Talk:Dadvan Yousuf

Billionaire

According to blick news, dadvan is the youngest selfmade billionaire in switzerland. But actually there is no self made billionaire in the world who isnyounger than him. 213.55.220.228 (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

General quality of this article, including neutrality of speech

The qulity of this article is very lack luster. Firstly the language is in some sections currently rather colloquial than factual with phrases like "He bought 10 Bitcoins for €15 each and has been trading in Bitcoin ever since.", "...and was refused the diploma because his grades where way too bad." or the use of adverbs like "nevertheless". Generally the artical as a whole does not read like a Wikipedia entry and more like a continoulsy updated biography with some personal opinion sprinkeled in.

In addition, the phrase should be more like "Yousuf claimed to have bought 10 Bitcoins..." as some sources claim that the way he said he bought the bitcoins was not possible at that time. Factual statements with unchecked facts shall be avoided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.254.85.102 (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of personal opinion and the neutrailty of speach, although one might dismiss Dadvan Yousuf, his actions and claims, Wikipedia is obligated to keep a neutral style of speach and editing. For example phrases like "This is most likely a lie! given the requirements to study at this institution." (Including the displaced exclamation mark here), "Yousuf states in a video on a crypto platform that he has a license from the financial market authority Finma. That's not true, as Inside Paradeplatz reports (...)" or the absolutly horrendous sentences "At the time the video was shot, he was already in the SRO process. Hence the mention of Finma. To claim he was supervised by FINMA was nevertheless another lie by Yousuf." do not belong into any article.

And finally the formating is also rather off. Although this article describes aliving person, for which new information will appear over time, the inclusion of "February 17, 2022: <<Update>>" tags followed by a describtion of what happendend is not the style Wikipedia propagates. Althgough this style might make the inklusion of new facts easier, this update chain will at some point break the article and miss all chanches at maintaining a coherent red thread running through the text.

Until the neutraility problem is fixed i am adding the POV tag to this article. The other two issues are not overly severe, but it would be nice if someone could clean up this article. TeflonAnti (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Controversy

I don't understand, why my contributions to the section Controversy were deleted as they are well sourced and the sources are given: FINMA, an official Swiss authority and a report of SRF, the official public service broadcaster, citing the words of the official prosecutor. SispotirruT (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a sock puppeter removing negative coverage, I have reverted to the last clean version. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I have requested the page be protected, which has been done. — Trey Maturin™ 17:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2023

Hi I did an edit of this article, which I fnished 22:38 14 July 2023. But the controversy content was removed by this 'sock puppeter'

The following important information about Dadvan Yousuf in the controversey section is still missing in the article at the moment. Please implement it again:

---

The Swiss regulator FINMA concluded its proceedings against the Dohrnii Foundation and Dadvan Yousuf May 2023.[13] FINMA found that the Dohrnii Foundation, together with its founder, acted as a group and that they:

a) seriously violated supervisory law by unlawfully operating as a securities firm and

b) acted as financial intermediary without autorisation.[13]

According to FINMA Dadvan Yousuf accepted public deposits as a private individual without authorisation and furthermore did not comply with the cease-and-desist order during the investigation, but continued his activities.[13]

The foundation is currently being liquidated by the competent bankruptcy authority.[13]

Swiss Radio and Television SRF reported May 2023 that the public prosecutor's office in Bern has opened criminal proceedings against Dadvan Yousuf. He is suspected of professional fraud. He is alleged to have embezzled money. The public prosecutor's office of the canton of Berne had already started preliminary investigations in the case of Dadvan Yousuf. After further investigations, it has formally opened a criminal investigation on May 3 2023. Yousuf is suspected of "multiple commercial fraud, in part possibly embezzlement, in part possibly unfaithful business management." [14]

---

[13] https://www.finma.ch/en/news/2023/05/20230517-mm-dohrnii-stiftung/ [14] https://www.srf.ch/news/wirtschaft/krypto-king-strafuntersuchung-gegen-dadvan-yousuf SispotirruT (talk) 07:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. The same issue with using the {{Edit COI}} template applies when using the {{edit semi-protected}} template (see discussion marked "Reply 28-JUL-2023" below, for more information). Regards,  Spintendo  23:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

