A fact from Tornado Cash appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 October 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.
With respect to any reverting restrictions:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cryptocurrency on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that Tornado Cash, a cryptocurrency tumbler, was blacklisted by the United States Department of the Treasury for allegedly allowing criminals to launder more than $7 billion in virtual currencies? Source: “The Treasury Department on Monday prohibited Americans from using the cryptocurrency platform Tornado Cash, saying the service has helped criminals launder more than $7 billion of virtual currencies.” The New York Times
The article is currently at 1360 characters readable prose (it needs 1500), and it has a citation needed tag. @Thriley and PabloCastellano: This must be addressed first. Hook looks interesting, but ping me when the other issues are fixed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: you have a fair point. I missed that detail. Perhaps this ALT1. I also note a "How it works" section with no sources has been added, and @Thriley and PabloCastellano: need to fix that. I have found a source [1] that is not a Forbes contributor, so you can add it for this ALT1. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. ArXiv is a preprint server that performs only loose checks for whether its papers are on-topic, not a full peer review. As such, publications that exist only on arXiv are not generally considered to be reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the concern here is sourcing, unfortunately. I tried to bolster the weak spots with additional refs, but...there really isn't much more to say. Honestly, it might be time to mark this nomination for closure. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find it nonsense and I won't spend time arguing with Wikipedia librarians or other users (lesson already learnt). The dusting attack is real and can be documented by simply using any Ethereum block explorer or analytics platform as references. Are they welcome in Wikipedia? I guess no. I'm afraid we won't see this kind of news anytime soon in websites that are not specialized in cryptocurrency, and thus, they are invalid references for Wikipedia. I'm moving on. Thanks for your time and good will, Sammi. --PabloCastellano (talk) 09:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is the issue that there are no reliable sources from before the August news? Currently the article is 2190 characters and reads ok. Thriley (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93: They seem to have lost interest, so I'll take over. I added some reliable sources found through ProQuest to substantiate some of the information in the lead, and added two independent sources to the Functionality section. None of this has substantially transformed the prose of the article, I believe; the added sources to the Functionality section mostly paraphrase the whitepaper anyway, for example. Approve ALT0a as interesting and directly sourced. DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
nytimes.com. See WP:RS for details. Also note that due to past disruption this topic area has special rules. Restrictions about the use of blogs and other crypto-focused sites are diligently enforced - you will find that crypto sites generally cannot be used as sources. MrOllie (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New York Times is not really talk about cryptocurrency. And sincerely, the whole article is almost sourced from crypto news websites and should be deleted that way.
In fact the New York Times has already written about this project - it is cited in the article. After the shutdown of the official sites, we have no reliable sources verifying that 'Tornado Cash accounts' are actually representatives of this project. Instead we have reliable stories discussing hackers successfully compromising what's left of the project's voting structure. We're not going to be able to use anything self published at this point. MrOllie (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The official on chain mirror wasn t shut down. Article is inconsistent. How something that supposed ceased to exist and was completely destroyed can still be destroyed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.66.26.199 (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hack was later partly rolled back by the hacker.[edit]
Though, as a disclaimer, I was involved in mitigating the hack at the time it happened and got some hacker s details from an exchange. 82.66.26.199 (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What should be changed is the fact it wasn’t discountinued and still exists since it’s still being used . Using those 2 sources after the sanctions you should now recognize that it continues to work on it’s Ethereum based (instead of web based) mirror `tornadocash.eth` (registered on the blockchain before the sanction) which is listed as the official site by the first official twitter account.
The article states that development has been discontinued, and that is true so far as the sourcing we have is concerned. Lots of software continues to work after development is interrupted. We still cannot use twitter or blogs as sourcing. MrOllie (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except the software is a specific web service. About deployed versions, you should recognize the current de-facto Policy on Wikipedia for sofware releted articles is to self source.
I fail to see why even MediaWiki is allowed to self‑source the version deployed on Wikipedia and Tornado Cash wouldn’t be allowed to self‑source it’s deployed frontend. Especially since like Tornado cash there aren’t tertiary sources for proving https://lists.wikimedia.org/ is an official website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:e0a:401:a7c0:e027:7636:494c:a61 (talk • contribs)
We obviously can't follow the 'de-facto' anything here, because software development is typically not interrupted by government blacklists and criminal cases. Instead we will rigorously follow content policies and use reliable sources, as required both by the situation and the special standards required by Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies. - MrOllie (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. The 'de facto' policy on Wikipedia, as far as more or less anything cryptocurrency-related is concerned, is deep scepticism about the reliability of any sources that in any way promote the stuff. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There’s a difference between being promotional and implying users should go to see competitors whether because the website got hacked or sized by the government using an unsourced claim that is wrong. The edit that changed the state of development was brought by 1 of the users who tried to advertise his fork. You reverted only its last edit.
I’m not asking for the version number to be updated at the end, but just to leave the development state unwritten since there’s no source about it in both cases (though a 2 years old version should give an idea to users).
Development was never halted as 1 of the original developers (not the founder) continued to work it before being fired. Though, most of the work now includes code for avoiding censorship so that if development had truly halted it would had been impossible to use it like Bloomberg articles stated (the last version on GitHub relied on a centralized data provider and does no longer works).