The Nicholas Alahverdian Story

[Midsize Jake]

The Nicholas Alahverdian Story

This one is something of a rabbit-hole, and it's complicated, so we're posting it in three parts. I believe Part Two will be posted on Friday, give or take a day or two...

After that, who knows, but we really do hope to post new stuff at a higher clip than just once every 11 months.

[AndyTheGrump]

Interesting goings on at Talk:Nicholas Alahverdian (T-H-L). User Starship.paint (T-C-L) starts an RfC on whether the article should include "content about his sex crime conviction":

In 2008, Alahverdian was convicted of sexual imposition and public indecency, which were misdemeanor offenses, by the Dayton Municipal Court, over an incident that year where he attacked a fellow Sinclair Community College student.[1][2][3] The victim was an adult woman.[1][2][3]

Alahverdian appealed the conviction, which paused his sentencing, and he moved to Massachusetts during this time. Alahverdian's appeal was ultimately unsuccessful, and his arrest was ordered.[3]

In November 2012, Alahverdian was arrested in Massachusetts by Harvard University Police. He was transported to Ohio, in which he registered as a sex offender in the state, and he received his sentence of community service and counseling.[3]

link

User Bezeq2 (T-H-L) Promptly removes the RfC entirely, giving an utterly bizarre justification in the edit summary:

redacting copyrighted content which violates WP:BLP and is copyrighted and permanently removed by the publisher

link

Needless to say, Starship.paint restores the RfC. Two more attempts to blank the RfC, along with a rather odd discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (complete with further attempts at redaction by Bezeq2) link result in Bezeq2 getting blocked for 48 hours. Which seems lenient, to say the least. Whoever Bezeq2 (T-C-L) is (beyond also being Bezeq1 (T-C-L), after having "lost [their] password"), I can't think of a more effective way to bring the matter of Alahverdian's conviction, and the omission of said conviction from the biography, to wider attention amongst the Wikipedia 'community'. Own goal, I think...

[C&B]

I, but Also, cannot think of a more effective way of Drawing One's socking to the attention of the admin

(After all): I see a Cu does get summoned at ANI? "Great heads think the same", as they say

[Giraffe Stapler]

Mike Pence and Nicholas Alahverdian entertained
the audience with their popular ventriloquist act.

[Without Comfort]

Does anyone know why the Rhode Island child services providers billed the protagonist for medical services he received as a child in their custody? This isn't to justify the guy in some way, but it's an oddity.

[AndyTheGrump]

The weirdness continues. Someone creates a brand new account to create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Alahverdian (3rd nomination) (T-H-L)

[Katie]

Aroundthebends (T-C-L) is obviously the same person behind all of these accounts on the Nicholas Alahverdian article, trying to cover the sexual assault conviction up by nominating the article for AFD.

[C&B]

This Is getting to be fun

[C&B]

Aroundthebends (T-C-L) is obviously the same person behind all of these accounts on the Nicholas Alahverdian article, trying to cover the sexual assault conviction up by nominating the article for AFD.

Yes, he did probably Think he could not nominate the AfD while blocked (although that Is only from talk page, so probably he still could).

[C&B]

The Nicholas Alahverdian Story

After that, who knows, but we really do hope to post new stuff at a higher clip than just once every 11 months.

If All that has happened is only after Part One has released, by the time of the third Part it will be Watergate-sized Proportions!

[AndyTheGrump]

Does anyone know why the Rhode Island child services providers billed the protagonist for medical services he received as a child in their custody? This isn't to justify the guy in some way, but it's an oddity.

Odd certainly, if true. Though the source cited in the Wikipedia article (a YouTube download of a news report) really only confirms that Alahverdian claimed that he was billed.

Incidentally, citing the YouTube video of a news report probably violates Wikipedia policy, since the uploader ('Nicholas Alahverdian Memorial') presumably doesn't own the copyright to it.

[C&B]

The weirdness continues. Someone creates a brand new account to create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Alahverdian (3rd nomination) (T-H-L)

That's be WP:SK1(d) and, in Frankness, SK4 also.

