# Talk:Vladimir Bukovsky

In his comments in defense of Diana West's book American Betrayal that wildly accuses the FDR administration of being wholly co-opted by the Soviet Union, Bukovsky expands on her notion that modern liberalism and social democracy is at the heart of the menace that the Cold War was about, not curtailing the military aggression of a totalitarian superpower, and that those who failed to engage in "rollback" were cowards and quislings, as opposed to responsible leaders who combined caution and prudence with firmness and resolution in seeking to check this menace while avoiding the prospect of nuclear war.
More significantly, Bukovsky makes clear that it is not so much democracy, but an idealized version of 19th Century laissez faire capitalism, in reality an inequitable system that caused countless misery to so many working class people, that is his main preoccupation, trying to suggest that the social welfare program of liberals, socialists and the labor movement was somehow the creation of Bolshevism or the heart of what it was about or that it is somehow inextricably linked, unlike the tyranny of free marketeers like Pinochet, with dictatorial methods and repression.  
Thus the long dead spectre of Stalinist hegemony is used in an attempt to demagogically smear all liberals, progressives and moderates, going so far as to characterize current Western leaders as "closet Marxists and Mensheviks" without offering any evidence to support that assertion or to explain how that somehow translates into totalitarianism.  Ironically, as most school children know, Mensheviks were traditional social democrats, who like Karl Kautsky, were bitter opponents of the Bolsheviks and communism as were most liberals and socialists.  Moreover, it is highly doubtful that a liberal democrat like Vaclav Havel, who Bukovsky embraces, would agree with such ultra-reactionary views.   The late Tony Judt, (author of the acclaimed Postwar (book)), and Timothy Snyder unpack these issues in their recent book  Thinking the Twentieth Century.  It is disappointing to see such a knee jerk, demagogic and historically ignorant commentary coming from Mr. Bukovsky.

This section is properly sourced. The sources (BBC News, The Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph) are as unbiased, as they can be. This section is very relevant in the context of Bukovsky's biography. That is why this section should be in any article about Bukovsky, that at least tries to be reasonably complete and unbiased. And that's why I restore it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.25.238.188 (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC) 

I agree this story should be mentioned on the page because it was covered in RS. And it is included on the page. But there are two issues with your edit [1]. First, you make a lot of changes, not only about this story. Secondly, why this should be a separate section? This is described in section "Last years (2011–2019)", which is a lot more appropriate given the significant size and the structure of this page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
"he falsely blamed on the Russian security services" [in WP voice]. Said who? Why do you think that Intelligence agencies of Russia were not involved? My very best wishes (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Dear My very best wishes, it seems you've been trying to censor this article for several years now, by deleting relevant and properly sourced content from it. Please, understand, that you cannot and will not censor the facts.
As for you concerns about the length of this section: it is long by necessity. The trial and the events preceeding it (Bukovsky's arrest, Bukovsky's confession, charges against him, his libel claim, his hunger strike, dismissal of his libel claim by court) deserve to be presented accurately and in order (the lone paragraph in the current version of the article does neither). Especially because the charges were grave, the trial was long and it basically never ended.
This trial sheds light both on Bukovsky's biography and his moral character. It is in a way the pinnacle of his life. His highest achievement. His legacy. It deserves a section of its own. And there was such a section before my edits! I've just rewritten, expanded it, added more reliable sources and a sentence about it to the beginning of the article. I also saved the edit you made (with the Memorial link). Not so many changes after all.
Now let's talk about your concerns about the possibility of remote putting content on Bukovsky's hard drives. If you would just take some time to read the sources, instead of deleting them, you would find, that this possibility was rejected completely by computer forensics expert under oath during the trial. Here is the BBC News article, that you've deleted, describing it: Vladimir Bukovsky indecent images not put on PC 'remotely'. Does it leave room for other interpretations? Moreover, Bukovsky confessed in downloading child pornography immediately after his arrest; some child pornography was downloading at the moment of his arrest (it's all in the sources, that you've also deleted, by the way)! And after all that Bukovsky claims that Russian Intelligence is to blame. Is this claim true or false? Any unbiased person will agree, that it's definitely false, and it should be noted.
In view of all that I will restore my edit. Please, don't try to censor the facts and delete the sources again.
The controversy was already included (last paragraph in section Vladimir_Bukovsky#Last_years_(2011–2019)). Therefore, no one is trying to censor anything. However, your edit (diff above) introduces claims not supported by cited sources, for example, "British activist" (he is obviously known as a Soviet/Russian activist), or the claim that Russian agencies were not involved in the controversy (this is something no one knows for sure and the sources do not claim). My very best wishes (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I never edited that part of the article. The "British activist" part was there before any of my edits ([2]). Feel free to change it or discuss it, but not in this discussion about Bukovsky's child pornography trial section. However, please, stop vandalising this section. I will restore it now. Best wishes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.25.238.183 (talk) 02:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
>or the claim that Russian agencies were not involved in the controversy
>this is something no one knows for sure and the sources do not claim
But they do! Please, read that part of my answer again:
If you would just take some time to read the sources, instead of deleting them, you would find, that this possibility was rejected completely by computer forensics expert under oath during the trial. Here is the BBC News article, that you've deleted, describing it: Vladimir Bukovsky indecent images not put on PC 'remotely'. Does it leave room for other interpretations? Moreover, Bukovsky confessed in downloading child pornography immediately after his arrest; some child pornography was downloading at the moment of his arrest (it's all in the sources [3][4], that you've also deleted, by the way)! And after all that Bukovsky claims that Russian Intelligence is to blame. Is this claim true or false? Any unbiased person will agree, that it's definitely false, and it should be noted.
There are
(a) a testimony by computer forensics expert, that refutes Bukovsky's claim,
(b) a confession, made by Bukovsky himself after the arrest, that also refutes his claim,
(c) the child abuse materials, that were being downloaded by Bukovsky right at the moment of his arrest, and that also refutes his claim.
What else do you need, to tell that his claim about Russian Intelligence involvement is false?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.25.238.183 (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Is this claim [about the involvement of Russian state security services] true or false? Any unbiased person will agree, that it's definitely false Well, this is WP:OR, something not directly supported by sources. So is "British activist" and some other claims that you just included [5]. My very best wishes (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
This man is a child pornographer who confessed he downloaded child pornography, sourced to reliable sources.  The British government confirmed this in court from expert witnesses.
Pedophiles, child pornographers, and apologists for pedophiles and child pornographers are out in force in Wikipedia, defending pedophilia and defending pedophiles and child pornographers.  This pedophile is having his biography whitewashed by them, and having information removed.  We are putting it back.  Minimax Regret (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
It's not WP:OR, it's basic logic: the claim cannot be both true and false at the same time. The sources are crystal clear on this Bukovsky's claim: it's false.
