Talk:Roblox–Schlep controversy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roblox–Schlep controversy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find video game sources: "Roblox–Schlep controversy" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Protest Example

File:Roblox Real Life in Brazil Garça.png

Schlep Protest

Thiago9099 (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This takes place in brazil garça sp Thiago9099 (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who added "FREE SCHLEP" ?

I just went and I saw on the top , "FREE SCHLEP" . 86.8.236.163 (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NVM it was reverted 86.8.236.163 (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@86.8.236.163 I used it Aidenwhelanmorrissey (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about some sources' reliability

What makes the Gaming Amigos sources reliable? They seem to just be a normal blog run by two people. - Dents (talk2me 🖂) he/him btw!!! 07:44, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @G13 vs G14, the user who added the sources. - Dents (talk2me 🖂) he/him btw!!! 07:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From their description: "Gaming amigos is online gaming news blog", and a search into the editors shows only background in unaffiliated blogging, so I'd have to agree. I've seen the source used with similar contention in other articles. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 08:49, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this source is a blog, but I think its reliable enough for simple claims like the number of signatures. G13 vs G14 (talk) 08:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still think a more reliable source should substitute the sources (especially since this is an article about an ongoing controversy.) What do you think about this article from Dexerto? It supports that the change.org petition reached 100k.

Although, I haven't found any other source support that Khanna's petition reached 100k, so it might be okay to omit. - Dents (talk2me 🖂) he/him btw!!! 11:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, i replaced one citation with Dexerto G13 vs G14 (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

deletion?

Off-topic. --Kovcszaln6 (talk) 09:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

the page for schlep was deleted, which i am not against, but are we nominating this one for deletion too? are we going to delete basically everything about schlep? Pinplaybloxorwiki (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I bet its from Roblox 50.237.122.2 (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who nominated this article has multiple contributions unrelated to Roblox BTW Thegoofhere (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This Article should be moved to Roblox

Off-topic; discuss at AfD. --Kovcszaln6 (talk) 09:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This controversy should not be a own article and get moved to the Roblox Article! 91.249.254.147 (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

why though? Pinplaybloxorwiki (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notice

I'm feeling doubt but can you add the official video title? 2603:7000:C7F0:E5C0:B182:4FE4:DD59:E17D (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting this article to be moved to "Roblox v. Schlep"

Before this article was made, a planned title by me was "Roblox v. Schlep" NegativeMP1 stated that this could be a potential article, but a lawsuit would be needed. Since there are multiple lawsuits associated with this article, I suppose we move it to the title above. TheSwagger13 (talk) 04:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NegativeMP1 presumably meant that Schlep would have to sue Roblox directly. Right now, as far as I know, all those lawsuits are at least legally unaffiliated with Schlep. I'd also argue that that lawsuit would have to become the major focal point of news coverage in order for the title to be changed to Roblox v. Schlep. Based5290 :3 (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i think this is a good name for the article it sounds professional and Roblox V Schlep sounds more like a videogame The AK-47 (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are no lawsuits with Schlep involved. All current lawsuits exclusively concern other parties' grievances with Roblox safety policies. Renaming the page akin to a suit is misleading to the current information. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

why does the article name you came up with sound like a splatfest theme ..

it does sound good ngl though K3nn3dyD4tL1qu1dGl4ss (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the article's neutrality