[Giraffe Stapler]

The weirdness continues. Someone creates a brand new account to create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Alahverdian (3rd nomination) (T-H-L)

Nobody wants a Wikipedia biography with a lead sentence that ends in "...and a convicted sex offender".

[AndyTheGrump]

Aroundthebends (T-C-L) is obviously the same person behind all of these accounts on the Nicholas Alahverdian article, trying to cover the sexual assault conviction up by nominating the article for AFD.

That would seem a reasonable premise, though there are also trolls who watch the drama boards looking for opportunities to create further mayhem. Operation Mindfuck (T-H-L) never really went away.

[iii]

Commons gets in on the act?

I assume that'll be mentioned in a future part.

[Without Comfort]

Does anyone know why the Rhode Island child services providers billed the protagonist for medical services he received as a child in their custody? This isn't to justify the guy in some way, but it's an oddity.

Odd certainly, if true. Though the source cited in the Wikipedia article (a YouTube download of a news report) really only confirms that Alahverdian claimed that he was billed.

Incidentally, citing the YouTube video of a news report probably violates Wikipedia policy, since the uploader ('Nicholas Alahverdian Memorial') presumably doesn't own the copyright to it.

I read it on the archive of WPRI (link) that was linked in WO's blog post. I tried to go to WPRI from the archive, but it was a 404.

[C&B]

Most of the links were (That was the reason given For their removal in the Original edit war).

[Vigilant]

Mike Pence and Nicholas Alahverdian entertained
the audience with their popular ventriloquist act.

Note that both men have the nearer hand to the other missing from the photo, so it is nearly impossible to determine which one is 'driving' the conversation.

[Vigilant]

AfDing an article with 103 references...

That seems ... optimistic.

Since he's been declared deceased in his article, one would presume that BLP protections don't apply.
Delicious irony here.

[AndyTheGrump]

Note that both men have the nearer hand to the other missing from the photo, so it is nearly impossible to determine which one is 'driving' the conversation.

Mutual ventriloquism perhaps?

[Vigilant]

Mutual ventriloquism perhaps?

Perpetual bullshit machine?

[AndyTheGrump]

AfDing an article with 103 references...

That seems ... optimistic.

Since he's been declared deceased in his article, one would presume that BLP protections don't apply.
Delicious irony here.

Wikipedia's take on how long it takes to pass through the Pearly Gates (or other such portal) is somewhat unconventional: see WP:BDP (T-H-L)

Meanwhile, a question for the internet lawyers out there. If (purely hypothetically) someone fakes their own death, and people then say nasty things about them, is "They told us they were dead" a legitimate line of defence in a libel suit?

[Vigilant]

Meanwhile, a question for the internet lawyers out there. If (purely hypothetically) someone fakes their own death, and people then say nasty things about them, is "They told us they were dead" a legitimate line of defence in a libel suit?

There's some meta instability here.

If you fake your own death and then reverse course, aren't you likely to be opening yourself up to criminal charges?
Perjury on the documents, if nothing else.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Wikipedia's take on how long it takes to pass through the Pearly Gates (or other such portal) is somewhat unconventional: see WP:BDP (T-H-L)

Meanwhile, a question for the internet lawyers out there. If (purely hypothetically) someone fakes their own death, and people then say nasty things about them, is "They told us they were dead" a legitimate line of defence in a libel suit?

For people too lazy to click the link, here's what WP:BLP says about dead people. Bolding mine, not in original.

Recently dead or probably dead

Anyone born within the past 115 years (on or after 14 December 1905 [update]) is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. Even absent confirmation of death, for the purposes of this policy anyone born more than 115 years ago is presumed dead unless reliable sources confirm the person to have been living within the past two years. If the date of birth is unknown, editors should use reasonable judgement to infer—from dates of events noted in the article—if it is plausible that the person was born within the last 115 years and is therefore covered by this policy.

[Smiley]

If (purely hypothetically) someone fakes their own death, and people then say nasty things about them, is "They told us they were dead" a legitimate line of defence in a libel suit?

There's only one way to find out...