Also, please, stop inventing the edits that I never made: the "British activist" and the "kicked out" parts were there before any of my edits [6]. Change these parts of the text, if you think they are poorly written (they probably are), support your changes by reliable sources if necessary, do it in separate edits. That's Editing 101.
Thank you, Minimax Regret, for restoring this section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.25.238.183 (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Dear Minimax Regret and My very best wishes, let's discuss our consensus here. In my view, the only reasonable consensus is full restoration of this section as soon as possible, because it is

(a) highly relevant,
(b) reasonably concise,
(c) properly sourced.
Do you agree?  W4r5a7w4r (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I did not check this story for a long time. Quickly looking at the books (they are better sources), I can see IWar: War and Peace in the Information Age by Bill Gertz, pages 159-160, according to which it was in fact a hacking to PC of Bukovsky by Russian "security services", while another Russian agent simultaneously tipped off EU law enforcement, i.e. it was a classic "disinformation and influence operation". Other books say the same: see, Core Concepts and Contemporary Issues in Privacy - Page 195, by Ann E. Cudd, ‎Mark C. Navin. I do not need to check anything further. So yes, that should be probably added to the stable (current version). That was pure fabrication. My very best wishes (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
The first book implies that the purpose of the operation was to discredit Bukovsky just before his testimony at the Litvinenko inquiry. My very best wishes (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Dear My very best wishes, it seems you do not understand the concept of relevance. We are talking here about Bukovsky's child pornography trial. The only relevant book sources would be those, that describe this trial and/or Bukovsky's previous history of pedophilia.
The books you describe simply don't do this. IWar: War and Peace in the Information Age is a book about warfare being waged by world powers, rogue states—such as Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea—and even terrorist groups like ISIS, seeking to defeat and ultimately destroy the United States. Do you really think Bukovsky was downloading child pornography as an ISIS agent to destroy the United States?
Core Concepts and Contemporary Issues in Privacy is a comprehensive investigation of privacy in the modern world. Do you see in this description the words trial, Bukovsky, pedophilia or child pornography? You don't, because there aren't.
I reiterate: please, confine this discussion to consensus about Bukovsky's child pornography trial section. And stop bringing irrelevant themes and sources to this discussion. W4r5a7w4r (talk) 07:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
By the way, in the interest of reaching consensus faster, let's discuss your concerns about this section. You've rejected it several times (without any modification), claiming that (in chronological order): "a lot of changes (starting from "British activist") are not supported by cited sources", "WP:OR, non-neutral language ("kicked out"), repetition of the same negative info, and yeh, a copyvio".
Please, elaborate on your claims. In which sentence of this section is the "British activist" part? Which changes are not supported by cited sources? In which sentences are WP:OR and non-neutral language? And, yeah, where exactly is copyvio? W4r5a7w4r (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Look, a book by well known expert, Bill Gertz tells that it was a Russian intelligence operation against Bukovsky and explains how and why they did it (the book was published in 2017, a few years after the events). Other recent books tell the same. If you have other good books or scholarly sources by experts (dated after 2017) which tell Bill Gertz and others were wrong, please place them here. But if not, this is the end of this dispute. My very best wishes (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
It says: "A Russian hacker broke to his laptop computer and planted child pornography photographs on the device. A Russian intelligence agent then tipped off ... Europol to the photos. ... It was classic Russian disinformation and influence operation" My very best wishes (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
There was no Russian (or Chinese, or Iranian, or North Korean) hacker: Vladimir Bukovsky indecent images not put on PC 'remotely'. Bukovsky downloaded child pornography himself and confessed in downloading it after his arrest: Vladimir Bukovsky downloaded indecent images and films over 15-year period, Cambridge crown court hears. W4r5a7w4r (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
This book describes neither arrest of Bukovsky nor his trial. Ergo, it is completely irrelevant to this section.
Please, try to focus. Elaborate on your claims concerning this section. Let me remind them for you.
In which sentence of this section is the "British activist" part? Which changes are not supported by cited sources? In which sentences are WP:OR and non-neutral language? And, yeah, where exactly is copyvio? W4r5a7w4r (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
So, you have nothing criticizing the conclusions by Bill Gertz and others? Great. Indeed, I did not find anything too.  And no, of course the book tells about the arrest and trial. Just as other sources, it says that not only he did not admit anything, but launched a defamation lawsuit and went on a hunger strike. My very best wishes (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Of course I have! All the text about Bukovsky in this book is based on Bukovsky's own words during just one(!) interview by him to Guardian on 29 April 2016 (look at the page 160 of the book). Here is this interview: [7] (by the way, a link to this interview and a retelling of Bukovsky's claims during it were included in the last paragraph of this section, if only you've read it before deleting it!).
Of course this book doesn't include anything, that happened after April 2016 (and everything relevant to this section). It doesn't include dismissal of Bukovsky's libel claim. It doesn't include dismissal of his appeal. It doesn't include the trial of Bukovsky and materials made public during the trial (Bukovsky's confession during his arrest [8], and results of forensic examination of his computer Vladimir Bukovsky indecent images not put on PC 'remotely', that refute his [and yours!] claim, that his computer was hacked).
So, as I've already told you, this book is completely irrelevant to this section (moreover, it is not a reliable source).  W4r5a7w4r (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
You provided 3 news sources that qualify as RS, but none of them disputes the conclusion in the book by Bill Gertz for a simple reason: these news articles were published in 2016, but the book was published a year later. We need to use the reviews in books, such as that one, because they summarize the previously published news sources and frequently a lot of other information that an author of a book may have, especially if he is an expert like Gertz. I do not know how exactly Gertz came to such conclusion, but he did. This is not "may be" or "probably", but a definitive assertion. Yes, the hacking was not immediately obviously after the first check of his computer, as one of the news sources says. Yes, there were many other people saying it was hacking, as another your source says. Other recent books also say the same. Sure. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
The sources I provided here are not new. They we already included in the text of this section before you deleted it (and they were mentioned many times in our discussion). They do contradict both your, Bukovsky's and Gertz's claims.
The two pages about Bukovsky in this book (and this book has 385 pages) are an unreliable biased retelling of a source from April 2016, that is already included in the text of this section. So, this book is completely irrelevant to this section (as I've already told you). W4r5a7w4r (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
And do you have something to substantiate your (very severe!) claims ("a lot of changes (starting from "British activist") are not supported by cited sources", "WP:OR, non-neutral language ("kicked out"), repetition of the same negative info, and yeh, a copyvio") about the text of this section?
