follow up, with something that requires foundation action? How long do you wait before giving an all-clear for the OS team to reinstate the content? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, Primefac / other OSers, I presume this content is removed under WP:OSPOL #2(a) - Removal of potentially libelous information on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
IANAL but United States defamation law says In no state can a defamation claim be successfully maintained if the allegedly defamed person is deceased. FDW777 (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Well I'm not trying to second-guess the process, the foundation can decide what they want and they're entirely qualified lawyers. I just want to be clear if this is a direct office action, if oversighters have removed it pursuant to #2(a), or what, because it's not entirely clear with the given info which OSPOL applies here, and re we'll do that ourselves I'm just wondering if they did make the call for the current suppression. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
An important point of order, it seems the scrubbing of this information from the internet is becoming quite widespread. The three archived references previously used in the article now state This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine. Obviously this doesn't affect printed newspapers which, in the absence of an unlikely co-ordinated arson campaign against archives, can still be cited. The removal of certain links from the Wayback Machine changes nothing. FDW777 (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Looking through the archives, old AFDs, mass of sock and meatpuppetry by the subject at one time, honestly at this point I'd support an WP:IAR-based deletion for the sake of the project. This appears to be the most marginal of marginally-notable BLPs, an endless parade of drama trying to right the great wrongs of the Rhode Island child welfare system. The sum of human knowledge would survive us not having a bio on Nicholas Alahverdian. ValarianB (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
If an IAR deletion would suffice, then I would suspect an AFD would have no problems (and you're welcome to make such a nomination). Primefac (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I would strongly oppose any such deletion. It either goes through AFD or it stays - no IAR in this case. Wikipedia should not be a pawn in whatever weird game this "Trust" is playing and shouldn't be bullied by vague legal threats. CUPIDICAE💕 14:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

This information is very interesting to read. In regards to this very strange situation, I'd second deleting this article and replacing it with a notice saying that it's been deleted due to an external campaign and legal threats. -- Liberaler Humanist (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

If that were the case, we'd have only a few thousand articles. Article subjects, their "legal team" or "widows" don't get to dictate content just because they don't like it. Further, as someone who has been harassed and doxed by someone claiming to be his "legal team", it would set a dangerous precedent to cater to bullies. CUPIDICAE💕 21:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm a firm believer in the Streisand effect. It's not our job to prevent people from running into their demise. Anyone who sees such a notice will keep looking. The people acting on behalf of the lemmate person don't seem to understand that they are doing something wrong when claims of faking a death are popping up left and right. -- Liberaler Humanist (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Not going to happen. That approach, generally speaking, of course, is legally problematic, it risks being seen as to imply to readers of any given page that it has been removed because an article subject has something to hide such as a sexual assault conviction, a bankruptcy or some other negative life event. There is additionally long standing and robust community consensus that we don't remove articles of notable individuals just because the individual in question doesn't wish to be included on Wikipedia. Don Murphy is the 'case law' for that. Nick (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Some updates from WMF Legal. A lawyer purporting to represent the Alahverdian estate did contact us with a DMCA and provided documents indicating that the estate owned two pictures. We've been working on it for a little while, but we haven't been able to find evidence disproving these claims, so we granted the DMCA today. Commons:Office_actions/DMCA_notices#Nicholas_Alahverdian I want to particularly note that they sent notice for the exact two links we removed and did not identify any images used in the article itself for removal. We've also found that there has been at least one case in Rhode Island involving him (link to rhode island public access) but we have not been able to obtain a copy of whatever order may have been entered in this case, so we're mostly in the dark about it. As things stand, I don't see any reason for the Foundation to take action other than due to the formal copyright complaint. The community should feel free to work on the article text to get it to whatever form you all feel is appropriate given the sources available. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jrogers (WMF): does this preclude us from going the standard non-free file route that we use for deceased people where no other image could possibly be created? Obviously not from something that his trust could claim to own, like, for example, a photo from the Providence Journal who owns the copyright? CUPIDICAE💕 19:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
(IANAL, but I am a Commons admin) You're should be free to upload any images in line with normal policies, just as if the deleted images never existed. These two images however might be an issue to re-upload even under fair use, unless given the go-ahead by WMF Legal first. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC))

