Jump to content

User talk:Sandstein

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

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

  • Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.
  • If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: [[example article]].
  • If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.


Start a new talk topic


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafal_Rohozinski

[edit]

Multiple citations on Wikipedia and notable activities in publications and contributions to cyber security, digital freedom, digital rights, digital humanism, across academia, entrepreneurship, and activism are suggesting that the weak delete in 2021 should be reversed and original page restored or new one added. The original page (via wayback machine) is looking like it was written from a LinkedIn entry, which may have been contributing to poor notability. 135.23.117.48 (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide the WP:THREE best sources that (now) establish that person's notability? Sandstein 20:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Original Wikipedia page provided evidence of notability, original reviewer did not realize Rohozinski was a principal investigator and author for the many of the studies that were noted. Also missed that Rohozinski was involved in shape and Canadian cyber security policy as well as through membership in significant Boards, including the defence industries, Canadian, international council, and Estonian E-Government Academy. [1]
2. Open Net Initiative [2], and Information Warfare Monitor [3]- were foundational projects for digital rights and Internet freedom, and Psiphon remains major company in Internet Freedom. Rohozinski was the principal investigator and responsible for the projects. All other principal investigators for the ONI andf IWM are listed in Wikipedia because of the notability of these projects and their impact- John Palfery, Ronald Deibert and Jonathan Zittrain - but not Rohozinski even though he is acknowledged as the person who was responsible for the intellectual and methodological work behind these projects. Rohozinski and Secdev were also responsible for the Ghostnet report [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GhostNet</ref> (see report cover and list of authors) even though attribution is now popularily misattributed solely to the Citizen Lab.
3. Rohozinski separately identified as top 10 luminary in cybersecurity in 2010. [5] and by Forbes in 2014 [6] Also well known as public figure in Canada [7]
4. Rohozinski's academic work has received over 4,900 citations according to Google Scholar. His most cited publication, "Stuxnet and the Future of Cyber War" (2011), co-authored with James P. Farwell, has received over 460 citations and has been identified as the most cited cybercrime research published between 2000-2023.[8]
5. Multiple publications since 2021:
The Chaos Trump Unleashed Is Just Getting Started: The US is entering a revolutionary moment. No one knows how it ends
[9]
The US is entering a revolutionary moment. No one knows how it ends
[10]
America’s young digital natives are reformatting the country and its institutions [11]
The Brutalist Web: America’s digital dominance is becoming a geopolitical weapon.
[12]
The missing ‘cybergeddon’: what Ukraine can tell us about the future of cyber war
[13]
How the Internet made nuclear war thinkable (again)
[14]
The tragedy of Vladimir Putin and Russia
[15]
Five possible scenarios in the Ukraine-Russia war
[16]
The dark side of digitalization – and how to fix it
[17]
6. Continued work supporting Tibetans, targeted by Chinese cyber espionage (digital rights work)
Deputy Speaker Dolma Tsering Teykhang Meets CEO of Zeropoint Rafal Rohozinski [18]
There is more.. 135.23.117.48 (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for the three best sources. Please limit your list to three. Please reat WP:THREE. Sandstein 06:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to WEAK DELETE - Case for Notability Based on Three Independent Source Categories**
The original deletion review appears to have overlooked substantial evidence of notability that meets Wikipedia’s standards for three good in-depth references in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of each other and of the subject . The following three independent source categories, when considered alongside the original article content, demonstrate clear notability:
    • 1. Recognition as Founding Principal Investigator of Notable Digital Rights Organizations**
Rohozinski served as principal investigator for the Open Net Initiative and Information Warfare Monitor - foundational projects in digital rights and Internet freedom research. The notability of these organizations is evidenced by Wikipedia articles for co-investigators John Palfrey, Ronald Deibert, and Jonathan Zittrain. Rohozinski’s role as intellectual architect of these projects’ methodologies is documented in multiple independent academic sources. He was also principal investigator for the GhostNet investigation, a significant cybersecurity discovery covered extensively in independent media.[19]
    • 2. Independent Recognition by Major Media Organizations**
Third-party recognition includes identification as a notable cybersecurity expert and coverage by Forbes (2014) as a cyber policy expert to follow.[20] These represent independent editorial decisions by established media organizations with no direct connection to the subject.
    • 3. Scholarly Impact Through Independent Academic Citation**
Google Scholar records over 4,900 citations of Rohozinski’s academic work, with his most cited publication “Stuxnet and the Future of Cyber War” (2011) receiving over 460 citations. This demonstrates sustained scholarly attention from independent researchers across the cybersecurity field.[21]
The original reviewer appears to have missed that Rohozinski’s involvement in shaping Canadian cybersecurity policy through board memberships (Defence Industries Canadian International Council, Estonian E-Government Academy) and his continued prominence through recent publications in major outlets further support notability through independent, third-party recognition. The original Wikipedia article[22] documented these achievements before deletion.
These three categories of independent sources - organizational founding roles, media recognition, and scholarly impact - collectively satisfy Wikipedia’s notability requirements when evaluated against the deleted article’s documented evidence. 174.91.112.32 (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you for the three best sources establishing notability. What you provide above are not sources. Since you have disregarded my request, I will not respond further. Sandstein 13:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'Mea Culpa. This is my last try at this. I'm not a regular contributor to Wikipedia and I fully acknowledge and own the fact that I didn't understand the instructions and did not post what you had requested with the degree of accuracy that was required. My previous apology was erased, but I am including here again. I understand that the role of Wikipedia to provide a public good, so my only motivation and providing a request to correct this deletion was to acknowledge the fact that this particular individual shows up across multiple Wikipedia entries, but does not seem to have one of his own. If that's not good enough reason to reinstate, then I will honour the editorial decisions made by those who contribute more to Wikipedia. However, I would ask that my error in how I presented the request not be the reason for disregarding this request. Rather, I would ask that it's addressed on its merits. Consequently I'm going to repost the three sources - in the format that they should have been posted in the first place and would kindly ask for consideration, recognizing that you've already spent more time on this request than is reasonable and required.
3 Sources for Notalbility
1. Principal Investigator and lead on GHOSTNET - first documented case of a Chinese cyber espionage network that published on the front page of the New York Times and subsequent articles SOURCE: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/science/12cyber.html
2. Established as leading advocate for digital rights - and leader of multiple notable projects with entries on Wikipedia: OpenNet Initiative, Information Warfare Monitor and Psiphon. 'SOURCE: https://ottawacitizen.com/news/rafal-rohozinski-a-warrior-against-cyber-armageddon
• 3. Established Author with HIGH CITATION on Cybersecurity. SOURCE: “Stuxnet and the Future of Cyber War” <href>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00396338.2011.555586</href> (one of most cited articles on Cybersecurity between 2014-2023 -- 1632 citations). 135.23.117.48 (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In my view, these three sources do not suffice to establish the notability of Rafal Rohozinski.