Because if you don't, then your unstoppable deletion of this section was WP:DIS at best, WP:VAND at worst.
And that kind of behavior leads to severe punishment. W4r5a7w4r (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Everything is in the diff above: "kicked out", a huge chunk of copy-pasted text in Russian, and repeating the pornography claim at least twice. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Looks like I've found the source of our misunderstading.
It is this edit you've made: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Bukovsky&diff=prev&oldid=1239386475.
You've made several changes of the text of this article in one edit:
(a) you've changed "Russian-born British" part (that was there before any of my edits: [9]) to "Soviet and Russian" in the lead
(b) you've changed "kicked out" part in the Early life section (that was there before any of my edits: [10])
(c) you've deleted a quote in Russian in the references section (that was there before any of my edits: [11])
(d) you've deleted a retelling of this reference, in which Bukovsky called Milosevic arrest "an illegal act made by new left in Europe" (that was there before any of my edits: [12])
(e) you've deleted parts of the text in Later life section (that were there before any of my edits: [13])
(f) you've changed some wording here and there
(g) you've deleted this section and a sentence about this section in the lead
So after this edit you've made was undone, the section was restored, but your other changes were lost. Looks like that gives us a way of finally reaching a consensus here.
My proposed consensus: I will add this section ([14]) to the article (and a sentence about it to the lead) in a separate edit. Then it will not interfere with your changes. Do you agree? W4r5a7w4r (talk) 07:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
No. I agree this controversy should be noted on the page, but how much space does it deserve and what should we say? We should rely here on reliably published brief biographies of the subject. His obituary published by The Times would be probably the best. It says [15]: A final clash with the law cast a dark shadow over his reputation. Cambridgeshire police raided his house in 2014 and found images of child pornography on his laptop. He vigorously proclaimed his innocence, suggesting that Putin’s agents had placed them there to incriminate him. He resorted to an old tactic, going on hunger strike, this time for 26 days. Last year, after suffering a health collapse and subsequent treatment in Munich, the authorities decided to take no further action against him. The truth of whether he had in fact collected images of abuse was never established.
This is all it deserves. Saying something like that (just a paragraph or two) would be fine. Except that we better use multiple review sources (rather than news reports which provide contradictory claims in this case). And one of them is definitely the book by Bill Gertz. Hence we also need to say what it said as quoted above. My very best wishes (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
And in the Telegraph obituary ([16]) one fourth of the text is devoted to this trial.
I've already told you, how the two pages in the Gertz's book misrepresent the reliable source they are retelling. But it seems you don't want to listen to the voice of reason.
It seems you are trolling and not seeking a consensus here. W4r5a7w4r (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
This article should present the facts about Bukovsky's life. So, it should present the facts of his arrest, his confession, his subsequent questioning, the charges against him, his libel claim, dismissal of his libel claim, and of course his trial and his misleading public statements during the trial. These facts should be supported by reliable sources. And that's what this section ([17]) does.
You were unable to substantiate any of your claims (WP:OR, copyvio, changes not supported by cited sources, non-neutral language) about the text of this section.
I once again remind you, that constant deletion of relevant content, supported by reliable sources, is either WP:DIS or WP:VAND. W4r5a7w4r (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I selected "The Times" as a much better source than the "The Telegraph". We are talking about WP:WEIGHT here. Meaning that we need (a) to focus on the coverage in best review sources/articles, such as that book by Gertz and indeed "The Times", and (b) the subject is known for something else, rather than this scandal (or apparently a Russian intelligence operation against him as the book says), hence it deserves only a very brief coverage on the page, not even a separate section. My very best wishes (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Double checking a more recent (2018) source [18], it tells: The jury, however, never got to hear the case for the defence... The result [of the court trial] means that Bukovsky remains an innocent man. That can be in the summary on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
You don't even try to substantiate your claims about the text of this section by now. Well, it looks like we've reached the consensus here: this section is restored in full. Best wishes. W4r5a7w4r (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
No, it is actually you who ignore everything. For example, the copyvio of Russian text is long quotation starting from "Милошевич в Гааге незаконно...." from here [19]. My very best wishes (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
As I've already told you many times, the edit [20] by an anonymous editor (by the way, was it you?), that added this citation, has absolutely nothing to do with the section we are discussing here. You've reverted that edit and deleted this section at the same time. In one edit. Why did you do this? Maybe, because you were trying to WP:GAME? Maybe, reverting your own changes [21] is part of your WP:GAME too? Anyway, it's nice to see you have no objections about the text of this section. W4r5a7w4r (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
It does not matter who did it first (certainly not me). When you repeatedly restore a copyright violation [22], this is your responsibility. In addition, as I noted in edit summary, this material is exclusively based on WP:PRIMARY and mostly not even about Bukovsky, but about other people. You blindly revert everything, without even looking. My very best wishes (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
So, it's Crimea now? Really? Your whitewashing of a confessed pedophile looks completely ridiculous by now. But you will not whitewash your fellow pedophile. No way. W4r5a7w4r (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete the paragraph about Bukovsky's child pornography trial (because it is factually incorrect) and add this section about the trial instead:

On October 28, 2014 Bukovsky was arrested at his home in Cambridge on suspicion of downloading and possession of child pornography after an operation by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre linked his IP address with a child pornography site. Some of the child abuse materials were downloading at the moment of his arrest. Immediately after the arrest he confessed that he did download child abuse materials and that they were on the computer in his study. After his confession he was taken to Parkside Police Station in Cambridge for further questioning. There Bukovsky told detectives that he had downloaded child abuse images and movies over the course of 15 years, and collecting child pornography had become something of a hobby to him. He described his addiction to child pornography as a "research". He also noted that, in his opinion, children in the pornographic materials looked as if they were enjoying themselves.
Forensic examination of Bukovsky's hard drives revealed thousands of category A child abuse images and movies, featuring mostly boys and children of toddler age. No evidence of remote planting of these materials on his hard drives was found.
On 27 April 2015, the UK Crown Prosecution Service has authorised the prosecution of Bukovsky on five charges of making indecent images of children, five charges of possession of indecent images of children and one charge of possession of a prohibited image, his trial was scheduled to begin on 5 May 2015 at Cambridge magistrates court. On that same day Bukovsky issued a public statement in which he categorically denied "making any indecent or prohibited photographs, pseudo-photographs or videos of children". He left Great Britain several days later and failed to appear in court, but sent a letter from Germany saying he was being treated for a life-threatening condition there. The case was adjourned until 22 May 2015. In early May 2015 Bukovsky had undergone a nine-hour heart operation in a private German clinic, during which he was given two artificial valves. Subsequently, Bukovsky was kept in a medically induced coma for three days to improve his chances of recovery.. 