Oversight reversion

I think given the most recent investigative piece on Alahveredian from The Providence Journal it is perhaps time to restore some of the oversighted material. @Primefac:, your thoughts please? I'm still working on updating it to incorporate the details. CUPIDICAE💕 15:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Given that the suppressed information appears to be legitimate (with the addition of said source), it is no longer reasonable to keep the material that deals with essentially the same subject matter suppressed. However, as the sources themselves have been scrubbed both from the live and archive versions of the site, I will not be restoring them.
As to the request to drop protection on the page, I have spoken about the matter with another admin and we agree that this new "bombshell" will likely bring any hidden sockpuppets (GHBH, sleepers, or otherwise) out of the woodwork, so I am not inclined to drop ECP on this just yet. I will, however, set it to expire after a certain period; I suspect after enough time as passed there will be enough reliable, non-interview/non-"he-said" sources to corroborate any negative information in the draft and make any socking/DE that much more obvious. Primefac (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@Primefac: could you possibly create a redirect from Nick Alahverdian please? It was fully protected after a 2013 deletion. FDW777 (talk) 10:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Done, sorry, forgot to confirm. Primefac (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Primefac - what about the RfC I created? starship.paint (exalt) 01:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

As the sources themselves have been scrubbed both from the live and archive versions of the site, I will not be restoring them. Besides, we have a live source that says essentially the same thing. Primefac (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Sex Offender.....

I discovered this article because I read the Providence Journal article, and WP and WO were mentioned. As we have heavily been relying on this new RS, please note, from the Journal article:

One paragraph states:"Pine, who successfully represented Alahverdian against a claim that he failed to register as a sex offender, says the timing of events [....]. left questions in his mind." Three paragraphs later: "State police Lt. Col. Kevin Barry [....] says the state police still had a warrant for him for allegedly failing to register in Rhode Island as a sex offender." (My bold, etc.)[1]

So, I am curious as to how we reconcile these two paragraphs, from the same source. Perhaps the warrant was outstanding, prior to the time Pine "successfully represented " Alahverdian? I am not sure what to think. My impression, from the Providence Journal, is that NA is being (mostly?) sought by the FBI on charges of fraud, in connection to the $200,000 credit card charges.

Nonetheless, he is wanted for "allegedly failing to register" per source, which does use the word "allegedly", so I thought it only fair to insert this particular word in the lede of the article. However, the body of the article doesn't make any mention of an "outstanding warrant....as a sex offender." Should this be in the lede, if we don't cover it in the article text? Hoping wiser, more experienced editors can help me here. I've never edited on this sort of article before... Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 06:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Mooney, Tom. "He was reported dead, but the state police kept looking for Nick Alahverdian". The Providence Journal. Archived from the original on January 27, 2021. Retrieved 2021-01-27.
There is absolutely no need for the word "allegedly" to be inserted into the lead, or not in the first sentence if that's what you're referring to. Nicholas Alahverdian is a 100% proven, convicted, sex offender. As such he was apparently required to be on the sex offender registry, and failure to provide details for that are a criminal offence. That's what he allegedly failed to do. FDW777 (talk) 07:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
FDW777, No, no, no, I am not referring to the first sentence. But being a convicted sex offender (which he is) and " allegedly failing to register" are different from a legal point. Obviously, he is a convicted sex offender. It is the registration status that is in question, per the paragraphs I noted. You seem to agree, when you state: "That's what he allegedly failed to do." This is why I inserted "allegedly " in the last sentence of the lede. (The lede encompasses the paragraphs at the beginning of each article, not just the very first sentence.) What do you think about the discrepancy between the two paragraphs from the Providence Journal article? Thanks, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 09:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Could have been required to register as a sex offender in both Ohio[1] and Rhode Island, I guess, and "successfully represented" in the first. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
@Tribe of Tiger: from Calcagni Law Convicted offenders must register with the police department in the city or town where they live and must comply with mandatory counseling or treatment requirements. which suggests it's entirely possible Pine was able to defend Alahverdian once and the charges were withdrawn, Alahverdian registered as he is/was legally required to do, but their circumstances may have changed, the registration was no longer valid and needed to be resubmitted/updated, which is why it is now being alleged he has/had failed to meet the registration requirements - that could be perhaps in part due to their movement to Ireland in 2019, for example, possibly failing to notify the registry of their leaving the country or failing to notify another country of their sex offence conviction. If they're not dead, and are pretending to be dead, as is being suggested as a possibility by Pine, then I'd guess that might well result in some issues with their sex offender registration...
I also recall some of the material which has been presented by Alahverdian or his representatives in their bouts of whitewashing this article was allegedly falsified court documents suggesting he no longer has/had any requirement to register on the sex offender registry - if these documents are indeed falsified, as would appear to be the case based on the statements made by law enforcement to the press, it's not entirely unconceivable that they may have been presented to the sex offender registry as a way to try and have the registration removed, of course. There's a good number of possible scenarios which would suggest Pine was successful and there's still an issue with Alahverdian and the sex offender registry. Nick (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
My thanks to Malcolmxl5, this makes sense, a requirement to register in different states. Nick, it was very kind and helpful of you to offer such a thorough and educational explanation. I now understand why two seemingly contradictory stmts, from the same article, can both be true. My "logical mind" is now absolutely satisfied. I did not understand the various legal issues. Thank you for explaining! Sincerely, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 02:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I have no problem with after a warrant had been issued for allegedly failing to register as a sex offender. Since he's either living or recently deceased (between six months and two years after a death, subject to discretion) WP:BLPCRIME does apply and he's innocent until proven guilty on the failing to register charge. FDW777 (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
FDW777, Thanks for your editorial opinion and support. The reminder per BLPCRIME is appreciated, and I shall re-read. Best, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 03:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Date of birth