  • Source one is reliable and independent, but mentions Rohozinski only in passing by quoting him twice. The article is not about Rohozinski at all, but about broader issues of cybersecurity.
  • Source two is better, because it is to a large degree about Rohozinski, even though it is largely a condensed version of an interview, which is more of a primary rather than a secondary source.
  • Source three is an article by Rohozinski himself, therefore not independent of him, and therefore useless for notability purposes.

We have therefore only one source that is somewhat useful for establishing notability. However, per WP:GNG, "multiple sources are generally expected", and in this case we have only one relatively brief newspaper interview. This is in my view clearly insufficient. I therefore decline to restore the article. Sandstein 14:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your consideration. 135.23.117.48 (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I may ask a follow up question. I was doing research on this individual because of their participation in a number of notable digital rights initiatives and project. They appear in multiple Wikipedia pages, but there's no entry for them. I accept that they do not meet the notability standard you laid out above, but is there some other method short of creating an entry where people can be redirected to find out more information about this individual, their work and publications? What would be the proper way of doing this in Wikipedia? 135.23.117.48 (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can try to determine whether anything he is involved in - his company, his inventions - are notable enough for an article. The standard is WP:GNG. Sandstein 17:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to waste more of your time here, but your last comment sent me down a rabbit hole. I conducted a quick review to investigate when Rohozinski was removed from Wikipedia and found that both he and SecDev were deleted in the same month (December 2021). The revision includes a soft delete of SecDev - which was the company most associated with Rohozinski after Cambridge University and which anchored most of the notable projects that still have Wikipedia entries.
What strikes me as anomalous is that the entries for the notable projects, inventions, and events associated with both subjects have remained on Wikipedia, despite the deletion of the principal figures who led these activities. The removal targeted only Rohozinski and SecDev, not the other entries, despite evidence that Rohozinski was either a principal investigator, author, or co-author of the publications and led many of the activities that continue to have Wikipedia articles.
This editorial decision seems inconsistent with maintaining accuracy, as the projects retain notability while their primary architects were removed. A review of WP:GNG suggests both subjects clearly satisfy notability requirements.
I would greatly appreciate your guidance on the appropriate way to proceed. Based on my review, both subjects appear to meet WP:GNG criteria with substantial independent coverage from reliable sources. I have a few options and would value your experienced perspective on which approach would be most constructive:
1. Discuss the notability evidence here on your talk page first
2. Create a well-sourced stub article and let the community evaluate it
3. Take no action if you believe the previous deletion decisions were appropriate
I'm happy to defer to your judgment on this matter. My interest stems purely from encountering what appeared to be an editorial inconsistency during research, and I'd like to contribute positively to Wikipedia's accuracy while fully respecting community standards and processes.
What approach would you recommend? I'm committed to following whatever guidance you provide.
Thank you for taking the time to consider this question. 135.23.117.48 (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the good thing about Wikipedia is, deletions are not permanent. If you can address the reasons for which an article is deleted, you can always recreate it. If you think any of these topics are notable, you can recreate the articles with new sources, or submit a draft to WP:AFC for review. But I have neither the time nor the interest for looking into this particular set of articles further. Sandstein 06:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have been more than patient. Thank you very much for engaging, and your guidance. 135.23.117.48 (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20211221061901/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafal_Rohozinski
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenNet_Initiative
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Warfare_Monitor
  4. ^ https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:6d1260fd-b8ee-4a11-8a5f-e7708d543651/download_file?file_format=application%2Fpdf&safe_filename=Gh0stNet.pdf&type_of_work=Report
  5. ^ https://www.scworld.com/feature/top-of-the-heap-2010s-it-security-luminaries
  6. ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardstiennon/2014/04/07/20-cyber-policy-experts-to-follow-on-twitter/
  7. ^ https://ottawacitizen.com/news/rafal-rohozinski-a-warrior-against-cyber-armageddon
  8. ^ https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=q6WLYugAAAAJ&hl=en
  9. ^ https://thewalrus.ca/americas-great-unravelling-has-begun-what-comes-next/
  10. ^ https://thewalrus.ca/americas-great-unravelling-has-begun-what-comes-next/
  11. ^ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-americas-young-digital-natives-are-reformatting-the-country-and-its/
  12. ^ https://medium.com/centre-for-international-governance-innovation/rafal-rohozinski-the-brutalist-web-ff1f26167b04
  13. ^ https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/survival-online/2022/03/the-missing-cybergeddon-what-ukraine-can-tell-us-about-the-future-of-cyber-war/
  14. ^ hhttps://en.interaffairs.ru/article/how-the-internet-made-nuclear-war-thinkable-again/
  15. ^ https://opencanada.org/the-tragedy-of-vladimir-putin-and-russia/
  16. ^ https://www.ipolitics.ca/2022/03/07/five-possible-scenarios-in-the-ukraine-russia-war/
  17. ^ https://www.weforum.org/stories/2020/09/dark-side-digitalization/
  18. ^ https://tibet.net/deputy-speaker-dolma-tsering-teykhang-meets-ceo-of-zeropoint-rafal-rohozinski/
  19. ^ "Tracking GhostNet: Investigating a Cyber Espionage Network". Oxford Research Archive. University of Oxford. Retrieved 2025-06-07.
  20. ^ Richard Stiennon (2014-04-07). "20 Cyber Policy Experts To Follow On Twitter". Forbes. Retrieved 2025-06-07.
  21. ^ "Rafal Rohozinski - Google Scholar Citations". Google Scholar. Retrieved 2025-06-07.
  22. ^ "Rafal Rohozinski". Wikipedia. 2021-12-21. Retrieved 2025-06-07 – via Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