After four months at the German clinic, Bukovsky returned to England and sued CPS for libel, seeking £100,000 in damages. On 20 April 2016 he started a hunger strike demanding his libel action against the CPS to be heard before the criminal case against him begins. He claimed to be doing it "for the British public" and described the judicial system in UK as Kafkaesque. In July 2016 the High Court dismissed his libel claim. His appeal was later dismissed by Court of Appeal.
On 12 December 2016 his child pornography trial at Cambridge Crown Court began. During the trial Bukovsky slept in front of the jury. Two days later the trial was halted and the jury was discharged by judge Gareth Hawkesworth after Bukovsky was taken to Addenbrooke's Hospital with "pneumonia". The case was adjourned until 19 January 2017.
On 30 June 2017 a retrial with a new jury was ordered by judge Hawkesworth on 24 July 2017 despite Bukovsky's "ill health". Bukovsky was admitted to hospital shortly before trial's planned beginning.
On 12 February 2018, when the trial was finally due to begin, judge Hawkesworth ruled that Bukovsky was "too unwell" to give evidence and that "it wouldn't be fair to try the man in those circumstances". The trial was permanently halted, but the case against Bukovsky was not dropped.
During the years of his trial Bukovsky, despite his "ill health", gave numerous interviews in which he denied all charges and falsely claimed that child pornography was planted on his disks by Russian Security Services. In these interviews he never mentioned his confession after the arrest. W4r5a7w4r (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Bunnypranav (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
All the sources about Bukovsky's child pornography trial are included in the request. W4r5a7w4r (talk) 03:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: I have moved the section I believe W4r5a7w4r intends to suggest into this section with a "fake" header so it appears nearer the edit request header. When Bunnypranav commented on this request, it appeared connected. Skynxnex (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
 Done After reviewing your requested additions, they seem to be well-sourced and informative. I made a few changes to better align with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines:
Stylistic changes to avoid square quotes and other tone issues
Attributing statements instead of using Wikipedia's voice in certain places
Integrating existing content in the article into this section
Merging and expanding references
Most notably, I remove the last paragraph in your suggested additions. In my opinion, that paragraph as written constitutes original research and synthesis. If you disagree with that or any of my other changes, feel free to make a follow-up edit request.
I also tagged the rosbalt.ru source as possibly unreliable since I'm unsure of it's reliability. Editors here can either remove the cleanup tag or remove the cited statements as they see fit.
Thank you for your contributions! – Anne drew 20:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Given the discussion above and disagreement on this talk page, I have reverted it. What has changed since the previous discussion to include these materials without consensus? Main objection is "due weight". The incident is currently described on the page, but why should we dedicate several paragraphs to it? This is not something the subject is known for. My very best wishes (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
It seems due to me. The topic was talked about at length by reliable sources. We might be able to condense it a bit, but the information in large part should be restored. Although the subject may be uncomfortable, Wikipedia is not censored. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 05:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, WP is not censored and this was published. But I am not even sure what it was, exactly. One should rely on books here.  I can see IWar: War and Peace in the Information Age by Bill Gertz, pages 159-160, according to which it was in fact a hacking to PC of Bukovsky by Russian "security services", while another Russian agent simultaneously tipped off EU law enforcement, i.e. it was a classic "disinformation and influence operation". That certainly could be added. But again, the subject is mostly notable as a Soviet dissident, book author, a prisoner of Psikhushka and a "hooligan" exchanged for the Luis Corvalán. Everything after that is of low significance. It is worth mentioning, no doubt, but should not consume a lot of space. My very best wishes (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
It is worth noticing that a "new" account [23] has been specifically created to include this content to this page, in addition to doing this. My very best wishes (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Dear My very best wishes, let me remind you again, that Wikipedia is NOT the place for racism ([24]) and/or pedophilia advocacy (WP:CHILDPROTECT). W4r5a7w4r (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree that WP:DUE is the relevant policy here. Clearly Bukovsky isn't known for these charges laid against him, so they shouldn't take up such a large portion of the article. With that in mind, I've made a compromise revision which I'd like you to review: [25]
In my first edit, I added 4186 characters of readable prose. My latest revision is less than half the size, with just 1996 characters. Please let me if you are satisfied by the changes I made or you think further work needs to be done. Thanks – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 02:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I can see a few issues. First, after reading this text, it is not clear if he denied the allegations or admitted them. I understantd he actually denied them, even tried a hunger strike. This should be clarified. Secondly, the second para does not add much except repeating very same allegations over and over again. Finally, based on the book by Gertz, this maybe something related to the Litvinenko inquiry, a significant story mentioned just above on the page. Hence, this probably needs to be placed in the same section as the first mentioning of the inquiry. My very best wishes (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
it is not clear if he denied the allegations or admitted them
Well, both. According to the prosecutor, Bukovsky admitted to the crimes upon his arrest. He later denied producing prohibited images. Both facts need to be included for a full understanding of the situation and for balance.
That he allegedly admitted to the crimes was made clear by the second paragraph which you removed. The second paragraph also included information on the nature and severity of the alleged crimes.
If you believe that well-sourced information deserves to be removed, please explain why. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 00:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I think it was explained already. (a) The subject is notable for completely different things, hence, this story deserves only a brief mentioning on the page. (b) He has not been convicted of anything, but only accused. (c) The accusations are included on the page. Should we include a lot of additional details on claims that have not been supported in the court and denied by the accused? Yes, maybe, if this was a page about a criminal case or the person was known primarily for being a subject of the criminal case. But this is not the case here. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
(a) I have addressed this concern by shortening the section as much as possible while maintaining crucial information. (b) What are you responding to here? I never said he was convicted. He died without the trial concluding.  (c) I'm proposing to include information provided to the court that was widely covered by reliable sources. This information isn't already covered by the current version article as I explained in my previous comment.
Since I don't foresee us coming to an agreement on any of this, I'm going to request input from other editors. We both agree that WP:NPOV is the relevant policy, so I will request input on WP:NPOVN.
Here is a version of the article that I find acceptable, and here is a version that My very best wishes finds acceptable. Thanks – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 00:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
There are only two differences in these versions: (a) you make his death a part of child pornography accusations (this is not a good idea), and (b) you include short second para that repeats info from the first para or at least does not add much. I am surprised you are making a big deal of this. My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I would rely on NYT article [26] because it places the case into proper context. The false pornography accusations are frequently used by Russian "special services" to discredit dissidents [27], [28] (see the case of Yury Dmitriev). Others are lured to "honey traps" [29], [30] or just caught on tape. My very best wishes (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Dear My very best wishes, let me remind you, that pedophilia and pedophile advocacy are prohibited on Wikipedia. See WP:CHILDPROTECT for details. Your actions are in clear violation of this policy. You are cleary suggesting (in cases of Bukovsky and Dmitriev, both confessed pedophiles) that sexual relationships with children are not harmful to them. If you continue your pedophile advocacy and whitewashing activities you will be reported. W4r5a7w4r (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I came here from the WP:NPOV noticeboard. As far as I understand the dispute is regarding the weight given to the child pornography charges. I'd suggest looking at recently sources that describe his whole life. For example the Telegraph's obituary dedicates 5 out of 25 paragraphs to the child porn charges. We should analyse additional sources like that obituary and dedicate approximately the same percentage of the article.