I know we're wary about certain claims, but are there any objections to the use of the July 11, 1987 birthdate from this obituary (appears to be a reprint of the obituary on "his" website, which I can't even link to as its blacklisted). For further reference see the logs for the Nicholas Rossi page, where that same date of birth was in use way back in 2006, a long time before the current shenanigans. FDW777 (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

FDW777, I am no expert, as you know. But I think it would be very helpful to the article. Your 2006 reference appears strong, and pre-dates the obituary. Thanks for your research. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 03:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The date of birth was indeed in use in early, now deleted, versions of the biography but unsourced. There’s nothing usable there. One would have rely on the obituary(!). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Malcolmxl5, Well then, we certainly do lack a reliable source! Thanks for checking the old versions. The obituary is pretty amazing, but not in a good way, IMO. It refers to his age as "he was in his 32nd year", and that "He spent 20 years in the House of Representatives and the Senate, where he not only served as a state employee at the age of 14..." So, was he 12, 13 or 14, while working in the Rhode Island Capitol? The phrase "two decades " is repeated @ 4 times. Very strange, overall. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 06:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm aware the old version of the article isn't a reliable reference. But I believe it is useful to demonstrate that the claimed date of birth in the obituary has been in use for 15 years, well before the current shenanigans. It leaves us with two possible scenarios.
  • The date of birth in the obituary is accurate.
  • The date of birth in the obituary is inaccurate, and is simply scraped from elsewhere on the internet.
Either way it's not a hill I'm going to die on. I'm just putting the information out there and seeing if there's support for inclusion, if not no big deal. FDW777 (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
It would normally meet WP:ABOUTSELF, but I do wonder if #4 is met here given all the shenanigans. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The birth date is correct based on court docs but I don't see any actual rs reporting it. CUPIDICAE💕 18:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Insight

So some local insight to the 14 year old legislative "aide" crap. It was a high school program[1] Which means this claim that he was actually a legislative aide is about as relevant as my internship in a theater program my senior year. CUPIDICAE💕 22:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

My understanding, from what I read, is that he started as a volunteer but that he was hired later. But it was a job for a teenager so I think of it as more of a paid internship. Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/FowlerThanEver/status/1356985623056384002

Hoax tag

Hi, now that there are reliable sources that put Alahverdian's death into some context, I think that perhaps the hoax tag should be removed. It implies that the cited new information might be a hoax and I think all of the fluffy, promotional content and questionable biographical information that was in doubt has now been removed. What do you think? Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Liz, Prior to reading the Providence Journal article, when it was published, I had never heard of NA before. Now, at least, it is not as though the entire article is a hoax. The death report is the possible hoax part, and it does seem as if we now have context, as you state. So, I agree. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 05:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The death isn't the possible hoax part, it's any claims made by the subject that are the possible hoax part. That said, I think it's time that either any remaining offending text was changed/removed or the tag itself should be removed. FDW777 (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
FDW777, I am a newcomer to this article, and not as well-informed as I should be....so, thanks for explaining, point taken. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 02:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Tribe of Tiger: The #Fabrications section above is a good starting point. There are many claims made by the subject that are questionable, and that discussion took place before the most recent news articles claiming he may have faked his own death. FDW777 (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Liz, I'm kind of on the fence about this. I think "hoax" may be too strong, but I feel like there should be some sort of notice to any readers that "stuff is going down", or more aptly: "investigation is ongoing and information may be changing" (although that's probably not the best wording either). The other side is that {{hoax}} seems to best describe that some statements being made by some parties mentioned in the article are potentially false, which seems to still be true.