General information about this article:

section started by a block evading proxy user

-Enforcement proceedings by FINMA were never for money laundering but for supervisory provisions - FINMA is exclusively responsible for supervisory law and has closed enforcement proceedings in June 2023. -Authorities in Bern did not open criminal investigation because of money laundering, but there were preliminary investigations of the public prosecutor's office because of MROS reports of the banks because of money laundering. The criminal investigation of the Canton of Berne is about unfaithful business management. 94.200.195.18 (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Revisions Wikipedia Page: Dadvan Yousuf

section started by a block evading proxy user

What I think should be changed: The following three paragraphs: 1. "Dadvan Ismat Yousuf Yousuf (born April 9, 2000) is an Iraqi businessman. He made headlines in Switzerland as claimed the youngest self-made billionaire through bitcoin investments.[1][2]" 2. "As of 2023, he is currently under criminal investigations, primarily for money laundering and fraud activities by the Public prosecutors office of the Canton of Bern.[3][4] His Dornii Foundation is being investigated by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) for unauthorized activities, such as operating without a license. The mandated investigator is the Swiss law firm Vischer AG.[5][6][7]" 3. "In early 2023, it became public that Yousuf may have financial issues, due to the ongoing investigations of the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA). It was reported that he has several unpaid debts, such as hotel invoices in extent of 80,000 Swiss Francs (approximately $85k) for stays at the DolderGrand in Zurich, Switzerland. Additionally there are outstanding collections of several service providers such as of a Rolls-Royceealership, City Judge Office, cab companies. Yousuf argued that the FINMA blocked his accounts which resulted in payment difficulties for him.[27][28]" Why it should be changed: 1. Dadvan Ismat Yousuf Yousuf (born April 9, 2000) is an Iraqi businessman who has made headlines in Switzerland for his Bitcoin investments. According to reports in the Blick newspaper in Switzerland, he has been dubbed as the youngest self-made billionaire in Switzerland. The claim in the Wikipedia article that Dadvan Yousuf called himself a billionaire is accordingly not true but was the Blick.ch magazine. 2. In 2023, Yousuf was the subject of investigations by various authorities. The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) conducted an enforcement procedure against the Dohrnii Foundation, which he had established. In the process, the foundation and its founder were found to have engaged in unauthorized business activities in the crypto sector without having the required authorization from FINMA. The Dohrnii Foundation was subsequently liquidated. Yousuf was reprimanded by FINMA for unauthorized deposits from the public and unauthorized activities as a financial intermediary. FINMA's decision has since become final and cannot be appealed. The claims in the Wikipedia article that the Foundation of Dadvan Yousuf is currently under investigation and the mandate is with Vischer AG are false, as the enforcement proceedings of FINMA ended in June 2023 and Vischer AG accordingly no longer has a mandate. Furthermore, the public prosecutor's office in Bern is not investigating Dadvan Yousuf for money laundering in its criminal investigation, as mentioned in the Wikipedia article, but has The Bern public prosecutor's office initiated investigations in spring 2021, after MROS received a corresponding SAR. On 03 May 2023, the Bern Public Prosecutor's Office then initiated a formal criminal investigation for possible embezzlement as well as partial possibly unfaithful business management. 3. The section is based on only one source, InsideParadeplatz. Wikipedia places great emphasis on using reliable and independent sources to ensure that the content is factual and accurate. Inside Paradeplatz is not an accredited online medium and has published contradictory, false or incorrect statements and articles very often in the past. Currently InsideParadeplatz is in various legal disputes, as the financial blog itself also reports. If the mentioned section is based on only one source, this is considered insufficient evidence to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): [Source: <https://www.blick.ch/wirtschaft/frueher-fluechtling-heute-superreich-dadvan-yousuf-ist-der-juengste-selfmade-milliardaer-der-schweiz-id17151361.html>] [Source: < https://www.20min.ch/story/strafuntersuchung-wegen-betrug-gegen-krypto-king-dadvan-yousuf-eroeffnet-695923644434>] [Source: <https://www.nau.ch/news/wirtschaft/finma-rugt-krypto-stiftung-und-deren-grunder-66496936>] [Source: < https://insideparadeplatz.ch/2022/12/19/cs-geht-aufs-ganze-monster-klage-gegen-ip/>] [Source: <https://www.persoenlich.com/medien/credit-suisse-halt-an-der-klage-fest>] [Source: <https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/pfeifen-und-choleriker-warum-die-credit-suisse-gegen-einen-blogger-vorgeht-287390316034>] 94.200.195.18 (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC) References Reply 28-JUL-2023   Discussion required   Disputatious issues ought not to be resolved through the COI edit request feature, a feature which is primarily meant for COI editors to