Nicholas Edward Alahverdian is a sexually deviant, sociopathic liar who faked not only his own death but also the wife that supposedly scattered his ashes at sea. And his poetry is terrible.

Contact details

Michael J. Cockram
hillbillyholiday[at]gmail[dot]com

[AndyTheGrump]

I'd have to suggest that WP:NotSufficientlyDeadYet WP:BDP wouldn't really apply in regard to the Alahverdian bio anyway. The crime in question took place over a decade ago, and with all due respect to the victim, couldn't be fairly described as 'gruesome'. I don't think the rule-mongers intended its scope to extend that far. Though like all the best Wikipedia policies, it leaves so much ambiguity that you can use it to support more or less any proposition.

I should probably activate my Grump account again, and bimble over to the article on Hawley Harvey Crippen (T-H-L) to find out just how far back this 'not offending relatives' thing can be stretched...

[The Garbage Scow]

Incidentally, citing the YouTube video of a news report probably violates Wikipedia policy, since the uploader ('Nicholas Alahverdian Memorial') presumably doesn't own the copyright to it.

True, but the source would be acceptable with the link to Youtube simply removed. Televised news reports don't require an online video link, similar to the way newspapers and books don't have to be available online.

[tarantino]

Hmm, coincidentally, from a topic on the reliable sources noticeboard, there is no mention of the death of Justin Berry (T-H-L) / JustinBerry (T-C-L) in the media. His estate did go through probate though, according to John M Baker (T-C-L).

[Giraffe Stapler]

If (purely hypothetically) someone fakes their own death, and people then say nasty things about them, is "They told us they were dead" a legitimate line of defence in a libel suit?

There's only one way to find out...


Nicholas Edward Alahverdian is a sexually deviant, sociopathic liar who faked not only his own death but also the wife that supposedly scattered his ashes at sea. And his poetry is terrible.

Let's assume that he neither faked his own death nor made up his presumably grieving widow. In that case, you may have just given her cause to sue.

[Smiley]

Let's assume that he neither faked his own death nor made up his presumably grieving widow. In that case, you may have just given her cause to sue.

Luckily, I only have a matter of days to live.

[Midsize Jake]

Let's assume that he neither faked his own death nor made up his presumably grieving widow. In that case, you may have just given her cause to sue.

Luckily, I only have a matter of days to live.

Didn't you get the memo about the mass-suicide postponement? Apparently the "rogue planet" was just a bit of powdered sugar from our astronomer's cinnamon donuts that got onto the inside of the telescope lens.

[Smiley]

After losing a pair of socks in the wash, a new user jumps headfirst into the machine.

[AndyTheGrump]

After losing a pair of socks in the wash, a new user jumps headfirst into the machine.

Yeah. Trying to look less sock-like, but failing. My advice for anyone wanting to do better: if you need to create a sock in a hurry, perform multiple edits on one article, or at least on related subject, before editing whatever it is you are targeting. That way, it doesn't look like you've been clicking on 'random article', and instead are actually someone signing up to fix things you care about. Pretend to be a steam-engine enthusiast for an hour, before performing your nefarious deed...

Disclaimer: I in no way endorse socking on Wikipedia. Or farting in lifts. Both are inevitable though, so if people are going to do either they should at least make a token effort towards not being too obvious about it.

[Vigilant]

Yeah. Trying to look less sock-like, but failing. My advice for anyone wanting to do better: if you need to create a sock in a hurry, perform multiple edits on one article, or at least on related subject, before editing whatever it is you are targeting. That way, it doesn't look like you've been clicking on 'random article', and instead are actually someone signing up to fix things you care about. Pretend to be a steam-engine enthusiast for an hour, before performing your nefarious deed...

It's the lack of artisanship that bothers you.

I understand.

