Jump to content

Talk:Child safety on Roblox

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Darth Stabro talk 14:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that, since 2018, at least 30 people have been arrested for abusing children they met on Roblox?
  • Source: 1, 2
Moved to mainspace by ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk), Ca (talk), and UppercutPawnch (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 30 past nominations.

ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • Long enough and moved to mainspace within the window. QPQ is done. This is clearly a controversial (and potentially lawsuit-attracting) topic, so important to get this one right. Article is fully cited and, on an admittedly non-expert scan, the sources look to be unimpeachable. I would prefer ALT0, which puts the focus on the criminals rather than the company, and so is least likely to be read as an attack on Roblox itself or an insinuation that Roblox is somehow responsible for the abuse (which of course is the bone of contention in all of the lawsuits). Two images, both appropriately licensed, and no evidence of BLP violations.
    Two concerns as I see them:
  • The section on the Red Rock extremism case closely paraphrases its source, both in structure and in key phrases lifted outside quotations (e.g. "reportedly told agents").
  • An NPOV concern in the lead: we mention that Roblox Corporation has banned and taken legal action against these vigilantes. Presumably Roblox has also banned child predators? I think that's an important piece of balance, even if we then have to add "but campaign group XYZ says that their efforts are 'laughable'" or something similar. I don't think any of the "Moderation and safety updates" section is really represented in the lead, and while MOS:LEAD isn't normally in play for a DYK, I think it rises to the level of NPOV here, which is of concern.
UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:43, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may run just afoul of WP:DYKNOT in general, which states that DYK is not "A means of advertising, or of promoting commercial or political causes." While the page does seem notable, there is currently a major controversy about Roblox - clearly the reason it was so drastically expanded lately - and slapping this on the main page could be seen as attempting to influence the controversy while it is currently ongoing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I see that. Personally, I'd lean towards that it doesn't, on the basis that a) the potential "victim" is a corporation rather than a person, so we don't have to err quite so hard on the side of kindness as we would under WP:BLP, and b) the hook doesn't explicitly promote a cause (like shutting down Roblox, fining them, finding them culpable) etc -- we have lots of hooks that could be read as calls to political/legal action. Today's hook about how San Antonio didn't get a radio station for 14 years could be read as a call for greater funding for the arts, for Texas, or for the media, but it's quite a different thing from outright saying any of those things. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With that said, pinging my usual founts of knowledge on matters DYK: @AirshipJungleman29, Theleekycauldron, and RoySmith: would any of you take a view in either direction here under WP:DYKNOT and similar? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DYK precedent is that we do cover controversies, as long as the article meets NPOV. Sometimes we just can't because it's too hot-button and there's no consensus on whether the article meets NPOV, or we get gunshy, but NOTCENSORED is the general principle. As for the hooks themselves, I agree that ALT0 is the only one to not carry an implication about Roblox as a company, since ALTs 1 and 2 lend some credence-by-default to the adverse actions against Roblox. 200 characters can only contain so much nuance. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:43, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To state the obvious, anything involving sexual exploitation of minors needs to be treated with an excess of caution. I'm squeamish about the photo of the three children. If it were my kid, I wouldn't want this posted. Yeah, I know we don't show their faces, but it's still easy to recognize people from the backs of their heads. I've consulted off-wiki with a number of oversighters, all of whom assured me that I'm being silly and there really is no PII case to be made here. I accept their judgement, but still feel I would be remiss if I didn't voice my concern here.
As for the hooks, ALT0 says "at least 30 people have been arrested" but I only see "at least a half dozen" in one source and "at least two dozen" in the other. ALT1 says "multiple countries", but we give sources for two (Qatar and Turkey). Technically, multiple could be two, but there's an implication of more. I'll also note that Turkey also banned Wikipedia, so perhaps they're not the best example of good judgement when it comes to banning on-line services. RoySmith (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Re: ALT0, the first source says that at least two dozen (24) people had been arrested from 2018 to 2024, and the second source says that 6 people were arrested from January to June 2025. We can add those together for a total of at least 30. Per WP:CALC, basic addition like this doesn't count as OR. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As leeky notes, we do feature controversial topics; as Roy notes, we need to treat topics like this which come close to multiple content and legal policies with an overabundance of caution. Speaking purely on DYKNOT, I think this falls under "topics of commercial or political interest", more than "causes" which could be advantaged or disadvantaged by a DYK feature. But that's not what's important here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, on the image: could we check with "Henry Burrows from Winchester, United Kingdom" that he's alright with an image of (presumably) three of his children being the "representative image" for "Child safety on Roblox"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not passing a judgement on whether the image should be included in the article (though honestly I would lean towards seeing that as a matter of article content rather than germane for DYK, since it wouldn't be included in the hook), Mr. Burrows did release it under CC BY-SA 2.0, which includes that people can copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially. I'm not sure if your request was meant entirely seriously, but it's an integral part of the CC licence that creators don't get to object if their work is later used for purposes they don't like, and that we don't feel obliged to get an author's OK before using an image in any article. With that said, ArtemisiaGentileschiFan -- are there other good candidates that might be swapped in for no real hardship? UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: I can understand the concern about the image and if people deem it inappropriate then I will not oppose replacing it. If we want to avoid showing any actual children or identifiable people, I suppose commons:File:2850 S. Delaware Street.jpg could be a good alternative. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally -- at the moment I think the hook is acceptable and the article good to go, but would be ready to discuss it further if/when it gets promoted and would ready myself for it to be pulled if others disagree.
I think the valid concerns are twofold -- one, that the hook is unduly close to an ongoing controversy (WP:DYKNOT as Airship says above) and potentially would upset a potentially ligitious company; two, that putting an image of potentially identifiable children (who are probably still children, since it was taken in 2019) in a high-traffic location is unwise, even if permitted by the letter of the rules. You might wish to get ahead of that by swapping the image. On balance, I share leeky's analysis that this is a controversial topic but within the realm of WP:NOTCENSORED, and personally think that sufficient caution has been taken to run it. Others may disagree.
For now, I'm going to mark this as Approved for ALT0 only and hope that any promoter reads this comment! UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:51, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: I believe I have addressed these concerns. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the original of the photo on flickr is no longer publicly available (403: It appears you don’t have permission to view this photo or video). One possible interpretation is that they eventually realized the full implications of their original tagging and had a change of heart. I know we have a CC-BY-SA copy, but there's a difference between "Let me put a cute photo of my kid and his friends playing video games on flicker" and "He's the poster child for an article about neo-nazis and pedophiles featured on the front page of a top-ten website". RoySmith (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that I replaced the image but it was added back by another user, so if anyone feels strongly about the image they should feel free to start a discussion on the talk page so a consensus can be reached. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the image again. RoySmith (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith: For what it's worth, I think you did a good move in light of the removal from flickr, though I'll put on record again that we shouldn't feel that this establishes a rule or precedent, since you can't revoke a CC licence. However, perhaps being kind and considerate is the more important principle here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that CC can't be revoked (and even if we did go full-censorship and delete the image from commons, the internet never forgets) but as you note with BLPKIND, "what we're legally allowed to do" and "what we should do" aren't always the same thing. As just one example of why running this picture would be a bad idea, see this recent NY Times article (time-limited sharing link). RoySmith (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response section