propose nominally controversial edits to be reviewed by a neutral third party editor. Edit requests involving overtly controversial proposals such as the ones proposed here are not recommended for use with the {{Edit COI}} template. The process of content dispute resolution needed here should begin with a discussion of the issues with local editors on the talk page. To that end, the requesting editor is invited to continue the discussion below. That action may be followed by any of the subsequent dispute resolution strategies listed under WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. Regards,  Spintendo  17:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Hello Spintendo; If I understand you correctly, I now have to write to other editors here on Wikipedia in their talk section and ask if they would be so kind to bring this article back to neutrality? I cannot change this article due to a conflict of interest. I have made very objective suggestions to make the article neutral again and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. 94.16.122.222 (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC) References This is obvious block evasion from the socker who led to article protection Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kanimultan. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC) This is not a block evasion to get around something, but a request to restore the neutrality of this Wikipedia page. I have already made constructive and factual suggestions that comply with Wikipedia guidelines - please stay constructive. Please suggest how we can find an amicable solution - currently there is a lot of misinformation in this Wikipedia page which I have pointed out. 217.165.4.209 (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC) @217.165.4.209 Thank you for your reply, and I appreciate your concern in wanting to improve the article. As long as an editor is working in good faith and not undertaking any sort of block evasion, they are welcome to continue trying to develop consensus for these changes here on the talk page. The reply I gave was concerning use of the {{Edit COI}} template, which is normally used to call for the assistance of a single editor to review and make changes to an article. Because the requested changes here involve especially controversial topics, a much broader consensus would be needed to make these changes, more so than any single editor acting on their own to answer the edit COI template could partake in. To garner consensus here, a good place to begin for an editor acting in good faith would be to consult one or all of the various Wiki Projects listed at the top of this talk page. I hope this helps to explain the issue better. If you have further questions or concerns about this, please don't hesitate to ask. Regards,  Spintendo  22:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC) Hey Spintendo, Thanks a lot for your reply! I've been watching both this talk section and Dadvan Yousuf's Wikipedia page as a silent observer for quite some time. I care a lot about restoring the neutrality of this article to 1) not spread false information about a person and 2) restore neutrality. I noticed the following; At every feedback with sources to this talk section or page (like yesterday), everything is deleted directly by the user Squared.Circle.Boxing. Thereby the user Squared.Circle.Boxing refers to the fact that one would not edit for a blocked user - which was never the case here. It is not possible to make changes that have been competently researched if everything is directly deleted by users like Squared.Circle.Boxing. What can be done about it? Whoever wrote just a spark of neutrality in this talk section was directly blocked. 2001:8F8:1D32:D922:9574:E66B:ACFD:FB9C (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC) Come off it, do you think we are stupid? you are obviously evading the blocks on User:HaLIHianl et al. Lavalizard101 (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC) Let's get one thing straight, Mr. "I'm not evading a block, these IPs and new accounts just so happen to behave in the same way, edit the same way and hold the same views as me", I couldn't give an actual fuck about this article. I don't know who the subject is or even what he's apparently notable for. The only appeal this article has to me is a funny first name. Nothing is being directly deleted. 1) You. Are. Evading. A. Block. You're not welcome to edit until you get your original account unblocked. 2) You keep adding the same questions over and over. Evading your block or not, your childish spamming of the same shit over and over again will be removed, over and over again. WP:CIR much? If you continue with your disruption I'll simply request the page be protected. Go away. You're not welcome to edit. – 2.O.Boxing 10:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC) Hi @Spintendo, How can we have a normal conversation if @Squared.Circle.Boxing is deleting everything from different useres in this talk section? (Even this message will be deleted most probably) 2.48.63.14 (talk) 10:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC) The above IP, if not the blocked editor causing all this pettiness, is a meatpuppet acting on the blocked editor's behalf. Take everything they say with a pinch of salt. – 2.O.Boxing 10:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Contacted off-wiki to edit this article