[AndyTheGrump]

the 'new user' that Smiley writes above has now become the fourth sock to be blocked since WO drew attention to the peculiar life and death(?) of Nicholas Alahverdian. The block is unsurprising, given the lack of effort put in by said sock, but I can't help wondering once again whether there is an element of trolling involved. Particularly after said obvious-sock (Red Maple Leaves (T-C-L)) posted this on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (T-H-L) after someone drew attention to the obvious-sockery:

I am a new user. Nice to meet you. I found the page by browsing, either by "random article" or where feedback was asked for. I reverted the content until a discussion has time to take place. It has been less than 24 hours. While there is no limit or minimum for these as I recently read, perhaps it may be a good idea for other viewpoints to be heard...

link

Come on, obvious-sock, if you are going to make up excuses, at least try to pick one and stick with it. Did you arrive at the article at random, or because you saw it mentioned on the drama-boards? It could be one or the other, but not both. Can't you remember? And it supposedly only happened a few hours ago. They aren't going to fall for that. And I'm not sure that obvious-sock even expected them to. Maybe I'm overestimating the size of the audience for my ramblings here, but I can't help noticing that obvious-sock posted the 'random article' comment quoted above shortly after I'd made my comment (further up this thread) suggesting that random-article-editing was an obvious giveaway for a new sock. In my inexpert opinion (as a non-sockmaster - though I would say that, wouldn't I...) obvious-sock was being intentionally obvious. And is quite possibly reading this thread.

[Vigilant]

I can't wait for a new episode of "Andy's tips for quality socking: S01E03 - Put some fucking effort into it!"

It's always fun to watch people who are reading here try to respond in real time.

A visual representation

[AndyTheGrump]

Meanwhile, returning to Nicholas Alahverdian himself, has anyone else here read his self-published Dreading and Hoping All autobiographical work? A sad tale, about which much could be said, provided one takes parts of it with a pinch of salt. Or possibly a salt-mine full. But whatever. It isn't his life that concerns me here, but the postscript, which portrays his ultimate demise, to non-Hodgkin lymphoma:

At the bedside were Mrs. Alahverdian, their two children, and extended family His last words were "fear not, and run towards the bliss of the sun" At the time of his passing, the room was filled with the sounds of the end credits for the 1997 film "Contact" by composer Alan Silvestri, a film and score which held special meaning for Mr. Alahverdian.

link

A touching scene. possibly rivalled only by that accompanying the death of Admiral Nelson at the Battle of Trafalgar. Or perhaps the death-by-euthanasia scene in Soylent Green, where Charlton Heston's character voluntarily sends his soul to "the home of God", and his body to the recycling plant. Maybe it's all true. Maybe people dying of non-Hodgkin lymphoma do sometimes get to utter poetic last words (or possibly quote them - though Google can't find a source), but speaking from fortunately-limited personal experience, that isn't how cancer normally takes you. The reality is usually rather less evocative, generally involving (if one has appropriate healthcare provision) the use of opiate-based drugs in large doses. Actual last words are unlikely to be as profound, and I suspect that any musical accompaniment is unlikely to be heard by the departing soul. To be blunt, I don't believe it. Alahverdian seems to have died as he lived - as a work of fiction constructed around a less-romantic reality.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Next you're going to tell us he wasn't even an orphan!

[C&B]

Meanwhile, returning to Nicholas Alahverdian himself, has anyone else here read his self-published Dreading and Hoping All autobiographical work? A sad tale, about which much could be said, provided one takes parts of it with a pinch of salt. Or possibly a salt-mine full. But whatever. It isn't his life that concerns me here, but the postscript, which portrays his ultimate demise, to non-Hodgkin lymphoma... To be blunt, I don't believe it. Alahverdian seems to have died as he lived - as a work of fiction constructed around a less-romantic reality.

Redux of verbosity here but AndytheGrump, have Ye seen this? Much as you say, in a Study.

[AndyTheGrump]

Next you're going to tell us he wasn't even an orphan!

Alahverdian's own accounts seem to revolve around him being removed from his mother's care due to her addictive habits. And while he described himself as an orphan, if he actually mentioned her death explicitly, I'd missed it - though I've only skimmed his autobiography.

[Midsize Jake]

This is what I meant by "rabbit hole." There are lots of little details that don't add up, or just seem really unlikely.

