Talk:Bricks & Minifigs–Reckless Ben controversy

Reminder to editors

Despite what is going on, all parties are innocent until proved guilty and it is important to keep NPOV. ItzSwirlz (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

more importantly, guilt is determined by a court but has no basis in reality. It's just the opinion of a small group of people selected on the day. ~2026-32981-52 (talk) 09:48, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Is the removed image really "righting great wrongs" material?

Referring to this edit. The image removed is obviously emotionally-charged - but it was an image used by a primary party to the controversy for the purpose of promoting the GoFundMe. I feel like that at the very least makes it encyclopedic. The "righting great wrongs" bit in the code of conduct is intended to tell editors to avoid original research or callouts made by individuals - not to avoid showing imagery directly used by parties to the subject being discussed in the article. As far as I'm aware that by all means should be permissible. ScottCarammell (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

+1 as uploader 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:27, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

+1 CaptainKablueyX (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I might restore the image later but it is currently the subject of a deletion discussionover at Commons. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 22:08, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I could also contact Ben for any details about images or any new images he might be willing to provide. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 22:08, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

It may be best for Commons:Volunteer Response Team. Issac I Navarro (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Apparently I have to do that after I reach out to Ben. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 22:14, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ben Schneider GoFundMe image.png Issac I Navarro (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Should the whole story be in a separate page?

I understand that the story is about stolen Lego sets in Bricks & Minifigures, but this entire story has spiraled into something more that it's worth having its own article than being just a header on the page. I propose making a page like "Bricks & Minifigures Lego scandal". Lizterr (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree (as seen with Roblox–Schlep controversy), how this page is more about the the controversy then the business. This page should be restructured to just be about the business while a separate page is about the controversy. I have copied the information from this page to Draft:Bricks & Minifigs–Reckless Ben controversy for the time being Issac I Navarro (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Issac I Navarro I think we should restructure the current article instead of splitting the current one, if we are to take any action at all. B&M does not appear independently notable without the contriversy. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:30, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Kepler-1229b I will look into some sources regarding WP:GNG, and for WP:ORG for B&M. If B&M meets those standards then the controversy should be split into a separate article.

Though, if B&M doesn't meet those standards then I would suggest that this page be renamed and restructured to reflect that it is about a controversy and is not a company Wikipedia page. Issac I Navarro (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Issac I Navarro I think the page is fine as-is. It now covers the company itself in some detail though if the controversy section is removed it loses notability. The controversy is not that long and covers the situation well. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 04:36, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kepler-1229b, while I agree that the page is currently more stable, the controversy still appears to be developing. If it expands significantly, I would definitely support splitting it into a separate article. Issac I Navarro (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Issac I Navarro I say we wait until the contriversy situation develops before attempting to split/convert the article. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 04:50, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I feel like having a snippet of the story in the main article linking users to the "main article" page is better. Emayeah (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Then again, the main article may not eve be notable enough for a standalone page. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 13:57, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

yeah, I wanted to say that but I pressed ctrl+enter too early Emayeah (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I do agree with your idea though if the B&M article itself is notable. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 13:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kepler-1229b, on that note, I would hope to see some more expanded section, particularly in history, that has nothing about this controversy. At this present time the article seems to be growing into more about the controversy then the business.

There are a lot of given local news publication regarding B&M, however, most are puffery about the opening of the given new location. Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

In addition, I have some concerns of WP:WI1E. Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

That is a concern I've thought about since the draft was published. We can discuss about restructuring the article. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 15:32, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kepler-1229b I view the draft and the ideal way the page should look like, to be akin to the Roblox–Schlep controversy article, which is currently rated B-Class. I believe that page provides a useful example of a controversy involving both a YouTube creator and a company.

In my view, this article should focus on the company itself, with the controversy covered in a separate article. If Bricks & Minifigs does not meet GNG, then it may be more appropriate to maintain a single article and restructure it to focus primarily on the controversy. Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I also have concerns regarding the viability of this page. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so we don't need to cover every developing story immediately. I believe it may even be too soon for any standalone article on this matter, as significant coverage has only emerged within the past few days. If the topic fails to satisfy WP:PERSISTENCE, then the article could ultimately become eligible for deletion. Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The situation isn't going away anytime soon and I project it will only grow larger as time goes on. We could restructure the page as a solution though. B&M seems to fail GNG. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kepler-1229b Should we drafty a company page and it seems we definitely need to rewrite to just forces on the controversy. Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Probably not; it would be rejected for failing WP:NCORP. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:15, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I would agree and say that a separate article about the controversy should be split off, it's gotten significant independent/reliable coverage from what I've seen. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The problem with two articles is that B&M is not notable. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:10, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kepler-1229b if we draftyed a company page for B&M it will give us the chance to just focus on this matter.

on another note the YouTuber, Reckless Ben doesn't appear notable himself, though he has appeared on multiple pages such as American Fork, Utah, Trilogy Media, Oceanwide Plaza, and McKamey Manor. If we rewrite the page to be more like and follow the Roblox page, then we could have a section regarding who Ben is. Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

We could simply refocus the article to be about the controversy, with sections explaining who Ben and B&M are. little detail is present in the current article about B&M. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:23, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Before this controversy, BAM was called "the single largest aftermarket toy reseller in the world." I really do think that makes it notable enough to have its own article. There are plenty of news articles and sources about BAM from before the controversy.

For example: https://abc7.com/post/bricks-minifigs-break-ins-thieves-target-socal-lego/14907739/

https://www.wpxi.com/news/local/lego-resale-chain-bricks-minifigs-open-first-pittsburgh-area-store/VO5L4GIVRNDKREXR75YYASLFGY/

And so on. Guylaen (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

im sad I can't contribute cause I woukd have a coi with ben JoBo Gamer 18:15, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

How are you connected to Ben? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:20, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Over at Draft:Bricks & Minifigs–Reckless Ben controversy, I put together a very rough draft summarizing who Ben is. Issac I Navarro (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

This seems fine. FYI, a Guardian article talks about McKamey Manor and Ben's involvement. This information may be incorporated into a restructured article about the controversy. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:57, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kepler-1229b While researching sources for Bricks & Minifigs, I came across several independent sources covering Benjamin Schneider that may support notability under WP:BIO and WP:BLP. I have started a draft at Draft:Reckless Ben. any thoughts? Issac I Navarro (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

This seems sufficient but I don't have time to thorougly check them. I'll publish Ben's article if I have time. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

This is legitimate controversy relating to the business, so it should have its own section on the page. If that section refers to a larger page, that is fine. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I truly believe most people will hear of bricks and minifigs for the first time like myself because of this controversy so it should at least be talked about or mentioned on the main bricks and minifigs wiki page ~2026-32945-45 (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

There might not even be a WP page for Bricks & Minifigs because it fails WP:NCORP and WP:1E. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:16, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kepler-1229b,

I looked for sources and couldn't find enough to indicate that it will pass GNG.