Anyway—I think I'm fine keeping it or removing it either way; I suppose {{current}} wouldn't be too bad as a replacement, although it's probably not perfect either. Perryprog (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it needs to remain - much of the content that was initially here still can't be verified, including his supposed legislative work which is only confirmed by his account of it, as parroted by Bob Kerr. CUPIDICAE💕 16:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Remain indefinitely? The problem with that hoax template is that it isn't particularly specific. I think many people will see the hoax template, see the details about the alleged faked death, and think the former refers to the latter. If there is problematic text still in the article, then surely it should be amended or removed? Surely that's more helpful to the reader than a vague hoax template which doesn't inform them which bits are suspected to be false? FDW777 (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking about. The self-promotional content added by sockpuppets has been removed so I'm not sure what information in the current version could be considered a "hoax". I don't want this mystery uncovered about his death to be considered a hoax. Liz Read! Talk! 19:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
It looks like everything possibly questionable in the article is clearly indicated as such via wording and attribution. In a way, the hoax tag confuses me as a reader because it's like a double-negative. (Are we telling the reader that information like the death being disputed is untrue?) Schazjmd (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Now that the self-promotional and misleading material has been removed and Alahverdian's death put in context, I'm going to remove the Hoax tag since I think the article stands on its sourcing. While the version that existed prior to January 2021 could be seen as a hoax, I don't think there is anything untrue in its current version. Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Men's Rights Activism

I found a list of articles Alahverdian wrote for Men's Rights website A Voice For Men, but the software won't let me source it because that URL is blacklisted. Is there a way to make it work in this article? ♟♙ (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

EnPassant, there is. See MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Best, Blablubbs|talk 01:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
EnPassant, I think it's important to ask whether adding links to the articles is appropriate - if RS haven't mentioned him writing for that website, it might be better to just leave it out. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
His articles have been mostly scrubbed from the men's right website but I found an archived announcement of him being hired by them as a coordinator for judicial affairs that might be relevant. His individual columns, which are also archived, are mostly diatribes about feminism and feminists, especially in the context of Mormon church. I've found repeated connections to the LDS which isn't mentioned in this article either. Liz Read! Talk! 20:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
That's because his attorney ghost sent bogus DMCA takedowns. CUPIDICAE💕 20:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, Praxidicae, while I don't think his men's rights articles are notable, I think it is notable that he was hired by A Voice For Men to decide which legal cases they were going to financially support and I never see this position mentioned. Isn't an archived copy of this announcement by the organization acceptable? I'm finding that the more I've looked, the more information I'm finding out about Alahverdian. Most of it is on the Internet Archive or other archive sites. But while I think this makes it verifiable, it's not all notable. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
None of the sources provided for the AVFM articles were active and I can't find any in the actual archive, so it's not really verifiable anymore and given we took down all the other stuff, I erred on the side of caution. CUPIDICAE💕 00:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, I'll dive into my browser history and come up with some links. Liz Read! Talk! 01:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Liz I'm definitely not opposed to including that (especially if we can find it archived) but I am opposed to providing his op-eds which are meaningless tangents. CUPIDICAE💕 02:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Early versions

As can be seen at the top of this article talk page, there are many past versions of this article under a variety of different names. If you are curious about what the 2013 version of this article looked like and the sources used by Alahverdian, you can view it in the edit history of his user page. The account was later blocked as a sockpuppet. Liz Read! Talk! 03:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

My favorite is when he says he was taken into DCYF care at 9, 12 and 15. And also when he claims to be an adjunct lecturer at Harvard.CUPIDICAE💕 19:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

References

RfC: change to article

This RFC has been removed pending review from the OS team, T&S, and Wikimedia Legal. If you are aware of the contents of this RFC, please do not re-add or otherwise discuss this matter until it has been resolved. If the outcome is that the RFC can proceed, this action will be reversed. If the result is that the RFC should not proceed, this notice will be updated. If you have questions or would like further clarification, please send me an email and I will attempt to answer as best I can. Primefac (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Bleh. Please ping me when the decision is made, Primefac. Thanks. starship.paint (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
If we discount those sources discussed previously, they should be removed entirely from the article, not just the controversial stuff as I pointed out in my now oversighted comment. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 13:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