Just for another example, Mr. Grump mentions the contents of one of Mr. Alahverdian's self-published mini-books on Amazon, but there's another (much more expensive) one entitled Ignoble Inferno: The Nicholas Alahverdian Lawsuit, and if you click "Read Inside!" you'll see at least some of the book's Introduction, which I'll quote from here:

Unfortunately, my mother could not look after her children. She had difficulties with using drugs and alcohol following two abusive marriages and the death of her father. My mother and her family had already been through hell after her 14-year-old brother (also named Nicholas) accidentally killed himself while trying to imitate a stunt performed by Dar Robinson on the Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson. Robinson had a noose and hung Johnny Carson in front of a live audience. Johnny survived. Nicky did not.

Now, this is a somewhat extraordinary claim, because this only happened once, and in one place, and though it's not mentioned in Wikipedia it was a well-documented case at the time (best page to read about it is probably this one).

In effect, Mr. Alahverdian is claiming that his grandparents were Nicholas and Sharon DeFilippo, the Rhode Island couple who sued NBC in 1979. (The suit was dismissed in 1982 on First Amendment grounds.) There's little or no information online about whether or not the DeFilippos also had a daughter though, so it may be impossible to verify this one way or another, and it could very well be true for all we know. But still, what are the chances?

[The Garbage Scow]

Isn't it possible he really died and, when living, was just a massive liar?

[Smiley]

All mention of Alahverdian's sexual battery charge has been scrubbed from the article, and the RfC about including it has been deleted also.

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 (T-C-L) 23:40, 16 December 2020

Seems like an overabundance of caution.

It is unequivocally true that Nicholas Alahverdian is/was a convicted sex-offender.

There were concerns that the references were only available via archive.org.
Yet, as noted in our blog, Susan Brenner's piece about his fabrication of evidence in the case is online and is a reliable source.

[Vigilant]

They've suppressed most revisions of the article and talk pages from Dec 15 on.

They must have received quite the email.

[tarantino]

Stand by for news.

[AndyTheGrump]

So, why are WMF legal getting involved? Unless Alahverdian really has faked his own death, there can't be any potential libel issues in the article that I can think of. WP:BDP may be Wikipedia policy, and (within limits) good practice, but there isn't any legal obligation to comply with it.

[Midsize Jake]

Things are moving a little more quickly (on Wikipedia, mostly) than we expected, so we've "compressed" the schedule a little bit.

The Nicholas Alahverdian Story, Part Two

The new plan also has us posting Part Three sometime tomorrow, or no later than Friday.

[Smiley]

Let’s single out one of the editors who commented in the most recent deletion discussion, Dr42 (T-C-L). Dr42 was previously known as SVUKnight, but the original account name was Rossinicholas. The account was created in 2006, took a break for over a decade, and then returned in 2019, just a few days before voting “keep” at the AfD.

Dr42's most recent edit was on Dec 4th 2020.

Before Alahverdian's (greatly exaggerated) death...



...and after...

Another Rossinicholas account was created in 2006 and later renamed to Niro87 (T-C-L). That one was created in 2006, edited sporadically for a few years, and then took over a decade off, returning in July 2020 to blank their user and talk pages.

There is no doubt that Nicholas Rossi/Alahverdian set up that account.

An early version of his userpage:

[AndyTheGrump]

I see there's an article on Alahverdian on the Simple English Wikipedia: link

I doubt that the person who created it (in March this year, after Alahverdian's supposed death) is a sock, but the only other contributor, Tortoiseandpigeon (T-C-L) looks that way, having added the same promotional fluff to the en.WP article.

Of course, this could all be a plot by Hugo Chavez to sow doubt and uncertainty, in order to bring about a socialist revolution. Or possibly to steal our precious body fluids...

[Smiley]

And then there’s Fred newman (T-C-L), who created an April 2013 version of “Nicholas Alahverdian,” as well as “Alahverdian v. Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families, et al.” That account and 13 others were blocked in 2013 after a sockpuppetry investigation. Included in that group of accounts was one named Nicholas Alahverdian (T-C-L).

Funny how WP have now removed all mention of his sexual assault conviction from his BLP when he openly talked about it on his eponymous userpage.