Deletion review for The Pizza Meter

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Pizza Meter. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --benlisquareT•C•E 07:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Prince Pedro Carlos of Orléans-Braganza

[edit]

Von Burgundy has asked for a deletion review of Prince Pedro Carlos of Orléans-Braganza. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 04:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am i'm scared?

[edit]

Did you just try to threaten me?

You speak like i'm getting paid for editing Wikipedia articles lol what's the worst scenario of that "sanction"? Got banned? IP exposed? computer got hacked?


I've been Wikipedia editor since 11 (2012), enjoying the status as "volunteer" without receiving anything except "joy" and "pride". Banning me doesn't bring any progress to Wikipedia, nor me. The controversy will continue. The article already been reported seven times, and it will be reported an eighth, ninth, and more to come. I wonder why you all focusing on me instead of looking at the context. The article contains numerous violations, and yet you’re upset over the use of AI-correction text? I smell something fishy.


But whatever, this is jobless behavior. Do whatever you want. idc. GogoLion (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:GogoLion- I was about to write to Sandstein to say that maybe their warning to you had been a little harsh. Then I saw your reply to Sandstein. I have been a Wikipedia editor longer than you have, and so has Sandstein, and there is no need to be rude to Sandstein. The use of a large language model is never permitted in Wikipedia, because it introduces numerous violations. I smell something fishy, and it is a large language model. You are being warned again. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is such a jobless behavior. I've never see this huge reaction over AI 😂 and all of this effort to defend the problematic article. Y'all scared that the AI exposes the full violations of the article, right? With AI, i know the full list of the violations of the article. Previously i only know that the article breaks NPOV and NOR rules. And all of this long ahh conversation just for protecting a subjective article of a PUBLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA from AI.
Nobody gets any benefit from this conversation. I don't get money, you don't get money, they don't get money. So let's just shut the F up and go touch grass.
I actually trying to stop the conversation many times btw. GogoLion (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hetero Awesome Fest

[edit]

Hi! I'd like to have Hetero Awesome Fest restored to the draft space, please. I can submit a request here if you prefer. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:43, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do; I don't usually undelete articles. Sandstein 15:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK! Thanks ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fishstick

[edit]

Saw that it was deleted. Two other editors stated there would be no issue with this being draftified (or re-draftified in this case). Would you be able to help retrieve the last version of the article or would it be easier to request a refund so I can use its contents as a baseline to keep working on the subject as a draft? Soulbust (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do request a refund; I don't usually undelete articles. Sandstein 16:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&oldid=1298625573"