Is there consensus to rename and restructure this page? Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Potentially, though I think we should leave this discussion open for now. I've emailed Ben in request of an image for his article. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:46, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kepler-1229b What are your thoughts on how I restructured the page done at User:Issac I Navarro/sandbox 2 Issac I Navarro (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

The images are all over the place, but the text seems fine. We don't need too much detail on Ben, which can be covered in his own article. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:41, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kepler-1229b , I agree that the images may not be placed in the best area, though the "we steel fron old people" image in External links template seems fine. Issac I Navarro (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kepler-1229b, Furthermore, It seems appropriate to rename the page. My suggestion for the rename would be the now redirect of the proposed page split name. Issac I Navarro (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I WP:BOLD, moved the page from Bricks & Minifigs to Bricks & Minifigs–Reckless Ben controversy. Issac I Navarro (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Issac I Navarro Now that the page is renamed, you should add your rewritten version into the article. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:26, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kepler-1229b.

 Done Issac I Navarro (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I will this was pretty bold. I do not think you had consensus, but I don't think there will be consensus to change it back either. Czarking0 (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Issac I Navarro Just a quick question, did you use any form of AI to write the new article? I'm just curious. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:11, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kepler-1229b, I went ahead and used quillbot, to look at my grammar before publishing. Is there anything strange or malformed with the sentence? Issac I Navarro (talk) 01:30, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Issac I Navarro No, I've fixed any outstanding issues. Thanks for clarifying. You can have a look at Ben's article if you wish. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:31, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kepler-1229b, you seem to have done an excellent job at cleaning it up. I initially was looking for source for B&M, however not much was poping up. I was finding more for Ben, and put together something quick in the draft space. Issac I Navarro (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Anyway, I've emailed Ben for an image, but I'll expect it to take a while for him to respond given his massive publicity. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kepler-1229b, On another note. I seen that the law enforcement in their YouTube press release description has links to the body cam footage. What are your thoughts on using an image from the body cam? Issac I Navarro (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Issac I Navarro It could work if the licensing works out. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kepler-1229b, On another note. I seen that the law enforcement in their YouTube press release description has links to the body cam footage. What are your thoughts on using an image from the body cam? Issac I Navarro (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

See my response above if this isn't some kind of error 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:46, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kepler-1229b what about Commons:COM:GVT United States Issac I Navarro (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Issac I Navarro It seems fine, go for it 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:53, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Federal law enforcement? What you cited says, A work by the US federal Government is in the public domain. -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pemilligan , I am not super familiar with Utah state law that is why I have yet to upload anything to Commons. For California I know there is PD-CAGov tag and the Florida tag PD-FLGov to be used on Commons. I was looking under Commons:Category:Police bodycam footage of the United States at the tags used there and didn't see anything related to Utah. Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I have inquired at Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Copyright of Bodycam. Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Grammatical Issue and relevance of mormonism in the article.

In the "Schneider's Claims" section of the article, there is an issue with the line "He further claims that the owners of the Keizer franchise's most recent owners, Brandon Best and Joshua Johnson, along with the CEO McNeff, were all Mormons", with the owner portion being repeated twice.

Additionally, I don't really thing that the Mormonism portion of the article really belongs. It is mentioned twice in the article but is never expanded upon. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs on different religions but it doesn't seem like it adds anything here. ~2026-32525-37 (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Mormonism does play a role since it might be the cause of the police’s almost unconditional support to the “criminals”. It’s not intended to display Mormonism in a negative way but yeah. ~2026-32410-14 (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Whether or not the mormonism aspect belongs in the article is dependent on what the sources say. My search of the existing sources shows only one mentions mormon in passing it does not appear to be the most reliable source. I agree that the current sources does not indicate that the mormon issue is due. Czarking0 (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The religion ties all the people together, there's signs they are colluding based on faith.

That being said, no credible source has outright pointed out the connection yet. Only small outlets calling it a mafia. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

We should wait before any credible source starts reporting on this situation. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 05:07, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

The "Mormon Mafia" has become a phrase associated with this. As far as I'm aware, this phrase hasn't seen much use in wider pop-culture since Romney's bid during the 2016 election:

• https://www.msn.com/en-in/money/topstories/youtuber-investigating-200-000-lego-collection-dispute-sparks-mormon-mafia-conspiracy-after-fleeing-to-mexico-post-arrest/ar-AA24A1bQ Guylaen (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

In the "Reckless Ben investigation" section of the article, it mentions mormons being related. reference [19] does not even mention the word mormon, yet is used as a Reference to "mormon" in the section. That needs to be removed. (first time editing. sorry if this is wrong way to request a fix) NoseyLurker (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@NoseyLurker In a video, Schneider also pushed a theory that the police officers were protecting Johnson and Best, along with the corporate owners of Bricks & Minifigs, because they all appeared to be members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:15, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Claim with no evidence

In the Schneider's claims section, the source for `He subsequently succesfully sued the company' does not provide any evidence for this claim. Where is the evidence that Schneider (Separately, successfully is spelled wrong) won a lawsuit?

The source only states that there was a summons, not that any lawsuit was successful.

Glowingember04 (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

the lawsuit was made successfully in small claims court, after which the store in Keizer shut down, I believe one of the sources says this but I'll have to check that 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 23:50, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

In fact, to qualify for small claims court, he sued ten times, and B&M did not appear, so his team won ten default judgements. I mention this because it's just one example of the novel legal tactics he has used. These unusual details will be a challenge to cover here! Mcfnord (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, this is true. Apparently he didn't actually win the jugdgement which he admitted on a podcast. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 04:32, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

He won by default. So court win is court win. ~2026-32697-70 (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

People and organizations win cases on default judgements all of the time. No need to try to minimize it with “win” in italics. Default judgement wins are absolute, and a core tenant of how cases are firmly decided in the US every single day. ~2026-32977-25 (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

It went unchallenged, therefore it was a win. If they thought they had a defence, they could have turned up and made a fool of themselves in front of a judge.