For posterity: This RfC was about whether the conviction of sexual assault in 2008 under the name "Nicholas Rossi" should be included in the article, based on sources that have since been scrubbed from the wayback machine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Providence Journal follow-up

I don't have time to work on the article myself right now, but other editors may want to consider reading and potentially using this follow-up piece in the providence journal. Blablubbs|talk 14:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm ready to work on it once this migraine passes. CUPIDICAE💕 17:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
This article seems to be only visible to subscribers. Anyone subscribed to the Providence Journal? Liz Read! Talk! 20:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Liz, I accessed it (here in the US) by reading the archived copy.[1] Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 22:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't know whether that's due to geo-blocking but it's not behind any paywall in the UK, although it does say at the top "FOR SUBSCRIBERS". FDW777 (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
An FYI...this is how I access paywalled sources, like NYT, WaPo, etc. If they are not already archived in the article (as The Providence Journal was) that I am reading/editing, I copy the ref to my dedicated subpage, run the "fix dead links" program, choosing the optional "archive all links". Then, I can read the archived copy. Somewhat tedious, but much less distressing than being unable to access the source document. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 23:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
outline.com works for many of them as well. CUPIDICAE💕 17:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Mooney, Tom (February 1, 2021). "If Nick Alahverdian isn't dead as some believe, who's the widow 'Louise'?". Archived from the original on February 1, 2021. Retrieved 1 February 2021.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 March 2021

Article states "Both the Nebraska and Florida placements were later closed for abuse and neglect". However, the Nebraska placement (Boys Town) is still open and has never been closed. And the Florida placement (Manatee Palms Youth Services) is also still open, but has been renamed "Suncoast Behavioral Health"

Source 1 (Nebraska): https://www.boystown.org/locations/nebraska/programs/Pages/default.aspx Source 2 (Florida): https://suncoastbhc.com/ 6cabg6 (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Wife/widow/purported widow/alleged widow

  • His wife attributed this to "security concerns". Alahverdian's wife...
  • After Alahverdian's death was announced in 2020, a woman who identified herself as his wife
  • A Rhode Island priest recounted that Alahverdian's purported widow stating that Alahverdian had moved to Switzerland. State Rep. Raymond Hull of Rhode Island believed that Alahverdian's purported widow...
  • Alahverdian's widow later stated
  • His widow said that Alahverdian would be cremated
  • Alahverdian's widow denied that he had faked his death
  • email from his alleged widow
  • from a woman claiming to be Alahverdian's widow

I realise it might not be preferred to use the same terminology in each case, but I don't believe we should be using "widow", "purported widow" and "alleged widow". Any thoughts on whether this should be standardised, and which to use if that is the case? FDW777 (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

From a BLP perspective, I'm uncomfortable with the number of words of doubt we're using per MOS:ALLEGED. I recommend erring on the side of caution and generally referring to her as "widow," potentially with a sentence in the "maybe not dead" section citing the "who's Louise?" article to point out that nobody actually knows who this widow is. I do think "widow" is appropriate (rather than "wife") at this time. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
That would make sense, although the "who's Louise?" article is clear that they aren't sure the person emailing them was actually Louise, so I think that's one place in the article we do need some "words of doubt"? FDW777 (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Was there any followup on the legislature stuff

Earlier versions of the article suggested that Alahverdian was honoured after his death in the Rhode Island legislature [2]. These were from primary sources, so were correctly removed. With RS attention into the possibility he faked his own death, has there been any followup on this covered in secondary sources? Maybe one of the issues is at the moment it's still not confirmed he's alive, although I admit I have no idea what, if anything, would happen if definitive evidence emerges. "The house resolves to strike our memorising the death of Nicholas Alahverdian since whops he didn't actually die", so maybe nothing will happen even in that event, I'm not sure. Just wondering since it sort of seems like the thing that the media might take an interest in. While it could be UNDUE here, I'm not so sure, I feel if it is covered in RS it probably would be relevant to Alahverdian since it relates to how unusual the situation of his "death" is. Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne Legislative proclamations are generally done by request of family/friends and are meaningless. It's part of constituent outreach, which is the point I've made a few times. It was pointless to add from the start. Them striking it or keeping it doesn't mean anything either. If you are asking from a curiosity perspective, I can't really comment beyond that. CUPIDICAE💕 13:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@Praxidicae: really? You mean ~7000 times a year the legislature would do this if only the family asks?