I was contacted by someone who represents Dadvan Yousuf and this person asked me to clarify issues that he evidently has with this article. I have no formal, legal, financial, institutional, etc. relationship with him or anyone in his camp. Can someone help me understand what the content issue is here? (Note that the sockpuppeting issue is clearly a problem and not one that I am trying to probe.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there even notability here? I'm looking at the article history, the page creation moved to mainspace with this version is a bit questionable also with 4 sources. The amount of COI to where editors are getting contacted off-wiki? Red flag regardless of the issue with the article. – The Grid (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

That may well be the case re: notability, but I'm just trying to see if anyone involved in the above kerfuffle can summarize. I have no horse in this race, but I do want others to feel like Wikipedia isn't some impenetrable bureaucracy or black box where things just happen and you can't know why. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. WP:BUREAU spells it all out. – The Grid (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm involved in the kerfuffle. There were a bunch of new accounts clearly socking removing negative information that was sourced claiming "WP:NPOV", that lead to the article getting protected then an older account gaming autoconfirmed came in and continued removing said negative information calling it "false information" and "diffarmation" that account got blocked for obvious socking. The kerfuffle moved to the talk page with a bunch of proxy IPs which were clearly the same person evading a block trying to get the negative information removed via edit requests, then yet another new account (which tried denying that it was an obvious sock) popped up trying the same thing on the talk page, the IPs and new account were being reverted per WP:EVADE and were also spamming those involved talk pages with the same stuff (literally using the same messages with accounts and IPs). Because of the wide IP proxy ranges involved the talk page was protected and the account blocked (note the account was also trying to game autoconfirmed at the beginning with 10 article edits of the same nature as the previous autoconfirmed sock). see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kanimultan for more details on the socking. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

In summary negative information that was sourced is being removed by socks (ie.e the content issue is that negative image that is sourced was being removed in an apparent attempt to whitewash). I'm guessing seeing as the representative contacted you to clarify issues it was them that was behind it. If so tell them that it would be easier on them if they stopped using IPs and creating new accounts and go to the oldest/master account Kanimultan and request an unblock (most likely after six months of no edits via new accounts or IPs per WP:SO) discolse their COI/PAID relationship only once the oldest/master is unblocked will discussion of the edits on this talk page be feasible. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for being both thorough and concise. It's hard to see a path forward that meets his expectations for this article. So assuming good faith when the person has a conflict of interest (difficult, but not impossible), and he's not just looking to remove all negative claims, but he has a few reasonable requests that I think I can address here and in the article text.

And just to reiterate, he and I have no prior relationship, nor have I accepted, suggested, demanded, or expected any kind of quid pro quo for editing and he has read my user page that explicitly states that I do not edit for pay, so there is no conflict of interest with me editing this topic. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

To outline the changes I have made (an ongoing comment that I'll revise):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dadvan_Yousuf&diff=1170286694&oldid=1169962983 Minor edits per WP:ALT and WP:DASH. These do not impact the actual text of the article.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dadvan_Yousuf&diff=next&oldid=1170286694 I removed an unsourced claim, per WP:BLP, WP:OR, and WP:V. Note that biographies of living persons are held to a particularly high standard of sourcing, particularly for contrversial statements.

I hope this clarifies my edits and my motivations. Edits related to living persons and legal claims or issues really need to have the strictest scrutiny and it's unfortunate that there are several rounds of back-and-forth here. That said, while the subject of the article is clearly biased, I think he's genuinely interested in having an accurate article and understands that editors here cannot act as agents on his PR behalf, but are bound by community policies and guidelines. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Request in Teahouse

Hello everyone,

I want to bring your attention to a matter regarding this article. More than a year ago, I made a couple of minor edits to this article since I reside in Switzerland and the subject is a controversial figure in the media.

Today, on August 10, 2023, an anonymous user on the Teahouse topic ("Contradictory statements in article") alerted me to revisit this article and ensure its accuracy.

Consequently, I have communicated with another user @Qcne who has been involved in the discussion. I've told him to review the current information in the article and update it if necessary.

I've requested @Qcne to work closely with me to verify and update the information in the article. As a starting point, I've noticed that some information appears to be missing. I will begin conducting research to address this.

Thank you for your attention and cooperation. VioKleraBam (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling the anonymous IP is another sock? Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

August 10 updates

Hi all

I have hopefully cleaned up the article to acceptable standards, after all the preceding drama with the sockpuppets. I have:

- re-added a line about the controversy in the article lead.

- removed education details which was lots of primary sources from an interview, and did not seem relevant.

- cleaned up the sources for the 'billionaire' statement.

- cleaned up the Forbes 30under30 and Foundation statements to make them less promotional.

- massive re-write of the controversy section sticking just to the facts and updating it with the latest information.

Would appreciate a lookover by you, @Lavalizard101. Let me know if it reads better? Qcne (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Koavf, I re-added the sentence on the dissolution of the Foundation which you removed (rightly) as it was unsourced. I neglected to add a source when I first wrote that article- must have missed clicking the Insert cite button. Hope that's okay. Qcne (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Thumbs up emoji. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Qcnejust saw that you are main editing here.

Please feel free to add to the wiki article Dadvan Yousuf that he is no longer CEO of Dohrnii Foundation since February 24, 2023.

Source is in German and reputable - information is missing in the article.

Quote Source: ,,Dadvan Yousuf, the founder of Dohrnii, is stepping down from his posts at the crypto-education platform with immediate effect, the company announced Friday. However, he will remain with the project as a representative, it said. In this position, the crypto millionaire will focus on innovation and long-term corporate strategy, it added."