Because of the Mormon connection, there is some doubt whether Reckless Ben could win in Utah. However, the local LDS seem to have washed their hands with Joshua over this and I suspect that many of the people who were protected from legal consequences up to this point may find themselves running out of personal favours. ~2026-32981-52 (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Is it actually true that he won the case? In answering your questions admitted that he had sued the wrong company. So his 10 cases might be invalid. --Traut (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Added videos?

External videos
I tracked down the thief who stole $200,000 of LEGO

External videos
I got arrested because of legos

Issac I Navarro (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

there is also https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IcVmSQpIPRY&pp=iggCQAE%3D Issac I Navarro (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

A primary source, which, in my view, only pretends to present a neutral point of view. but it is their refutation of accusations. ~2026-32134-66 (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I've found these two videos enormously helpful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ktgvoH4Mc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imD2U3kCZTA

They seem like NPOV-secondary sources to me, but I don't know what the official view is on YouTubers. Mcfnord (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Mcfnord See WP:VIDEOLINK. Issac I Navarro (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Also WP:YOUTUBE Czarking0 (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

There are amazingly helpful, articulate, and fundamentally NPOV videos (two above, one here) that are better than the essentially ben talking video we featuer now. Here's a third YouTube that better suits the NPOV-secondary model of Wikipedia sources:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=-W4TJLJwA-yf9Z4Q&v=OQ9hthwnDg8&feature=youtu.be

I think we should focus on third parties (secondary sources) who strive for a neutral appraisal. Our current YouTube video source (other than the police department explanation) has Ben monologuing on the youtube channel of a civil rights law youtuber, and I think there are better sources. I think it is exceedingly likely that a detailed appraisal of a skilled lawyer is likely to be our best YouTube source(s).

Update: This is about the clearest ongoing coverage of the complicated legal matter, updated again today with the severe implications of the TRO signed by a judge through an ex-parte action (a very disturbing violation of the 1st Amendment, in my view): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7cOeDEIWVo&t=318s

Update 2: NPOV-secondary analysis by a youtuber policeman of one day in particular, and police bodycam footage of the extensive car search: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPV1NiTJuAA&t=1911s

Update 3: Energetic but neutral point of view by youtube lawyer about the warrant served for lethal force: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TJC-NMfIyo&t=329s

Anyone have any thoughts about this? I think it'd be good to maybe choose the best NPOV-secondary youtube source. There are so many youtube videos about this, and only a few of them strive for neutrality based on evidence. Mcfnord (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Not a party?

At the end we say: "BAM Franchising stated it was not a party to the reported consignment agreement."

This is not relevant, but I see why they'd like you to think it is. Once I bought a house that had a lease holder. I was not a party to the lease. I still had to honor it. I think this is an attempt at introducing confusion and deflecting by the speaker. Mcfnord (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:MRDA probably applies here because of how inaccurate the B&M statements have been. They literally contradicted themselves in one of their statements. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 04:58, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd like an NPOV-secondary source to refute the relevance of this detail. Mcfnord (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

there is a reliable source which confirms that consignment is not allowed under the franchise agreement. this is relevant because it is the core issue of the whole dispute. had they not been able to claim breach of contract with the previous owner, this situation wouldn't have happened. it is not an attempt at "introducing confusion and deflecting the speaker", it is a reliable recollection of events. Knowledge, I Say In All Caps (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia! Congratulations on your second contribution.

Could you provide that source here, in this Talk section?

This discussion is already unusually complicated, and substantiating claims here will save us time.

An NPOV-secondary source claims the party now claiming this alleged franchise agreement violation authorizes taking of this property also "bragged" about the Star Wars consignment in social media posts. Is Kotaku.com considered an NPOV-neutral source?

Regardless, being a non-party to the consignment agreement is different from claiming consignment is disallowed under the franchise agreement, and neither position is a defense. A violation of the franchise agreement is not authorization to steal consigned property, which is governed by state law.

The public relations force of a multi-million dollar corporation is meeting the populist force of a large internet uprising about a matter that already brewed in a brine of astonishingly complex and novel law-related behavior for years. Buckle up! Mcfnord (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Kotaku is reliable, at least its more recent publications. It was discussed in a number of RS noticeboard discussions. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 15:30, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:KOTAKU discussed here grapesurgeon (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

This seems to be specific for sourcing to video game articles. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:00, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

They are considered reliable for video game details, but not plastic collectibles? Anyway, let's look for an additional source to substantiate the claim that the corporation "bragged" about the collection. We should probably combine their "we weren't a party" and "we don't allow" claims. Neither is a defense, but are apparently their defense. Mcfnord (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

They are reliable generally per a discussion at RSN, though I might search for more later. The latter is true. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:29, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

if the source is from BAM, it's not a reliable source. The contract itself says that consignment is permitted. If the contract is not a reliable source, they have a bigger problem. ~2026-32981-52 (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

westealfromoldpeople.com

This merch website is described in an image caption as "Schneider's company". His name doesn't seem to be anywhere on the website, though. Has he stated somewhere else that the site is his own project?

I've removed the image under WP:BLP, for now. That and the possibility that this is an unrelated person trying to sell some T-shirts off the back of the story. Belbury (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

we can verify on his video that it his is own company. although im not aware of any reliable sources. Knowledge, I Say In All Caps (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

In the video he does actually sell some shirts with his custom prints on them. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 14:12, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Belbury As a primary source, his video states that he created it. The video is linked under External videos. Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The "Message from our CEO" section of the website shows a picture of Schneider which implies that Schneider (or one of his friends) created the website. Rdgscratch is back (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

It is not an implication. Schneider made the logo and sold merchandise for the brand in part 1 of his video. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:23, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I was just pointing stuff out on the website! Rdgscratch is back (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

It's much weaker evidence than his video though 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:27, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2026

Change "buisness" to "business" in the History section, first word third line. Ulvet (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2026

in the article is stated that Ben got arrested and trespassed for doing stunts, objectively untrue, he was there to serve legal papers as required by law and even tried to make the police serve them for him (which they are legal obliged to do if asked) ~2026-32760-58 (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-32760-58 This is true and recorded in Ben's viceo, but there are no sufficently reliable sources I could find which supports this. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 14:01, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

A stunt is: an unusual, difficult, or daring action.