On Tuesday March 3, 2020, Representative Raymond Hull gave a speech on the floor of the Rhode Island House of Representatives in commemoration of the work and life of Alahverdian. In his speech, Hull said "I'd like to adjourn in the memory of my friend, Nicholas Alahverdian, who had a battle with cancer. A very, very smart individual when I started here some eight years ago, and I say this on purpose, and I say this to you young people that are standing there: have passion in what you do and never give up on it. He had that. And it touched me to be honored to get up to say something on his behalf today, because he believed in something that happened to him, and he looked forward to the change in DCYF. I ask that all my colleagues remember him. God bless."[83]
After Representative Hull's remarks, the House of Representatives unanimously voted to adjourn in memory of Nicholas Alahverdian "as a further mark of respect." The motion was made by Representative Hull and seconded by House Majority Leader Joseph Shekarchi and Minority Leader Blake Filippi. A moment of silence followed prior to the adjournment.[84]
On March 11, 2020, House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello, Leaders Shekarchi and Filippi, and Reps. Ray Hull, and John Lombardi introduced House Resolution 7994 entitled “House Resolution Expressing Condolences on the passing of Nicholas Alahverdian.”[85] The Resolution honoring Alahverdian was read by the Clerk of the House and passed unanimously by the House of Representatives, resolving that “[the] House of Representatives of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations hereby extends deepest condolences on the passing of Nicholas Alahverdian.”[85]

That surprised me, since I don't see how a legislature would get anything done if they were adjourning 7000 times a year, and holding 7000 minutes of silence. I also feel that after the 100th time of a representative talking about the memory of their friend, someone is going to ask how they had so many friends who died that year. It also seems a bit messy when people are sorting through your resolutions and have to ignore 7000 a year. But it is what it is I guess. Nil Einne (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
BTW, a more general point is that while I'm not certain how much proof would be required of a person's death, it seems to me some proof must be required of this family connection. It may be surprisingly lax such that you don't need much social engineering to pull off something, but I'd be very surprised if you could really just email someone in a legislature and say "Yo, I know you don't know me but my father who lived in your constituency just died, can you memorialise him? He was John Harold Smith III of George Washington Township and died after a long battle with HIV and is survived by his long term partner Jack Wilson and me his son Henry Smith" and get a simple reply "I will on X. Glad to be of service as always." and then a few days after X another e-mail "WTF did you just announce I died of HIV and I'm gay? And I don't recognise Henry as my son anymore due to the things he did to our family, and as for bringing up the name of the man my wife had an affair with, why did you bring up such a painful memories?" Of course, Henry being the son and probably having records of this may have actually been able to pull it off but I can't help thinking he'd at least need those records. (Such things tend to rely on a great deal of good faith, I think even news paper obituaries, in part since thankfully so few people try to mess around with them. But there is often some requirement. E.g. even for a simply death notice I think NZ Herald requires a funeral home. I sort of expect but don't know especially since NZ is a small country, that you may be able to succeed if you make a fake website and phone number. Of course it's also easy to see how once you pass one level like a death notice in a paper, it becomes easier to move on to the next level and so on. Also the modern digital world has also made a lot of things easy to fake, especially since very few are going to bother to check originals even assuming originals have features hard to forge.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
When my parents and even my grandparents died (at different times between the early 1970s to the last few years), the multiple Canadian newspapers in which their obituaries were posted required that the request come from the funeral home; if that wasn't possible, a copy of the death certificate was required. For that matter, back in the early 1990s it was necessary for both parents to confirm the parentage for birth notices in most major Canadian newspapers. This has been a big deal in Canada for as long as I can remember. Risker (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
This has been discussed endlessly but the AP article/reuters article was not published by their editorial staff, so I wouldn't put any stock in that. As far as legislative shout outs, I meant exactly what I said. My state does this and so does RI. It's part of their constituent outreach services. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, RI does this as a matter of course whenever they are planning on adjourning for the day. here is the journal for the day they did it for Alahverdian, compare the 'Adjournment' sections for the following days here and here. MrOllie (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

He has been set out on bail

They seem to have been looking for him for an alleged rape, however he is now out on bail. Do someone wish to expand the article based on these sources above? Also regarding section above, the first source states that "Rossi" was the name used for much of his life, but later switch back to his biological father’s name "Alahverdian". -Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Where did you see he’s out on bail?! SANTADICAE🎅 17:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
The second source above stated in the subject "who made bail in Scotland". I haven't read the article in full yet but I added a bit more context on his arrest and bail hearing to the article from other sources. I just checked the above listed source at it states:

The Scottish Sun reported Friday that Alahverdian had been granted bail after leaving the hospital with conditions that he abide by a nighttime curfew and that the police check on him daily.