Other than that, the current version has a couple of issues
"lawsuits were later dismissed" can mislead the reader. When I first read it I thought that the lawsuits against Bukovsky were dismissed which is not true.
The viewpoint that he was a victim of the FSB smear campaign appears to be given undue weight in the article. Note that the Telegraph (hardly big fans of Russia) do not mention it and just say that an expert said that the images were put on the computer by Bukovskiy himself.
Alaexis¿question? 21:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, according to the prosecution, he placed the images, and we said it. But he did not, and the prosecution was wrong - according to the book IWar: War and Peace in the Information Age by well known Bill Gertz. He did not say it was "possibly" an operation by Russian secret services. He said it as a matter of fact and included this as an example to his book. I do not know how he came to such conclusion, but he did. We should prefer strong secondary sources like the book by the well known investigative journalist that was published long after the events. We also know for the fact that his guilt was not proven in the court. The lawsuits - yes, that can be easily fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
You might put your complete faith in Gertz's book, but our job is to present all opposing views in a balanced way. The large number of reliable sources describing how Bukovsky admitted the crimes to detectives should not be whitewashed. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 17:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
@My very best wishes your argument would be stronger if you showed that other RS take this version seriously. Alaexis¿question? 20:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in Alaexis! Doing a deeper analysis on the the obituary you linked, 17.6% of the content is discussing these charges (1475 out of 8372 characters). On the other hand, my preferred version of the article has just 5.7% of the content detailing the charges (1826 out of 32017 characters).
Would you support restoring the content in my preferred version? I believe it is a more balanced description of the situation and will resolve both of the problems you raised. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 17:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
It looks better than the alternative but I'm a bit hesitant to support it unequivocally. I suggest analysing more sources of similar nature. Then your case would be much stronger.
Btw I wouldn't place it in a separate section, it can be a subsection in the Post-Soviet Union activities section. Alaexis¿question? 20:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Even if I thought this content should take up an even smaller proportion of the article (I don’t), the solution isn’t to cherry pick sources to present Bukovsky in the best possible light; we still need to present a balanced view of the topic. I have already condensed the section as much as possible, so my preferred solution would be to expand the rest of the article to compensate. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 21:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, of course we should select the best available sources, books in this case. This is not "cherry picking". If you have other books as RS on this subject, please use them. My very best wishes (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
OK, I re-included the claim by prosecution that B. initially admitted having such materials on his computer. However, given that he later denied everything, I do not think we should describe in details what he allegedly initially said according to the prosecution. A significant percentage of wrongful convictions have occur when people admitted everything during the initial interrogation by police, even though they did not do it. There was no conviction in this case. My very best wishes (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for demonstrating good faith by restoring some of the disputed content. While I think there are additional details that should be included, I'm satisfied by the current revision and won't push the issue. Cheers and happy editing – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 02:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Why is a whole paragraph given to his claims of an FSB conspiracy theory? "Hackers implanted the images", really? Give it a line, sure. But the section on him being found with the images, with images in process of being downloaded, his claim they were "research", and the High Court throwing out his libel lawsuit should be expanded upon and given more weight than his claims of a conspiracy theory. Not to mention the source for his claims is Radio Free Europe and a single book. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

While Bukovsky did claim that his computer was hacked (hence whatever he allegedly said before hardly counts), the claim in the book by Bill Gertz about the same is completely independent. Bill Gertz did not say "I think so because this is what Bukovsky said". He says it was hacking as a matter of fact. I do not know how he came to such conclusion, but he did, and we simply cite it as possibly the most reliable source on this subject, a book by a well known investigative journalist. My very best wishes (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
"Bill Gertz did not say "I think so because this is what Bukovsky said""
That sentence is contradicted by this sentence: "I do not know how he came to such conclusion"
If you don't know how he came to such a conclusion, why are you sure it wasn't because of what Bukovsky said?
"as possibly the most reliable source on this subject,"
Why? He seems to be the only one who says it. Bukovsky admitting himself he had downloaded the images as part of research, police finding thousands of photos and Appeals Court throwing out the libel claim are evidence enough that it wasn't hackers who implanted the images. It makes the "FSB agent" theory a conspiracy theory as there is no evidence of FSB involvement. That is why giving a whole paragraph to it based on Bukovsky's statement and a single source seems like giving undue weight to a fringe theory. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 04:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
As a note of order, the book by Bill Gertz does not say that it was work by the Russian FSB, unless I am missing something. It implies this could be any hackers associated with Russian state security services, which are many. My very best wishes (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Whatever the book claims it does so without evidence, as far as I can tell. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 04:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, we just say what RS say on the subject. Bill Gertz is a reputable and well known investigative journalist, right? The book in question is iWar: War and Peace in the Information Age by him and published by Simon & Schuster. It is about disinformation operations by Russia and other countries. The book says it was definitely one of such operations. What else do you possibly need? You are making your own analysis here. "He [Bill Gertz] seems to be the only one who says it". No, Bukovsky said the same, it was discussed in the article by NYT [31], etc. It says:

This is how NYT describes it. If you think our page should follow more closely the NYT article, then OK, we can do it.My very best wishes (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
"Bill Gertz is a reputable and well known investigative journalist, right?"
So? For comparison, Dr. Robert Schoch has a Masters and PhD in Geology from Yale, yet Sphinx water erosion hypothesis is considered a fringe theory. Just because one expert says/claims something, doesn't mean that it's true or that it should be given undue weight in the article. Furthermore, Bill Gaetz is a journalist, not a police or computer forensics expert. The NYT article is careful in its wording. It mentions kompromat and takes statements from Russian dissidents, but not once does the NYT article say in its own voice that Bukovsky is a victim of kompromat in the child pornography case. They only say Bukovsky plead not guilty to the charges. "Pleading not guilty means that you say you didn’t do the crime. Or that you did, but you had an excuse which the law recognises as a defence."
Take a look at all these WP:RS:
"Soon before the inquiry began Cambridgeshire police raided Bukovsky's home. They found images of child porn on his laptop."