This article describes events at the Johnson residence that led to the trespass warning. I'd describe these as stunts:

https://afcitizen.com/2026/05/30/youtuber-arrested-twice-by-af-police-over-lego-dispute/

Do you have a better word? Mcfnord (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2026

~2026-32909-27 (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2026 (UTC) there is a warrant for his arrest. The police are lying.

I’m the one Christian working in the sheriffs office of a Mormon cesspool.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. – robertsky (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Reckless Ben Investigation - Image Caption

The caption to the image refers to “We steal from old people!” as being a slogan. However, the video considers this to be the business name, with “Bricks and Minifigs” being the notional slogan.

In substance, “We steal from old people!” appears to be intending to be mistaken for the slogan, but in legal form, it is instead the company name.

The caption as written appears to be somewhat reductive.

What is the Wikipedia ruling on areas that are different between their reality vs. legal form? ~2026-33061-17 (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

MOS:CAPTION is what you are looking for, I think. Captions here are meant to be descriptive of the image rather than offering interpretations or legal analysis. If there is anything unclear about the description of the image, please suggest a change. – robertsky (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Infobox

@Kepler-1229b: Why did you restore the company infobox? This isn't a page about a company; it's about a controversy. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

The infobox had an image. You can remove the rest but keep the image. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:04, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Patreon CEO tells Bricks & Minifigs to “sue us” after refusing to remove Reckless Ben

Jack Conte is ignoring the takedown request from Bricks & Minifigs. Paula Caniglia from Mendoza (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

legal analysis of Conte and underlying order: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7cOeDEIWVo&t=318s Mcfnord (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Has the entire Bricks & Minifigs article been replaced by this article?

I'm not an editor, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like the company itself would still be notable enough to have an article of its own? And I can't seem to find the original Bricks & Minifigs article. It could certainly still have a section on this as this is very notable and a large section of this controversy is, of course, the company. ~2026-33231-35 (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-33231-35 Bricks and Minifigs does not appear independently notable without the contriversy. The page has been moved to this location over concerns that it did not meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Furthermore there where also concerns of WP:WI1E. Issac I Navarro (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

It appears that there is/was a draft, but no third party independent sources to meet the notability requirements that Wikipedia have. Bricks & MinifigsBricks & Minifigs – robertsky (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Bodycam Video

Hiii i have Officer Adamson's Bodycam video of the raid, how can i add it to this article in the section Police response? ~2026-33235-97 (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

While an interesting primary source, I don't think this would meet the source standards of Wikipedia, where primary sources are rarely cited. An article in a well-known and neutral secondary source that speaks about the bodycam video would be a welcome source in the article. Mcfnord (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain it's linked in the "external link" section of the article. If it isn't you can add it there. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:58, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-33235-97. I have inquired at Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Copyright of Bodycam. in regards to uploading body cam footage. Issac I Navarro (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Removal from external link section

The copyright status of bodycam videos appears to be unresolved based on the discussions at Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Copyright of Bodycam. Per Wikipedia's copyright policy, we should not be linking to copyrighted materials. Additionally, if these videos are indeed unredacted, these would constitute as primary sources and also it has been reported that it contains a lot of highly sensitive info, including home addresses and phone numbers (Kotaku). This may lead to WP:BLPPRIVACY concerns. As such I have removed the links to the purported unredacted videos for now. – robertsky (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Robertsky , The link to the bodycam footage was originally posted on the YouTube video published by the American Fork Police Department. That being said, I completely agree with BLPPRIVACY concerns. The original Dropbox link contained warrants, affidavits, and other records that included highly sensitive personal information related to Schneider. Issac I Navarro (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

the original redacted videos should be fine as those are verifiably released by the police department and copyright claims can possibly be countered with fair use or that the intent was to share publicly. But the unredacted videos, despite being shared through the same Dropbox link, nothing is confirmed on the circumstances of how/who within the police department shared them. Visiting the link now, it seems that these videos have been removed. – robertsky (talk) 08:28, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

that is if there is just one shared Dropbox link? – robertsky (talk) 08:29, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Robertsky, To my knowledge, it's just that link (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/22m8klcq7ewmsfvdegv76/AOmqzl9SPnQiq9wUxkAKzfU?rlkey=2r4sts4e87dv7mjyxqj3q98r4&st=k5osxheo&dl=0) found in the description of the press release youtube video published by the American Fork Police Department. Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Robertsky , The YouTube description now has the link as Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

also Ben can't post anything or talk abiut B&M for now due to a legal order, do we add this? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 15:08, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kepler-1229b Seems Primary, might be best to wait for secondary sources. Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Mexico

Thread retitled from Umm....

The article says that "Schneider claims to have fled to Mexico". We all know that he never lies! Rdgscratch is back (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

This is the wording the sources use; see WP:VNT. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:59, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Do we have a date for when he makes this claim? It looks like late May (if the police statement about no active warrants is a response to it), but the exact timeline is unclear as currently written. --Belbury (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the LDS?

One of the most important parts of this story is the fact that there are huge implications that the Church of Latter Day Saints (AKA the Mormon church) is heavily involved in this.
Why is there no mention of this in the article? Guylaen (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The article does currently mention apparent collusion by Utah police [...] supposedly because the officers and new owners of the Keizer franchise, Johnson and Best, are all Mormons. Belbury (talk) 08:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The phrase "Mormon Mafia" has literally become internet pop-culture because of this scandal. There should be a whole section on this, not just one offhanded mention. Guylaen (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't write about current events on this website because I can't deal with the smoke. But someone should totally do this. Guylaen (talk) 08:30, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

You know the rules, only when there is coverage of the term in relation to this event. Mormon Mafia isn't a new term. A search on Google shows it stretches as far back as JFK era. – robertsky (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and I suppose it is confusing why Mormon Mafia itself is a redirect. The phrase pops up all the time, the last significant time was 2015/16 during the election. Guylaen (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I can find sources formthisnsoon 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 14:03, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Kotaku kentions it here: https://kotaku.com/star-wars-lego-collection-reckless-ben-bricks-minifigs-youtube-mormon-mafia-arrest-mexico-2000701091 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 14:11, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

https://www.ign.com/articles/youtuber-reckless-ben-says-he-will-go-to-jail-if-he-continues-to-talk-about-lego-reseller-bricks-minifigs

This article is talking about it. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I have profound personal experience with intense, Mormon-led psychological abuse. This spanned two solid years and culminated in my arrest, a trial, and front-page Associated Press coverage across six major metros due to Wikipedia editing that dismantled a political dynasty. Because of this, I believe I understand Ben’s situation more deeply than most.

