Talk:Yonatan Sompolinsky

notability violation

This article is a clear violation of notability. Yonatan Sompolinsky is significantly less notable than many other scientsts who do not have a Wikipedia entry. This article only exists to promote a small crypto project. Other than that, the article is self-contradictory: it attributes GHOSTDAG to a 2021 paper (while omitting one of the authors, Wyborski), though a quick Googling shows the paper existed in preprint form since at least 2017.

This reads more like a promotional piece than encyclopedic coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-52184-89 (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Dear new user ~2026-52184-89 who created an account on 28 September 2026, with no edit history or contribs other than vandalising this Wikipedia page, and no substantiative evidence - - you are in violation of Wikipedia's vandalism policy. Yonatan Sompolinsky's page was copy edited, reviewed and approved by offical Wikipedia volunteers and members of the AfC group, including Pythoncoder. This article is written in neutral language, I am the author. As a show of good faith and common sense, the article was updated to reflect that the GHOSTDAG paper was updated and published in 2021 including Wyborski as a contributor. I thank you for this feedback. This is not a promotional piece, it is encyclopedic coverage. If you believe there are other scientists who deserve a page and meet requirements like Yonatan Sompolinsky's page, then you are free to allocate your time and energy by creating a page and contributing to the Wikipedia community in constructive ways, with your newly created account. Please refrain from vandalism on Yonatan Sompolinsky's page to avoid a reportable temporary or indefinite block. Thank you. N2sinn (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

This is definitely a promotional piece, and it is not your place to independently "resolve" an article marked for dispute.

The paper is still chock full of factual errors (e.g. GHOSTDAG is not an acronym for anything), but is mostly just hyping a marginally significant computer scientist. His h-index since 2021 is 9, which essentially means he has made very little contributions in the last five years (three papers with 17 citations in total), and the ones he did make were largely unnoticed. Most of his citations seem to be inherited from his adviser Aviv Zohar. Out of his 4709 citations, only 17 are from papers without not published with Zohar. If he doesn't publish anything new (or get some citations on his trickle of recent work), his 5-years h-index will drop to 2. A person who rode the coattails of his adviser and hasn't published any significant work since cannot be portrayed as an active computer scientist.

I also went and checked what Kaspa is. Seems to be yet another crypto project with little to no impact outside the cryptocurrency bubble. It's followers swear by its ingenuity, but that's true for all crypto projects. If that's Sompolinsky's most significant contribution then the exposition here is definitely unfitting. Again, there are many people who are much more accomplished both as researchers and as tech leaders who are not fitting for a Wikipedia article.

And regarding my user: it is my experience that criticizing articles about crypto (and esp. crypto founders) invites brigading, so I prevented this in advance. That doesn't make me a vandal or invalidates my critique. Stay on point. ~2026-52184-89 (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I went over the article again to make sure I'm not exaggerating, but it just gets worse. For example, I looked into the "award", and it seems to be some corporate popularity contest determined by X polls, not something that should be listed as professional recognition. Maybe you can create a "controversies" section and move his refusal there.

The statement about Ethereum implementing a version of GHOST "adapted for proof-of-stake" in 2015 doesn't make sense either, as Ethereum only converted to proof-of-stake in 2022. These are just comments by someone who doesn't know or care a whole lot about cryptocurrencies. I'm sure if you approached someone who is actually knowledgeable they could point out a lot more problems.

All in all, this page falls below Wikipedia's standards in notability, reliability, and quality.

I also kindly remind you that removing dispute tags independently is a severe violation of Wikipedia rules. Once a page was put for dispute, there are exact terms under which the dispute could be considered resolved. If the dispute mechanic is abused, it's up to the admins to lock the articles. It's not your call to decide what disputes are worthy of community discussion.

My revert

My edit summary here was incorrect. I was restoring the AfD reviewers comment, not decline. That being said, this article is full of LLM slop.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:56, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Dear @Ponyo, I appreciate the attention to this article. And I thank the AfD review @Pythoncoder for their responsiveness. However, with great respect, the article is not full of LLM slop. While it is true in March the page creator initially used an LLM to generate a very small amount of text for the page, I have since rewritten and continue to edit the entire article. All content is self written by me and is original. Furthermore, I use a local Word Document for composing and brainstorming of ideas when writing. As evidenced by the page history I have spent considerable days working on this article. I would appreciate claims and messages of LLM use to be reconsidered. Thank you. N2sinn (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

AfC Submission and removal of comment

Dear @Pythoncoder,

A big thanks to @Nononsense101 for editing Draft:Yonatan Sompolinsky with a major ce. If you have further actionable suggestions for how the article can be improved, I'm all ears!

@Pythoncoder May I please request the removal of your red links comment from the article? It makes me feel deflated every time I see it, given the considerable work undertaken since the page creator abandoned it.

N2sinn (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@N2sinn While I generally don’t remove a comment outright unless I feel I was incorrect in adding it originally, I have added another comment to clarify how the situation has changed since my first comment. Hope this helps —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:20, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Pythoncoder

N2sinn (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2026 (UTC)