"There is no evidence that indecent images of children found on a Russian dissident's computer were remotely placed on it, a court has heard." and "Cambridge Crown Court heard Mr Bukovsky's computer was examined by Dr Howard Chivers. He said the evidence supported the view the images were placed there by the user and not by a third party."
"But when the case was opened in December 2016, Cambridge Crown Court heard that when police knocked on Bukovsky's door he immediately told the detectives he had the images."
"The Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky downloaded thousands of indecent images of children over a 15-year period, most of them featuring boys, a court has been told." and "William Carter, prosecuting, told a jury at Cambridge crown court on Monday that Bukovsky's computer was identified during an operation by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre." and "Bukovsky, who was expelled from the Soviet Union in 1976, told detectives he had indecent material, the court heard. "He [Bukovsky] responded immediately by saying he did download images and that they would be on the computer in his study," Carter said."
"Jenny Hopkins, Chief Crown Prosecutor for the CPS in the East of England, said: "Following an investigation by Cambridgeshire Police, we have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to prosecute Vladimir Bukovsky in relation to the alleged making and possessing of indecent images of children. It is alleged that, collectively, the images meet the definition of categories A, B and C, as defined by Sentencing Council Guidelines." Is the Crown Prosecution Service part of the Russian hacker-FSB plot?
"A Russian dissident accused of possessing thousands of indecent photographs of children said he was doing research, a court has heard."
"When his trial opened the following December, a computer expert said he was confident the images had not been put there by anyone other than Bukovsky, and in an agreed summary of his interview with the police read to the court, Bukovsky claimed that he had been researching the images and videos out of "social" curiosity and not for sexual gratification."
"No, Bukovsky said the same,"
Bukovsky also said he downloaded the images as part of "research" into censorship and that initially he didn't see anything wrong with what he was doing because the children looked like they were enjoying it. Why do you choose to ignore his initial police statements in favour of later statements he could prepare with his defense attorney?
"If you think our page should follow more closely the NYT article, then OK, we can do it."
Your sarcasm and snide remarks don't change the fact that the consensus among WP:RS is: 1) he downloaded the images in the course of a 15-year period; 2) he initially didn't hide the images from the police and admitted to downloading them as part of "research", 3) court/police forensics didn't find any evidence that the images were planted there.
Please read WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 19:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
No sarcasm, I am serious. No, there is absolutely no consensus in sources that any statements you mentioned (1,2,3) are true. This is something that prosecution claimed but has been emphatically denied by the accused. Once again, that was well summarized in the article by NYT:
 My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
"This followed a prosecution request for more time to review an independent forensic report on what had been found on Mr. Bukovsky’s computers and how an unidentified third party had probably put it there."
Yes, and this report was done.
"Dr Howard Chivers, a former GCHQ employee, examined Bukovsky's computer and told the Cambridge Crown Court that the evidence supported the view that the images were placed there by the user, not by a third party."
Your reason for moving my edit is not good enough. The source does not need to refute or criticise the book, as the paragraph isn't about the book. The paragraph is about the claim that the images were placed by a hacker. The edit+source directly contradicts that claim by a computer expert who was hired by the court to examine Bukovsky's computer, therefore it is appropriate where it is.
"has been emphatically denied by the accused."
His initially admitted having the images and said they were for research. What reason do you have to believe that he was lying when the police arrested him, but telling the truth years later?
"But when the case was opened in December 2016, Cambridge Crown Court heard that when police knocked on Bukovsky's door he immediately told the detectives he had the images."
"A Russian dissident accused of possessing thousands of indecent photographs of children said he was doing research, a court has heard." TurboSuperA+ (☏) 22:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
He entered the non-guilty plea. Hence, he officially admitted nothing. Quite the opposite. As about the hacking, yes, the initial quick examination of the computer by a single expert did not find any proof of hacking. However, as NYT says, prosecution request for more time to review an independent forensic report on what had been found on Mr. Bukovsky’s computers and how an unidentified third party had probably put it there. I do not know what exactly they found if anything (the case was postponed and closed), but there is a book by Gertz published later that claims it was indeed a hacking. My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Gertz is a journalist, not a computer expert. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest Gertz examined Bukovsky's computer. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 22:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
You are making things up. No one said that Gertz examined Bukovsky's computer. My very best wishes (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Then how could Gertz possibly know whether a third party placed those images on Bukovsky's computer? Why should Gertz' opinion be given equal weight as expert testimony? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 04:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
We don't require that journalists (or indeed any other reliable source) reveal their own sources. For the purposes of Wikipedia, it doesn't matter how Gertz knew, only that he published it in a source we consider reliable. MrOllie (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
So one source outweighs 14 others? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't agree that that is a fair characterization of what's in the article, so I can't accept the premise of that question. MrOllie (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@My_very_best_wishes
You are giving too much weight to Bukovsky's denial and a single book published by a journalist. In this revision [32] you say you want to present the controversy chronologically, yet you make two glaring mistakes: 1) he wasn't accused first, his house was searched and images found, then he was charged/accused; 2) you cite a source from 9 December 2016 after a source published on 13 December 2016.
You also ignore that an expert did look at Bukovsky's computer and found no evidence of hacking by saying prosecution was waiting on the expert.
More text and space is given to the book by Matt Gaetz than any of the other WP:RS.
This is WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:POVPUSH. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Since you posted at WP:FTN about this, I will comment here that I disagree with your assessment almost entirely. I personally find this subsection just fine, actually very balanced and neutral in its presentation of information. I do not see any WP:POVPUSH, the denials are given a relatively small weight that is far from WP:UNDUE, and I cannot see how anything here qualifies as WP:FRINGE. On a side note, I think you could be a bit more courteous here, you are opening a new section immediately after a discussion with the same user above, only to summarize your criticism and throw policy acronyms at them. They are an experienced user, they know these policies. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 13:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
122 words are used for the claims supported by 14 WP:RS. Meanwhile, 143 words are used on the denial and hacker conspiracy section that has 3 sources, one of which is RFE/RL where most editors agree "some restrictions apply". If you look at the cited RFE/RL article, it fails to mention that images were found on Bukovsky's computer, and seems to push the Russian hacker conspiracy theory (which the courts rejected, because 1) images were downloaded over a period of 15 years; 2) images were being downloaded when the police searched the house, and 3) the court expert examined the computer and found no evidence of third-party tampering.
Furthermore, Bill Gaetz book was published by Threshold Editions, a conservative publishing house that published books by Glenn Beck, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney.
More weight is given to Bukovsky's POV and the Russian hacker conspiracy theory than the 14 WP:RS that disagree.
WP:VOICE "Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view."