I think that the only thing that should be changed here in this article is the neutrality. The people who edited this, from what I'm seeing, are with the side of Schlep. We are in Wikipedia, not any protest site. So, if any of you want to protest against Roblox, then don't do it here. Lastly, I'm not with ANY of the sides. Anonymous929839 (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonymous929839: Which specific parts of the article are non-neutral? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't specific parts of the article that are non-neutral. You can understand by reading it that, the article is non-neutral. Anonymous929839 (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with the neutrality. Could you present us with an example? Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:03, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I literally cannot see anything wrong with the neutrality. shane (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i dont see anything non-neutral… Pinplaybloxorwiki (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Theres nothing wrong with this Random conservative guy (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i agree in my topic ROBLOX IS CRUEL i did it from the schlep side.i will me more neutralized The AK-47 (talk) 05:06, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that your talk page post was removed for Wikipedia:NOTFORUM, not for any potential bias. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't like Schlep or Roblox? ya'll are so weird, Schlep is the good one 104.251.245.22 (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"So you don't like Schlep or Roblox" This isn't the case at all. Editors can take their own stances, but they can't reflect it in the article writing. This is Wikipedia policy (WP:NPOV) and there isn't much to argue about it. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an advocacy platform. λ NegativeMP1 22:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, WikipediA is a Free Encyclopedia accessible to the whole world for free, i don't think articles as silly as these should contain any protesting elements. Vnaken (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Putting More Importance To It

As we can see the Schlep controversy is everywhere and we need to address that. Its American news in some extents. Please fix the talk pages "low importance" 69.141.175.253 (talk) 11:50, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The low importance is relative to the subject as a whole. In the grand scheme of things, this is a small event that will be mostly forgotten in a few years. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You will never know it might become a famous thing The AK-47 (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is unlikely. For this article to move up to even a mid importance, the article would need to be of equal importance to the video game industry as Five Nights at Freddy's (video game). The importance isn't about fame, it is about the long-lasting effect of the article on the WikiProject's topic. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting about this

~~Should this page be deleted? Most votes out of 10 means the answer. Aidenwhelanmorrissey (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~:Voting ends on 18 September 2025 UTC at midnight. Aidenwhelanmorrissey (talk) 01:09, 8 September 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

No, this is not how deletion on Wikipedia works. We use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and there's almost no chance this will get deleted on the whims of one editor. Aydo h8^{[what have I done now?]} 01:14, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aydoh8 Can you tell me how to delete the comment I wrote here? Seriously. I've never done this and I have never seen a page wanted to get deleted before. It's a new thing. Please tell me how to get rid of it though. Aidenwhelanmorrissey (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since people have already replied, you can't really delete this entire topic. Best thing you can do is strike out your own text ~~like this~~ by adding <s> and </s> in front and back of the text you want to remove Thegoofhere (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegoofhere Oh, thanks Aidenwhelanmorrissey (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Missing important context on how predator stings did not involve police beforehand

In Youtube career section: "Schlep claimed to have worked with Arkansas Police and NMEC, although the police have never made any announcements about his operations"

Police were not called prior to sting operations, they were called after predators were already confronted. Two cases of this can be found: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFB6J9geHSI&t=1267s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7MjKmVP1KY&t=1045s

Additionally there is no footage or statements of collaboration with law enforcement on the investigations.

In my opinion this context is necessary and extremely important to showcase how limited the law enforcement involvement actually was and should be added. Joooooey5 (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read Wikipedia:OR and Wikipedia:RS. The content you suggested violates those two policies (more OR than RS, but it still violates both of them). Mikeycdiamond (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the closing of the merger.

Since the closing of the AFD for this page and the merger of the biographical page, I ask why is many of the biographical information being removed? Issac I Navarro (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be semi-protected indefinitely

I'm saying this because I don't know how to ask for protection, but this page should be semi-protected indefinitely as there has been so much vandalism since it was created. DAmik001 (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please direct all requests for page protection to WP:RFP. Thanks PlaneBored4 (Talk) 15:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 September 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Roblox–Schlep controversy. In this RM, I see broad agreement that the title should be moved, though participants were less unanimous on their preferred destination. The two titles that attracted the greatest support were "Roblox Schlep ban controversy" and "Roblox–Schlep controversy"; these titles shared the advantage of mentioning both parties in the controversy, which was generally seen as favorable. Most participants only identified one title as their favorite, rather than criticizing the titles they did not choose; however, one editor did advance an argument that titles without en dashes contravened MOS:ENBETWEEN. With the RM appearing to have stalled in a WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE situation, I've made the decision to use the ENBETWEEN argument as the tiebreaking factor, leading me to close in favor of Roblox–Schlep controversy. As a reminder, NOTCURRENTTITLE closes imply little if any affirmative consensus for the destination title, so this result should not preclude future RMs on the article title if more discussion is desired. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Schlep ban controversy → ? – This article was moved without discussion while being nominated at AfD. I'm not sure if this is the best title, so I'm starting this discussion to see what title is better. Some options, all of which (except the first) were titles the page was moved to during the AfD, include:

