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)- "Vigilantes" does seem an inappropriate word to use here. Since the section is only a single paragraph I've removed the heading from it, merging it into "Reactions". Belbury (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- What disease is going around that turns every headline and sub-headline into the blandest, least descriptive thing on Earth? There is a qualitative difference between standard online "reactions" (such as a commentary video from moistcr1tikal) and a pattern of legally questionable mass-action and harassment.
- Schneider’s quote denouncing harassment—even when directed at "the bad guys" seems to show unusually ethical values by a key figure, alleged by two arresting officers and prosecutors/judges to be a hooligan, and is as an important reaction to the unfolding events.
- Grouping more serious real-world consequences (e.g., shattered glass, jammed police phone lines, and strangers being verbally intimidated at mini-malls) under a generic "Reactions" heading minimizes the severity of what is happening. A concerning pattern of mass-action protest warrants a distinct sub-heading that distinguishes actual harassment from mere internet commentary. Mcfnord (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- All three examples you have listed are still reactions. Anyone is free to read the section and no one should rely on purely headings to get information. Maksiwood 2 (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- No intention to minimise anything, it just didn't seem like we needed a full subheading for a single paragraph of text.
- You've added the paragraph subheading back as "Harassment and protests", but "protests" seems misleading when this isn't a term that's mentioned in the text. Belbury (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
What disease is going around that turns every headline and sub-headline into the blandest, least descriptive thing on Earth?
- Reporting a crime to the police isn't vigilantism or harassment, nor is contacting a neighbouring police department, which is how that was presented.
- "Vigilantes" does seem an inappropriate word to use here. Since the section is only a single paragraph I've removed the heading from it, merging it into "Reactions". Belbury (talk) 08:21, 15 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:
Grouping more serious real-world consequences (e.g., shattered glass, jammed police phone lines, and strangers being verbally intimidated at mini-malls) under a generic "Reactions" heading minimizes the severity of what is happening.
- And trying to artificially link death threats and violence to police reports misrepresents the severity of what's happening. I have to ask, since you haven't edited in four years and besides jumping on on this topic, and your stated raison d'être on Wikipedia is:
Welcome! I specialize in legal claims and living people. I'm a deletionist, especially around unproven criminal charges. Someone's gotta throw away the noise.
- Since your first action on Wikipedia in years is adding in inflammatory unproven claims I'd like to just ask directly if there's a WP:COI issue here?
- ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- Answer: No. I have no connection to anyone involved. Any other insinuations?
- Also, do you "log in" or just edit away? And are you frequently gaining criticism for casting aspersions, as you did here two days ago? Your comments were completely suppressed, so they may have been rather egregious. Are you on an accusatory aspersion rampage? I suggest someone so well-versed in WP philosophy ought to "log in" at some point. Perhaps you'll get the hang of it after you've spent a whole month here. Mcfnord (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- The revdel had nothing to do with me, my edits were just caught in another concern and a cursory glance would have shown they're still there, but struck. The aspersions concern was due to a misunderstanding over a phatic expression. It is not unreasonable to ask about COI concern for an account with sudden activity after four years adding in inflammatory statements on a highly contentious article, just as it's not unreasonable for you to reply to those concerns. Editors are not required to log in, so editing away, to answer your question. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Edit Proposal: Remove bias from Primary Sources section
The current primary sources come from
- 1: BAM corporate
- 2: BAM Franchise
- 3: Coffeezilla (youtuber)
- 4: BAM marketing
- 5: BAM corporate
- 6: BAM corporate
- 7: BAM CEO
- 8: A 1min video from Ben about why he can't release part 3.
This seems incredibly biased. If we can include the reason he can't release part 3, then we should include links to the original videos Ben put on youtube. The only reason I can think for including _just_ that one video from ben, is to support BAM's side in the discussion. I eventually found the "External Videos" box with links to Bens' videos, in the "Reckless Ben investigation" section, but didn't notice it at first, it's hard to find when trying to understand the page as a whole.
I propose marking the videos in that "External Videos" box as primary sources, using the <ref group="‡"> tag that make the other primary sources show up. If you search for "wscQpkcwgNU" in the source, it should be easy to find the relevant sources already in the article text, and just add the group tag before them. I think at the very least, these three should be included, but it probably just makes sense to include all the ones in the "External Videos" box.
- 1: Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wscQpkcwgNU
- 2: Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxZPfj8AlmY
- 3: All the footage is released: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih2XwNN0aVY
Cdeevfrr (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- We should try to lower the amount of primary sources, not increase it. The best way you can remove the bias from the primary sources is to remove the primary sources as sources by replacing them with secondary sources.
- On the point of the External Videos being hard to find, this could be remedied by putting the external videos as a section of the page towards the end, but this would bring other issues with it. Discussion may be needed before changes are applied. Maksiwood 2 (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for explaining the Wikipedia policy about primary sources, not sure I agree with it in this case but I'm definitely not here to try to change policy.
- How do I mark a proposed edit as "done", so I know how to do this in the future? I'm considering wrapping the whole thing in
{{archive top|reason=dropped}} ... {{archive bottom}} - Cdeevfrr (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Cdeevfrr See WP:CLOSE, (such as Template:Archive top and Template:Archive bottom) and there is also the section Discussion heading Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- Coffeezilla being a YouTuber doesn't preclude him being a journalist; he's not a primary source. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- A YouTuber posting on their own channel would be a self-published source, so can't be cited for statements
about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer
. Belbury (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2026 (UTC)- Yes, agreed. Still not primary, in this case. ~2026-34199-65 (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- A YouTuber posting on their own channel would be a self-published source, so can't be cited for statements
Dexerto
Any sources regarding Dexerto can we remove per WP:DEXERTO? For instance references 16. Issac I Navarro (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2026
Is it possible to add under Reactions that minifigs.me dropped BAM as their supplied on June 5, 2026, despite the financial loss for their company? ~2026-37572-57 (talk) 06:04, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for this (preferably secondary)? Maksiwood 2 (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
- Not done for lack of a source. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:41, 30 June 2026 (UTC)