However, it is crucial that we focus on documenting distinctive patterns of abuse and criminality, rather than just applying popular labels. It is not our role as editors to determine if LDS theology and culture inherently drive this corruption unless neutral, secondary sources explicitly make that connection. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Asserting that a specific religion operates as a corrupt, patriarchal, and psychologically abusive criminal enterprise is a conclusion left to the reader, not one we can synthesize for them. Our duty here is strictly to report and synthesize the most reliably sourced explanations and firmly established fact patterns. Mcfnord (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I acknowledge your pain, but like a hot potato, I don't know what to do with it.

Anyways, no, not "report," but I know what you mean. Document what has already been reported. No original research on Wikipedia.

Yet another reason I don't write about current events here: I don't have to hold any judgement about the people I'm writing about, because most of them are long dead or disappeared. Guylaen (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The article m,entions the conspiracy spreading online but not much else. I think this is sufficient coverage for now until this situation blows up and the LDS church is found culpable. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:09, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

OK, but now Mormon Mafia redirects to THIS page, which it absolutely should not. It is notable enough to be its own thing. Guylaen (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Or, at the very least, Mormon Mafia should be a disamb. Guylaen (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I might dab the page later 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 23:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like the term has been used to refer to specific groups of people in different eras. It seems like there is a Vegas MM, there is the MM surrounding Mitt Romney and the other politicians in DC, and there is this mini MM in the Lego space. Guylaen (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any connective tissue between them though, other than the fact that they all belong to the same church (on paper). Guylaen (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

BTW, looks like Ludwig Ahgren and friends are doing a WikiRace trying to find this page right now. Just popped up on my youtube algo on the other monitor. Guylaen (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Kepler if you create the article let me know.

There was also the Frank William Gay led so called "Mormon Mafia" not actually a Mafia, but a group of lawyers that helped Howard Hughes buy up Italian Mob-controlled casinos using shell companies. Again, in this specific case they were not actually a mafia, at worst they maybe guilty of cronyism, but in any case this group helped end mafia control of Vegas. Historyguy1138 (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

BM has nuked their website sometime in the last 18 hours, but the archive has it all. :D

as bricks and minifigs has seen fit to nuke their site, here's the archive links to the relevant blog posts. This could probably be a separate section I feel. BM tries to uselessly save face by throwing the former owner under the bus, and amicably "parting ways" with the new owners, despite the fact the new owners still own a BM franchise in another community? Kind of a long title, but surely someone can shorten it? I'm not much of a writer for these things.. tend to ramble... see...

https://web.archive.org/web/20260604183046/https://bricksandminifigs.com/blog/blog/2026/06/04/bricks-and-minifigs-salem-joshua-johnson-brandon-best-resignation/

https://web.archive.org/web/20260604183346/https://bricksandminifigs.com/blog/blog/2026/06/04/bricks-and-minifigs-salem-store-timeline/

https://web.archive.org/web/20260604182946/https://bricksandminifigs.com/blog/blog/2026/05/28/bricks-minifigs-salem-oregon-clarity-and-resolution/

https://web.archive.org/web/20260604183729/https://bricksandminifigs.com/blog/blog/2026/05/21/salem-oregon-bricks-and-minifigs-store-situation/ Mandlerex (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

oh, and did they lose their authorized status with lego too??

https://web.archive.org/web/20260604225759/https://bricksandminifigs.com/blog/blog/2026/05/18/bricks-minifigs-launches-exclusive-customizable-moc-wall-clock-and-nationwide-contest-with-santoki-distributor-of-lego-licensed-products/ Mandlerex (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

they never had the status to begin with if I remember correctly 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:55, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

also I can compile this stuff into the "company respnse" section but not right now 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:00, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

also is this every simgle respinse B&M has put out? just making sure 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:11, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

looks like all 4 are still up as of right now 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 04:02, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Primary sources and new social media modes of journalism

We've categorized this source as a primary source, which I find questionable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L__h8BGF7M

This source has a conversational style in this video. You might be familiar with his other works, with larger budgets.

Perhaps you can't imagine a monologue as being an NPOV-secondary source. I'd like to start by examining the source's more polished publications with you, on his other channel, because in my view, they demonstrate the highest of journalistic standards.

As far as I can tell, this source creates journalism and little else on the YouTube platform. So I'm skeptical that he's what Wikipedia would call a "primary source".

(He does offer opinions based on evidence, as some journalists and editorial boards do in the course of their work, so I hope we can first examine the question "is this journalism" based on, say, his more polished and investigated video on this subject, due out soon.

In my view, all publications from that source are reliable NPOV-secondary sources, rather than primary sources. Mcfnord (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Coffeezilla does appeear to be rather reliable; I will be marking his reference in the article accordingly 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 03:41, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kepler-1229b, my only concern will be WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK. Issac I Navarro (talk) 03:54, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to me to be a serious issue though as the video should be linked as the source for verifiability, etc. WP:VIDEOLINK's flowchart shows that Coffeezilla's video can be linked. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 03:59, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Not all videos on YouTube are primary sources. News agencies now routinely puts up videos of their reporting there now. For Coffezilla's content, at best, it makes his reporting a form of investigative reporting. At worse it is an op-ed. The distinction between the both for his content is pretty clear: any investigated matter that he had done is on his Coffeezilla channel, while voidzilla channel is usually his opinions. However, unfortunately for Coffeezilla, the investigative reporting does not bear the usual marks of a third-party reporting, nor the opinion pieces. – robertsky (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I've been pondering this. usual marks? Unfortunately for him? because...? Put more cynically, he's not considered a neutral secondary source because he's not text on a website with an overwhelming deluge of inline advertising? Or because he's not at a news desk (but isn't he?). or because there's no commercial break? What if journalism looks different in the social media era?

I see how his void appearances are more akin to op-eds, but his primary channel is what modern journalism looks like. Mcfnord (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

More of how he presents himself on all channels that he is primarily the one doing the investigating, journalism and editing. He has a team, that including himself, of 3 person () with the editor being a video editor (). For news sources as reliable sources, most of the time, it has been qualified to be one with an editorial team. Of course, if it has been established that he is a credible third-party source or a subject matter expert, sure.