However, The Scottish Sun is not really a great source, but we can write that The Providence Journal reported on their reporting, but there must be other sources available for this. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Alleged further sex offending

See Daily Herald article. FDW777 (talk) 08:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel like the "alleged" nature puts it in the "let's wait and see" category (WP:BLPCRIME etc etc). Primefac (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The current extradition request is from authorities in Utah, so perhaps a sentence in the "Reported death" section along the lines of "Authorities in Utah are seeking to extradite him in connection with an alleged sexual assault in 2018"? It strike me as odd we say he's under arrest in Scotland, yet don't say why. FDW777 (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
See also the Washington Post, [3] which states that DNA samples relating to Alahverdian's earlier conviction were "key to finding Rossi at the hospital in Glasgow". The various law enforcement agencies involved were clearly looking for him for more than just alleged fraud. Given the circumstances, I really can't think of any legitimate reason not to inform readers why Alahverdian is being extradited. We don't need to imply that he is guilty of anything: merely tell them what the allegations are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't get it. Surely UK hospitals don't routinely take DNA samples against admitted patients and run it against Interpol (and besides, apparently his DNA was only uploaded to the national database). WAPO says the DNA search "created a hit" but doesn't seem to explain why exactly a search was made in the first place. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
We just report the news the news reports about (dang, I like that)... anyway, law enforcement and investigators will eventually have to explain the genetic chain of custody and cause-to-test during the evidentiary portions of the legal proceedings. It is not really our purview to have to explain this, we are not investigative journalists. Let them do their jobs whilst we use the sources to best explain the situation. A good number of agencies never gave up searching for him, this was not a closed cold case.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 17:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Yup. Not our place to second-guess law enforcement here. Report what the 'reliable sources' say... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Sources now reporting it was Interpol who caught him through matching photographs, which sounds far more reasonable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
The Daily Record go into it in slightly more detail. Apparently hospital staff were provided with photos, and they confirmed their patient was the person. DNA and fingerprints were then used to fully nail down that confirmation. As to what led them to that Scottish hospital or Scotland in general they are keeping quiet, with the article saying The prosecutor’s office said that while they could not go into specific details about how Rossi’s hiding place was uncovered, they said it was due to “diligent investigative efforts”.. FDW777 (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Images restored

The WMF have restored the images that were deleted following a takedown request. See

--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I see an image extracted from one of the restored images is now in use here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
It’s not of particularly good quality. The colours need adjusting and the image resolution increased. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

New Projo article detailing multiple other assaults

I want to lead this with a warning that while I know WP isn't censored, I feel it appropriate to give a trigger warning. A lot of the article deals with intense domestic abuse, physical, mental, financial and emotional as well as rape.

here is a new projo article, it's behind a paywall but has some interesting tidbits that just came to light. He is accused in 4 cases, at minimum currently, including a kidnapping, rape, assault (beating) and sexual assault. He also resisted arrest and was carried out of his apartment (third floor) in Pawtucket (see below quote). He also plead no contest to domestic assault but the charges of resisting arrest and disorderly conduct were dropped. In another incident in 2010, Alahverdian allegedly was enraged (after their first date) that she declined having sex with him after repeated attempts and forced her to drive her car to an ATM and remove $200 as a repayment to get her cell phone back (which he took) and as payment for their dinner and then forced her to return to his apartment to sign a document stating she would not press legal charges and the last RI charge is for one of his ex-wives after he violated a restraining order (which I believe has been discussed but previously was redacted.)

  • Police had to physically carry him out of the apartment, and once in a cruiser he “continued to yell and scream very loudly and started hitting his head up against the bars on the back window.” Police said they used pepper spray to get Alahverdian to stop banging his head.

Also, Josev05a his bail has been revoked as he's a flight risk per this. I've updated it to include the bail information but would like to discuss the other charges since I know we're 50/50 on including charges without conviction but I think this meets a standard case of relevancy. SANTADICAE🎅 17:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nicholas_Alahverdian/Archive_1&oldid=1162219189"