[edit]

IMO i believe a section dedicated to Roblox's response to child safety should be added. Refs: [1][2] 1timeuse75 (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added those two sources to the grooming section. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Schlep (Youtuber)'s image

[edit]

Does it really add to the article to have the cartoonish image next to Chris Hansen's picture? If you don't already know about this guy, it's really confusing to run up on the picture. Joyous! Noise! 05:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do see Joyous's point, if you don't know that the picture is Schlep's profile picture then it's not really clear why the picture is there. I also don’t know if the profile picture is actually needed to understand the subject. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Readers who are confused by the profile picture can refer to the caption to clear up the confusion. I think it illustrates the contrast between these who figures well (TV director vs YouTuber). Ca talk to me! 22:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's particularly important to include Schlep's profile picture to be honest. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yeah... i don't think that would be important. K3nn3dyD4tL1qu1dGl4ss (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Ruben Sim" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Ruben Sim has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 22 § Ruben Sim until a consensus is reached. Based5290 :3 (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"No Text To Speech" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect No Text To Speech has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 10 § No Text To Speech until a consensus is reached. Thegoofhere (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spawnism in sexual predation section?

[edit]

Spawnism definitely warrants a mention on this page, but it's currently placed in the sexual predation section. As far as I can tell, no source attributes a sexual motivation to the groomers, so it can't really belong in that section as is. Splitting it off into its own section would place too much weight on it, so I was thinking of renaming the section to something else which my mind is blanking on right now. Thoughts? Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should go in the political violence/extremism section, since it’s a form of ideological extremism. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Child_safety_on_Roblox&oldid=1316658797"