By the way, in case you have not seen it, he has dropped his video about this about 9-10 hours ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKfQkRbd15k – robertsky (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I came to tell you! So... if that journalism answers one question that has been vague, it is: Where did the LEGOs go? I think we should cite this journalism's answers to this question. Mcfnord (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

“Collecting since around the early 1990s”

Lego Star Wars came out in 1999. I realize the source also says “early 90’s” but maybe it should just be changed to a more generic “1990’s” without an early or late designation? ~2026-33604-62 (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-33604-62 The sources specify "early"; if this is incorrect another source may be used in its stead. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:10, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

It seems baffling to keep the wordage of a source that is obviously chronologically impossible. ~2026-34494-57 (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

AI Joshua Johnson image

This image is currently in the article noting that Schneider used it as the banner for his GoFundMe. I don't think that by itself is enough to meet WP:AIGI guidelines, though:

AI-generated images should not be used to depict named individuals or any living people. Marginal cases (such as if an AI-generated image of a living person is itself notable) are subject to case-by-case consensus.

The image's use on the GoFundMe doesn't in itself seem notable, on current sources, I can't see that any have talked specifically about the banner image and how it depicts Johnson.

Schneider's use of a similar image on a sign in the street to try to goad Johnson into emerging from his house may be notable, though, as this is mentioned in the press coverage (wrong link, it's mentioned here). I did add that to the caption, but it's been removed. Belbury (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ben Schneider GoFundMe image.png Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Commons has similar issues with the image, although Commons:COM:AIIP concedes that Commons itself is not equipped to judge whether a specific source is reliable or specific coverage is substantial, so this is a low bar.

Wikipedia takes a stronger and clearer stance on sources, though, so should be able to make a decision for itself on whether to use the image. Belbury (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Question, is there proof that this is an image of Joshua Johnson?

Also, your linked article doesn't seem to mention any image. Maksiwood 2 (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong ABC4 link, it's here:

While speaking with Schneider, police reportedly noticed a sign in a strip of grass directly across from the residence that had a picture of the business owner and the words “I stole a dying man’s life savings.” Schneider said that he placed the sign that morning on public property and that the sign was intended to get the business owner to come out.

The "business owner" in this context is Johnson, whose house Schneider was at. The article includes a photo of the sign, which shows the same businessman-holding-money image on the right, and a dying man instead of a sad family. Belbury (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

AIGI does not apply to this image as it is itself notable Czarking0 (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

For being a GoFundMe banner, or for having a similar picture to a printed sign? Belbury (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Just speculating here, but I think we'll learn today/soon that the ex-parte TRO specified this sign as falsely accusing the nice man of theft, leading to the suspension of the GoFundMe itself. If I'm right, that would make the sign noteworthy. Mcfnord (talk) 07:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Belbury There seems to be three different uses.

• The GoFundMe
• As a banner that the AFPD remove and place in their vehicle
• And a poster board (as seen during the confrontation that led to Schneider's arrest with the AFPD, when we was serving Johnson)

Issac I Navarro (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ben Schneider GoFundMe image.png has turned up what seems to be the input for this image, prior to AI editing, at https://agemed.org/ammg-faculty-members/joshua-johnson/

Given that this seems to be very clearly a "make this man look evil" AI edit of a photo of an identifiable individual, we're going to need a consensus for this being a notable AI-generated image if we want to include it in the article. I don't think we have that yet, with no specific reasons having been given for why it would be notable - and the usage of a similar AI photo on a printed sign seems like a minor part of the case, if the article doesn't mention that sign. I'll remove the image for now. Belbury (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@Belbury I would agree your your stance. There doesn't seem to be a specific reason why this file should be used Issac I Navarro (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2026

30rty (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done Reechard (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Please change:

“On June 4, leaked videos from the body cameras, which were alleged to be of a raw unredacted version, were shared through the initial Dropbox link that the police department posted.”

to:

“On June 3, a Reddit user reported that a folder labeled ‘Unredacted Body & Dashcam’ had appeared within the Dropbox repository linked by the American Fork Police Department. Copies of the videos were subsequently archived and shared online.”

Source: V99I7JIO1 (3 June 2026). "American Fork PD Unredacted Bodycam/Dashcam videos". Reddit.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Reason: The current wording says June 4, but the linked Reddit post was made on June 3 and appears to be the public post identifying the “Unredacted Body & Dashcam” folder. The proposed wording is narrower and attributes the claim to the Reddit post instead of using the unsourced term “leaked.”

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2026 (2)

Please add the following sentence immediately before:

“On June 4, leaked videos from the body cameras, which were alleged to be of a raw unredacted version, were shared through the initial Dropbox link that the police department posted.[35][36]”

New text:

“On June 3, a Reddit user reported that a folder labeled ‘Unredacted Body & Dashcam’ had appeared within the Dropbox repository linked by the American Fork Police Department ”

Source: V99I7JIO1 (3 June 2026). "American Fork PD Unredacted Bodycam/Dashcam videos". Reddit.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Reason:

The current dates regarding the unredacted footage is wrong. Source [‡ 8] is a Reddit post dated June 3, 2026 from a user noting the appearance of a folder labeled “Unredacted Body & Dashcam” within the Dropbox repository linked by the American Fork Police Department. Adding this sentence would provide an accurate timeline. 30rty (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done Reechard (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Reechard:, @30rty:: sorry, but we try not to use primary source as much as possible. Reddit is considered as one. – robertsky (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Robert, thanks for the heads-up. I thought reddit was OK to use in this situation, as the timestamp of the reddit post was helping to prove a disputed detail. Cheers! 05:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC) Reechard (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Dropbox footage and police statement

The authenticity of a particular Dropbox bodycam folder, and the fact that the police later took this down, has been added to the article a few times as fact, using one or more of the following WP:PRIMARY sources, but I can't see that we use any of them:

• A Reddit post - but we can't quote a WP:REDDIT post, even from a notable expert, regarding "claims about third parties"
• A Facebook post from the police which has since been deleted or made private - since we can't access it, we can't directly WP:VERIFY what it said
• A direct link to the (now deleted) Dropbox folder itself - this is indistinguishable from a copy which has been faked or edited (as the Kotaku coverage says, while the footage certainly looks compelling [it's] not 100-percent confirmed that the footage is real/unaltered)
• A copy of the videos on archive.org, uploaded by a third party - same as the Dropbox folder, but with one extra step of unreliability