The Russian hacker/Bukovsky's view has very little support in WP:RS. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
There are so many things that I think are problematic here that I hesitated to answer, and you also evaded most of what I said as well, but I will still try. It is not only about the raw number of RS, since they can all repeat each other. Moreover, guilt by association for a publishing house is an incredibly weak argument. Additionally, nothing was proven in court, there was no trial. And then, you throw yet another policy acronym, even though there is no obvious violation of it again. I have read the entirety of this talk page and am strongly in support of the section as it is at the moment, for all the reasons that have been mentioned above. I am starting to think that POVPUSHing is indeed happening, but it seems to be coming mostly from you at this point. Bringing this article for the exact same thing to a second noticeboard in two weeks looks like WP:FORUMSHOP to me. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 14:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
"It is not only about the raw number of RS"
Enlighten me, what is it about then? How do we determine "consensus among WP:RS"? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Since I see that at this point you are clearly cherry-picking and would rather be argumentative than try to reach any form of consensus, I will just restate my opposition to the changes you want to make and be on my way until someone feels like weighing in. Have a nice day. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 14:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
@TurboSuperA+. Speaking on my edit, "1)" - no, he was accused as a matter of fact; "2)" - no, I did followed the chronology because the book was published much later than the claim was made by the police expert. Here is the actual chronology: Bill Gertz knew about the claim by the police expert, but apparently came to a different conclusion. Once again, if you have any sources that criticized the book by Gertz, you are welcome to use them. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I've fixed the chronology.
"The prosecution requested for more time "to review an independent forensic report on what had been found on Mr. Bukovsky's computers and how an unidentified third party had probably put it there"." 9 December 2016.
"Dr Howard Chivers, a former GCHQ employee, examined Bukovsky's computer and told the Cambridge Crown Court he believes the images were placed there by the user, not by a third party." 13 December 2016
I am happy with the article now. If you leave it as is, I'll consider the matter taken care of and won't comment on it further. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 20:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
That is not how things work. You do not get to unilaterally change the article in the middle of a content dispute and declare that things are settled, when it is clear that your view does not align with consensus. I have manually reverted, please do not do that again. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 20:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
What is wrong with my edit? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
At this point I am going to point you to WP:DR, because I think that page (and a few of the pages linked there as well) could help. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 21:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
"If your dispute is related to the application of a specific policy or guideline, you may wish to post in one of these noticeboards"
That's what I did, and you accused me of forum shopping. It is obvious that you will do anything except engage with the argument or the sources. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
@TurboSuperA+. No, you are making incorrect chronology. "Dr Howard Chivers, a former GCHQ employee, examined Bukovsky's computer..." He examined the computer soon after it was confiscated. Right? We are talking about the timing of the actual event and the actual claim made by Chivers. But the book by Hertz was published only much later. Correct? My very best wishes (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
"Right?"
No. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This section is incorrect, because it suggests that an independent forensic report was never carried out, by saying "prosecution requested for more time "to review an independent forensic report". The "but the case was halted." is not supported by the cited source, MOS:EDITORIAL
The NYT article cited for the information was published on 9 December 2016. A BBC article on 13 December 2016, states "Cambridge Crown Court heard Mr Bukovsky's computer was examined by Dr Howard Chivers." and the BBC article adds at the end: "The trial continues." Therefore, a source from 9 December cannot be cited for "the trial ended" when a source from 13 December states the trial was still ongoing. The trial was "halted" on 14 December 2016.
I want to remove "but the case was halted." and add the report of the court-appointed expert who examined the computer, so that the section looks like.

This is both supported by WP:RS and chronologically consistent.
@My very best wishes @Choucas Bleu Please tell me if you have any objections to it and what they are. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Swapping the order of the sentences like that suggests that Chivers (mentioned in the BBC) is the same as the 'independent forensic report' mentioned by the NY times, but that does not seem to actually be the case. MrOllie (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
"Swapping the order of the sentences like that suggests that Chivers (mentioned in the BBC) is the same as the 'independent forensic report' mentioned by the NY times"
That is precisely who he is. Note that the BBC article states Dr Chivers is a "former GCHQ employee" who has his own private cybersecurity firm. He is in no way affiliated with Cambridgeshire police, therefore he is the independent expert. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Doesn't pass the smell test. Chivers didn't produce a report saying 'how an unidentified third party had probably put it there' so it is obviously not the same report. Experts retained by the prosecution commonly have businesses and have other jobs, that does not make them 'independent', and I can find no source which calls Chivers 'independent'. MrOllie (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Dr Chivers is the independent expert who testified that the pictures were not placed by the third party.
He is independent because he doesn't work for Cambridgeshire police or for Mr. Bukovsky, this makes him independent.TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Please read the quoted section again. We're talking about a report that said the opposite. And this claim of independence is WP:OR on your part - the sources do not say that. MrOllie (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Which report are you talking about? Please link it. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
The report described by the NY times. MrOllie (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Here is another WP:RS, that also has the timeline of events.
"Claims the Russian state may have been part of a hack to plant indecent images of children on the computer of a dissident living in Cambridge have been rejected at his trial.
"A computer expert who has worked for GCHQ said he was confident the images had not been put there by anyone other than Bukovsky."
"Dr Howard Chivers, a lecturer at the University of York, examined five discs of files recovered from Bukovsky's hard drives at his home in Cambridge."
Please note the important sentence: "Claims the Russian state may have been part of a hack to plant indecent images of children on the computer of a dissident living in Cambridge have been rejected at his trial." TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
The prosecution and their expert witnesses commonly reject the defense's theories, that's not unusual. We'll never know what the judge or jury would have rejected or not. MrOllie (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
NYT article doesn't substantiate their "independent forensics report" or say who wrote it, or when. Meanwhile Dr. Chivers is a court-recognised computer expert, WP:RS call him a "computer expert".
This isn't going anywhere. I will wait until more editors weigh in on this. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I'll quote from what I wrote above: We don't require that journalists (or indeed any other reliable source) reveal their own sources. MrOllie (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
NYT article was published on 9 December 2016. The trial was postponed until 12 December 2016. On 12 December 2016 Dr Chivers, the "computer expert" testified that it was Bukovsky who placed the images there.
Look at the sheer volume of images found on Bukovsky's computer: "The charges related to making or possessing more than 19,000 still images and more than 8,700 films of child pornography."
That should probably be mentioned in the wikipedia article, as well. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
None of that is in any way responsive to what I've been saying here. MrOllie (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
It means the NYT "report" was dismissed and rejected, because of the testimony of a "computer expert". A court expert is considered "independent" in the courts in the UK.