HonneyMooney (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @HonneyMooney. Done. Qcne (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Here is another suggestion: In the article you wrote that Yousuf joined the board of Crowdlitoken.

However, Yousuf has not only joined the Board of Directors, but according to public information, Yousuf is a co-owner and CEO.

Quote Source 1: ,,Multiple crypto millionaire Dadvan Yousuf took a stake in Crowdlitoken as of October and now also heads operations as CEO, according to an release on Friday."

Quote Source 2: ,,Can a new CEO fix it?

Possibly, yes. With Dadvan Yousuf, Crowdlitoken has a CEO and co-owner on board who knows his way around the world of cryptos, blockchain and tokenization. Yousuf sums up his FinTech formula with the following reflection:"

In addition, a not insignificant result was achieved, provable with different sources, and to mention in the interest of the general publicquote. Quote:,, CROWDLITOKEN acquires property with new CEO Dadvan Yousuf.

worth 5.65 million Swiss francs"

Sources: 1,2, 3 HonneyMooney (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - I see no evidence of Dadvan on the crowdlitoken.com website. Qcne (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Everyone is removed since months - just 2 employees are on the website. HonneyMooney (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Look's like no employees anymore -> still fact for past. HonneyMooney (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The current phrasing is fine. Qcne (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Any maybe you should change ,,Bitcoin investments" to ,,Carrier" - since the topics have nothing to do with Bitcoin investments. HonneyMooney (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. What connection you have to Dadvan- you're almost certainly the same user as all these sockpuppets. Is Dadvan telling you to make all these changes? Are you slowly trying to make the article promotional? Qcne (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I am a DHN Investor - this article have nothing to do with beeing or becoming promotional - at least it should have some real facts. For example the source for money laundering is incorrect - the article have nothing to do with money laundering And all other articles that mention Yousuf with money laundering have in the article that the prosecutor's office has never opened regular proceedings for money laundering - please fact check. HonneyMooney (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've lost all your investments.

Thanks for pointing out the money laundering source, I have changed it to a source that does state that.

The Public Prosecutor's Office statement has two relevant sources. Qcne (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I dont like to bring up information about Investemens in general, but of course i hope the whole market recover very soon. HonneyMooney (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Revision 1171498745 was negligent and copied controversial text from the "Controversial" section of the page without justification - please restore to previous version. 176.204.81.191 (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The justification is that it should be in the WP:LEAD. Qcne (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Sry but it looks more like you have a personal interest in this here - which is damn weird.

I ask you to restore order, otherwise I will contact administrators - what u are doing is not was wikipedia is for. 2001:8F8:1D24:691D:8F:B844:5BDB:AB1 (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

If you would like a dispute resolution, see WP:DISPUTE. Please feel free to follow one of the processes there. Qcne (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Dude, you are clearly exploiting your power. I see your edits in this article and your biased opinion of the person. Please change the controversial text back to the controversial section. This is not about badmouthing people, but staying factual.

No front. Thanks! 2001:8F8:1D24:691D:8F:B844:5BDB:AB1 (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned, if you'd like to go down the WP:DISPUTE avenue please do, I won't be responding further. Qcne (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Dude, i ask u to put the controversial text in the controversial section. No need to go down in - it's a normal askig. 2001:8F8:1D24:691D:8F:B844:5BDB:AB1 (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Repetitive mentions

Investigations are mentioned repeatedly in the first section & under Career.

217.165.4.209 (talk) 08:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 10:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Delete repeated content in this article. 217.165.4.209 (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Not done: the "lead" (the first section above the contents box) is supposed to be a summary of the main article, so should only include things that are also in the main body. - Arjayay (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The lead seems to be biased. Also, it is spoken of companie(s), plural. On the Internet, however, I could only find a so-called Dohrnii Foundation, which was investigated by the Financial Market Authority of Switzerland. The Foundation had only issued a token which the Authority classified as a security. No further suspicions were substantiated there. 2001:8F8:1DD8:99ED:EC51:F54B:B271:3691 (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd ignore the IPs, the IPs are socks one of which was used back in the July socking. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Article is provided with appropriate sources.

Article is provided with appropriate sources. If you have a different opinion, please consult the talk page 176.204.76.111 (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Indefinite ECP

As an uninvolved administrator, I've placed this article under indefinite ECP under WP:GS/Crypto due to what looks very like extensive commercially-motivated sockpuppetry - David Gerard (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2024

Please change "In 2004, the family was granted refugee and moved to Ipsach." to "In 2004, the family was granted refugee status and moved to Ipsach." Zitronengelb (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)