We should keep within published press sources on this, which currently seem to be framing the authenticity and deletion of the videos as "according to Reddit users". Belbury (talk) 07:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The Facebook post is live for me, I'm not sure what the criteria for access are but it doesn't seem to be deleted or private, just not completely public. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I get an error page saying This content isn't available at the moment. When this happens, it's usually because the owner only shared it with a small group of people or changed who can see it, or it's been deleted. Belbury (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that when I'm logged out, but not when I'm logged in. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you perhaps (try to) save the post on the Wayback Machine of the internet archive? Maksiwood 2 (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Mathnerd314159 I have created an account and it still gives the error, it appears that the link may be down. Issac I Navarro (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, it's still up for me, across 3 accounts. I tried Wayback and it could not save it due to being overloaded with FB save requests. Also Perma.cc could not get past the login wall. I checked this Reddit post and it theorizes access is geographically limited, it may simply be that I live in whatever region they allowed. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Belbury, The American Fork Police Department press release video on YouTube now has a link to: Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't know where that video is, but both the video and that evidence.com link could be included if seen as relevant. It doesn't confirm that the police released some content on Dropbox and later retracted it, though. Belbury (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Video is here. This is the same video that originally had the dropbox link, which was later retracted. That can be seen on the wayback machine of the internet archive. Maksiwood 2 (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Edit Request

Please correct a factual error in the 'Consignment Dispute' section: The article states that Ed Mansell had been collecting Star Wars Lego "since around the early 90s". However ,the first Star Wars Lego set was not released until 1999. ~2026-33883-61 (talk) 10:37, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

This was brought up earlier on this page. The sources say "early 1990s", so unless new sources can be found that dispute this, it shouldn't be changed. Maksiwood 2 (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I missed this earlier comment ~2026-33883-61 (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Ben's final message - until 2026-06-17?

In youtube -> /sISjfdueTYg?si=2YW1-DQ7Glww5HVH "My Final Message" Ben states that he is not permitted to say a single more word right now. So we will have to wait for the first court hearing on 2026-06-17? --Traut (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

We are not Ben. Ben is not the only one talking about this case. We can use any news article. Maksiwood 2 (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

We can talk about it all we want as long everything is properly sourced. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 15:08, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

There's a high chance no new substantial information will be released until then - which is good, less work to keep the article updated. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

A YouTuber called this the biggest event of its kind. It has become exhausting. Mcfnord (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Court date now might be 2026-07-06. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traut (talk • contribs)

As the source says itself, this is the pre-trial hearing, not the actual trial. Plus, there are multiple trials underway, so you need to specify which one this is, as there is a chance this is not the trial in which the TRO was issued, and that there are multiple court dates. Maksiwood 2 (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

References

Neutrality concerns

Schneider, approach to this matter appears to be satirical in the first video. The page mentions the negatives of American Fork PD and BAM. However, doesn't address Schneider approach. For instance, in regards to the civil case, Schneider addresses at BenSchneider-b6v on YouTube that he sued the wrong location. Issac I Navarro (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, the stunts that he has preformed in the past for his content, illustrate this nature. For instance, his appearance on the Go-Big Show; when looking back at his catalog of videos on YouTube, he claims that TBS was suing him for filming. Another example is how one of his stunts prompted an investigation by the Los Angeles Police Department, and how he would ho back to the area in a duck mask. It seems that Schneider has a history of going about things in an attention grabbing way. And he used the same tack for this controversy. Issac I Navarro (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Schneider's stunts are mentioned. As well as that, the page does talk about vigilantes harassing people due to this controversy. This page also mentions the negatives of all three involved parties. Schneider is accused of "coordinating a harassment and extortion campaign against its franchise owners in Utah and Oregon" and "stalking and residential targeted picketing, as well as disorderly conduct and trespassing", in the same way AFPD and BAM are accused of their negatives. Schneider's previous work is not for the scope of this article unless it is directly relevant to the controversy. Maksiwood 2 (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't need to enumerate all his prior stunts, but we should make clear that it's a pattern here. I quoted Coffeezilla that the story is one of escalation after escalation. I think part of why is his willingness to engage in stunts. When you humiliate bad people with jokes, it makes them angry. When you aren't a bad person, jokes and stunts are more delightful, less upsetting. I don't see a neutrality concern here, but we'd be missing the boat if the article didn't demonstrate that he engaged in an aggressive pattern of court jester antics. Mcfnord (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Mcfnord , I agree, that those stunts should not be mentioned in this page as they have nothing to do with this topic.

That being said, the stunts that he did do to engage with BAM needs to be clear. I was pointing out the prior incidents to illustrate that his general content involves such satire. Such as, how Schneider's approach to this matter appears to be satirical in the first video, with the Lego cult and haveing the BAM employee sign that she could not trespass them. I am dubious, of the way he went about things. Issac I Navarro (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

We do use the term "stunts" but we could single some out. Mcfnord (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

May be a slight issue if there are no sources talking about this. Maksiwood 2 (talk) 07:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I've seen many "prank/stunt" details mentioned by NPOV-secondary sources. I see that pattern as central to understanding the way the matter has escalated so dramatically. I'd posit that we're seeing a new (and perhaps dubious?) profile of IRL hero that is attuned to the new attention economy. Mcfnord (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Mcfnord Regardless of Schneider motivations, it seems that his stunts where a reason that did this situation has gotten the attention it has had. Issac I Navarro (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Unless a connection can be made from his previous "pranks/stunts" directly to this controversy using sources, I believe that that falls outside of the scope of this article, as I mentioned before. Maksiwood 2 (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Another source

This is another source that may be useful for the reception section of the page. This is published by FOX 5 DC: Issac I Navarro (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Edit suggestion: relation of incoming franchise owners to BAM corporate

Suggestion that the following:

"These videos include allegations that corporate personnel involved in terminating the franchise agreement had ties to the incoming operators; such allegations have not yet been adjudicated in court, in large part because of Schneider's extensively-documented difficulties in bringing suit against BAM, and purported collusion by Utah police in creating those difficulties."

be changed to

"These videos include allegations that corporate personnel involved in terminating the franchise agreement had ties to the incoming operators. Johnson himself stated that he also works at Bricks & Minifigs corporate headquarters." (or something similar)

Reason: This sentence is not factual and needs readability improvement.