Let us wait for more editors to weigh in on this, as you are not interested in compromise or engaging with the sources. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
None of that is a reason to conflate two different expert reports. I'm interested in making sure that the sources we have are not misrepresented in the article. MrOllie (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I am not conflating them. I am saying that the court-accepted testimony from Dr Chivers, an independent "computer expert" trumps/supersedes the NYT article's "independent forensics report". That is why including Dr Chivers testimony after the mention of the NYT article is appropriate.
You are right that the two "experts" shouldn't be conflated, as Dr Chivers is the only expert to give testimony at the trial. Meanwhile, nothing came of the NYT "independent forensics report".
Dr Chivers examined Bukovsky's computer for third-party tamperint and found "the evidence supported the view the images were placed there by the user and not by a third party."
Consensus among WP:RS is that there was no Russian hacker conspiracy.
As a compromise, instead of adding information, I would also be OK with removing this sentence: "The prosecution requested for more time "to review an independent forensic report on what had been found on Mr. Bukovsky's computers and how an unidentified third party had probably put it there", but the case was halted."
In any case, the paragraph cannot remain as-is, but it has to be changed somehow. How it is changed, I am willing to work on it to reach a compromise. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
We have no idea what might've came of the NYT "independent forensics report", because the trial was suspended. You're drawing a lot of conclusions that simply do not exist in the sources. That's no basis for making changes to the article, so I of course oppose such a removal. MrOllie (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
"You're drawing a lot of conclusions that simply do not exist in the sources."
"Claims the Russian state may have been part of a hack to plant indecent images of children on the computer of a dissident living in Cambridge have been rejected at his trial."
Nowhere does it say "Prosecution rejected it..." The article states in their own voice that Bukovsky's claims were rejected "at his trial".
Please find where in the sources it says that the prosecution rejected his claims, to support your claim "The prosecution and their expert witnesses commonly reject the defense's theories," That is WP:OR on your part. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
The article describes exactly who rejected it. Cherry picking the preface to that is not the slam dunk you seem to think it is. MrOllie (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
"The article describes exactly who rejected it."
Then you won't have trouble finding a citation. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Sure! It's the same one you got the quote from. MrOllie (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Please find a quote from WP:RS that supports your claim: "The article describes exactly who rejected it."
Until then I am going to back off from this discussion, as it is not productive. You refuse to provide ant quotes, WP:RS to support your claims. I am tired of this.
As I said, let's wait until more editors weigh in on it. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
It's the whole section of the article, which I will not reproduce here due to copyright concerns. Feel free to read it again on your own. MrOllie (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:GAMING. Please stop wasting my time. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
@TurboSuperA+. No, I think your version is a distortion. The official charges against him were made in April 2015 [33]. By that time, Dr. Chivers, the expert-witness for the prosecution, has examined the confiscated computer already, as clear after reading these sources. How could they make the charges without an expert examining his computer? Please quote any sources that say he did not. The sources in April 2015 [34] say ""Following an investigation by Cambridgeshire police". The sources name only Dr. Chivers as their investigator. My very best wishes (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't see a mention of Dr. Chivers in your two sources.
Dr. Chivers, as it says in the BBC article is a former GCHQ employee who has his own cybersecurity firm. He is the independent expert who doesn't work for Cambridgeshire police.
"Please quote any sources that say he did not."
That is not a serious request, it isn't up to me to prove a negative.TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
You can put it in italics, but none of the sources refer to Chivers as 'independent'. MrOllie (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
"Dr Chivers, a former worker for British intelligence's listening post GCHQ, runs a cyber security company."
"Dr Howard Chivers, a lecturer at the University of York, examined five discs of files recovered from Bukovsky's hard drives at his home in Cambridge."
Dr. Chivers is not employed by Cambridgeshire police, nor is he employed by Mr Bukovsky. He is a court-recognised "computer expert".
Please read what a "court expert" is:
"An expert is independent of the parties to the proceedings and should not be seen to usurp the role of the advocate in the proceedings by seeking to make submissions to the court"
"The key factor to expert evidence in the UK is independence." TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Please read WP:SYN. MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
This isn't a case of WP:SYN. UK sources don't need to say that he is independent, because experts are considered independent in UK courts. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
That's a profound misunderstanding of how the system works. Somebody wrote a cheque to pay for Chivers work, and it wasn't 'the courts'. MrOllie (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Do you have a source to back that up? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes! I'll post it when you post the one that directly refers to Chivers as 'independent'. MrOllie (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:GAMING. Please stop wasting my time. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Ditto, my friend. MrOllie (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Since you are now re-posting replies on multiple threads, I will refer you to my answer on WP:FTN, TLDR: please stop WP:BLUDGEONING these discussions, and WP:DROPTHESTICK. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 17:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
This is the 2nd or 3rd time you have accused me of breaking wikipedia policy without contributing to the discussion. WP:CIVIL TurboSuperA+ (☏) 18:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, it is clear that no one agrees with your version above. My very best wishes (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
For the record, My Very Best Wishes, formerly known as Biophys is a tireless, known vandalizer of articles on the Soviet Union across several examples, several times criticized by others for his vandalism and bad faith edit wars yet never punished. Some examples of his vandalism and bad faith editing have been documented here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-D2AX2a5SmE
As such, it is not surprising to see that I’ve stumbled on yet another example of him doing the same here. I believe My Very Best Wishes should be investigated for page vandalism at this point, and I will undertake whatever process is necessary to propose such an investigation be done by the admins. Letdown101 (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Letdown101, I am going to WP:AGF and assume that you mean well, so let me explain a few things. In short, your message is completely inappropriate for several reasons. First, you are posting in a thread that has been inactive for half a year, not engaging with it at all, but instead throwing personal attacks at one participant. Second, please read WP:NOTVANDAL, as whatever you are describing is not vandalism. Third, if a long-standing editor with tens of thousands of edits has never been sanctioned, this has more chances to be because they did not deserve to be (which is likely in the case of edit warring since it is a pretty clear-cut "offense") rather than a conspiracy taking place. Fourth, if you do think something was missed, it's not the role of "the admins" to investigate, it's yours to gather evidence and to present it to the community. The way this is done is by posting a message on WP:ANI, containing WP:DIFF as evidence, and not a random YouTube video. Now, you are free to do that, but I strongly encourage you to think twice before doing so as it is quite clear you are not yet familiar with how things are done here. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 12:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
'Random youtube video', i.e. a video that is literally in part about My Very Best Wishes as an individual. There is literally nothing on the internet less 'random' that I could have provided. Letdown101 (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Your UBXhitlist explains your intellectual dishonesty. You don't care about wikipedia rules, you care about ensuring anti-American and anti-Israel countries are demonized as much as possible.
User:Choucas0/UBXhitlist - Wikipedia Letdown101 (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)