The original sentence's wording is odd. This isn't what the legal proceedings so far have been about, Johnson states it himself and nobody is denying it. So I suggest removing the reference to "allegations not yet proven in court" for the additional benefit of improved readability.

Johnson himself states in his complaint to an officer in police bodycam footage that he works at the BAM corporate headquarters, saying: "So, I work at the corporate headquarters as well. So Ammon, the CEO, was like, 'Hey, go rescue the Salem store and you can have it for the price of whatever you recover it for'".

Source: American Fork PD unredacted bodycam video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wnsi3X77TBU&t=269s Alternatively, via archive.org https://archive.org/details/american-fork-bodycam-unredacted/Unredacted+Body+%26+Dashcam/26AF01974+-+Bodycam_Dashcam/Tonga+(4+BD)/26AF01974+-+Tonga/Axon_Body_3_Video_2026-03-08_1255_X60AF8422.mp4 at 4m29s. Alpacapalooza (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Regrettably, the bodycam is not an NPOV-secondary source. Mcfnord (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2026

In section "Police response", change line that notes that AFPD released footage itself, to note that AFPD have removed the redacted footage and instated a redacted version. (https://afpdut.evidence.com/axon/download/08b8f84888234e1ca2b65ef3197cb46c/7123c0b563854201a2854f87eca5f1cd?token=ExPE6o2Q84wGBt5l6RQxC22kR6rCZdq%2FFOLw9YL6JKOmbgibyzGWnqdawkmDtnIiKgOD83LKRVt816HsCTHe27XDf205874N3ysE2nafL%2BUr30B4AIly4XvfpiXaD76vt5eNuqR2mJMwIkIc6euyUPah5cBw31%2F7fUeqZhbe0nBc3f7v1GLFnScJbob2433mKNClbWApPLCDn3PUW6LlZOP7ELxlZyp6w3pCmQ3%2FK2g%3D&version=1) The original Dropbox link made available from AFPD, which at one time contained unredacted footage, has since been deleted (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/22m8klcq7ewmsfvdegv76/AOmqzl9SPnQiq9wUxkAKzfU?noscript=1&rlkey=2r4sts4e87dv7mjyxqj3q98r4&st=k5osxheo&dl=0).

Line in question: "Schneider asserted this footage had been released due to a "hack",[40] but the AFPD says it released the footage itself.[41][42]" ~2026-34207-04 (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

What would you write instead? Mcfnord (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

BLP violation

"On June 10, 2026, Schneider claimed to have received a gag order served via email preventing him from posting and talking any further about Bricks & Minifigs."

UNTRUE! He claimed that he was prohibited from talking about a mystery company! Are we, in our effort to inform, claiming here that the subject is violating the TRO? Let's watch the video together. He says he can't talk about a mystery company. What source can you find that claims he has said Bricks & Minifigs? Mcfnord (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Is the source mistaken? Did they interview Schneider? Do they have correspondence with Schneider beyond the most recent video update? Are we going to believe the NPOV-secondary press, or our own lying eyes? Cuz I watched the video and didn't hear him mention any company. Avoiding this obvious omission on his part is a BLP violation in which we claim he's violating the TRO. And we do that because a source did that? Maybe so. In a Wikipedia dystopia, that's exactly what we do. Mcfnord (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The secondary source being cited interprets it for us, writing that he is talking about Bricks & Minifigs: He noted that he was digitally served papers that state he can't post or talk about Bricks & Minifigs or else he will go straight to jail.

We are presumably including the claim in this article because we also think that he was talking about Bricks & Minifigs. Belbury (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

BAM and Legally Mine

Thank you for your edits, @Belbury. This is why I prefer working with dead people. I do think, however, that someone should keep their eyes peeled for a secondary source regarding the whole Legally Mine thing. Guylaen (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Policing in the intro

"The controversy has also involved the Police Department of American Fork, Utah, and allegations that they are colluding with Bricks & Minifigs to cover up the scandal."

There are examples of collusion, but there are also examples of policework criticized by experts. Collusion, yes, but also apparent incompetence. For example, their accidental release of bodycam footage suggests incompetence, and the apparent unlawful redaction it revealed would be collusion. Many examples have been cited of other extreme choices in their policework that suggest both collusion and incompetence were contributors to their choices. If they colluded competently, they wouldn't produce this pattern of facts. I can't be the first to suggest this is a story about both police incompetence as well as apparent police collusion with local commercial interests. Mcfnord (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Mcfnord I believe there are indeed two parts of this situation, that being BAM involvement on the civil side of thing. In addition to the AFPD with Schneider on the criminal system side of things. I suggest waiting for secondary sources that explicitly state "collusion." Issac I Navarro (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

We allege collusion now. It's the incompetence I'm waiting for. I have heard it said by both lawyers and police who have YouTube channels where they discuss current events. I bet we'll find it in the more traditional news press if we look. Mcfnord (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@Mcfnord If a neutral and reliable secondary source states that, then sure. Issac I Navarro (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The sources allege collusion, not us. Maksiwood 2 (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The article title over-emphasises Reckless Ben

Reckless Ben is one party in a multi-party story. Titling this entire story as “BAM-Reckless Ben controversy” overemphasises RB’s role. RB isn’t even the owner of the Legos. AprilShowersStormtrooper (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

How much of a role he played does not really matter, what matters is what the controversy is known by. Maksiwood 2 (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2026

The "Harassment and violence by vigilantes" is an absurdly editorialized. Referencing "vigilantism" here is a gross WP:NPOV issue. "Violence" also seems to be overweighted in the headline, though I won't deny it in the context of death threats. Hypothesizing about the potential negative impacts of this behaviour is also assuming it's all unwarranted. One might argue that instances of alleged police violence (true or not) do, in fact, rise to the level of a reportable crime for which there is a public interest. "Emergency calls increased when a major crime was alleged" is not exactly a black and white call that these people are dangerous vigilantes. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

"Harassment and violence by vigilantes" (now "Harassment by vigilantes") presumes those making the calls are vigilantes, instead of having a legitimate (misplaced, for the wrong department calls) civic motivation which clearly has been expressed by many. "Harassment" is probably warranted, but the entire section feels like a WP:NPOV issue. Likewise, I feel including this full quote: Schneider has opposed any harassment in his videos, saying that "no one should be getting harassment at all. Not even the bad guys." steps on NPOV a bit at the point we're at with public information. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2026 (UTC)