Roblox Schlep ban controversyRoblox Schlep ban controversy (original title)
Roblox-Schlep ControversyRoblox-Schlep Controversy
Schlep Roblox ban controversySchlep Roblox ban controversy
Roblox v. SchlepRoblox v. Schlep
Or we can keep the page at the current title (Schlep ban controversy)

I would also appreciate suggestions for other titles besides these. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 21:19, 15 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. veko. (user | talk | contribs) he/him 23:40, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I should remind you that the four previous titles all failed Wikipedia's manual of style and consistency. Wikipedia uses en dashes in indicating conflict between two parties in article titles (eg. Anglo–Dutch wars, Trump–Musk feud, Raiders–Steelers rivalry). So the above titles which don't use an en dash for this purpose are incorrect. The only exception is "Roblox v. Schlep", but this implies the article covers a court case by that legal name (cf. Roe v. Wade). The article is not about the court case specifically, but is about a wider scandal.

As it stands, there is no specific common name for this controversy, not even a word suffixed with -gate, so we must come up with our own generalized title.

Here are some options which are more likely to be accepted:

Schlep controversy
Schlep scandal
Roblox–Schlep scandal
Roblox–Schlep controversy

―Howard • 🌽³³ 07:30, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that nothing in the article indicates that any relevant court case is named "Roblox v. Schlep". ―Howard • 🌽³³ 07:32, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this information, @Howardcorn33. I'm guessing this is probably why the page was moved during the AfD. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 17:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like Roblox-Schlep controversy suits best. TheSwagger13 (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any similar examples? Blitzchung controversy was a username. Metallurgist (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is Johnspuzzlegame. I think it should be the original title "Roblox Schlep ban controversy" Johnspuzzlegame (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the original title was best. It perfectly explains what the controversy is about, and doesnt break the manual of style as far as i know. Vovon25 (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I changed the SD to mention roblox, so I think this title is probably adequate. I am not opposed to a move and the original move was improper. AFDs really should lock a page from moves (but not edits), but that might be a technical difficulty. Metallurgist (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Internet, WikiProject Law, WikiProject YouTube, and WikiProject Video games have been notified of this discussion. veko. (user | talk | contribs) he/him 23:41, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support Roblox–Schlep controversy as it states which parties (in this case Roblox and Schlep) that are in the controversy. In my opinion, the current title is a bit vague but the short description is helpful. Unilandofma^Talk 18:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2025

This edit request to Schlep ban controversy has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Note the fact in the article that a YouTube channel called law by Mike posted a video called "Were Suing Roblox". Arkoftwo4 (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Toast1454_T_C 18:41, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be renamed to “Schlep controversy”

This is a good name for the article because “Schlep ban controversy” doesn’t sound right also because most people don’t know who “Schlep” is. 68.70.126.252 (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous articles that many would not know what it is about, which is where the short description comes in. Metallurgist (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, there can be possibly other ban controversy on Wikipedia. We can always explain who schlep is on the article. Wikiediter2029 (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The likelihood this will happen again is near zero. That being said, Schlep is the main subject of this controversy and should be in the title. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 September 2025

This edit request to Schlep ban controversy has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change title to Schlep ban 154.20.248.173 (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Not an uncontroversial move, needs discussion.--Thegoofhere (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting this Article to be moved to "Child Safety on Roblox"

It would likely fit better in either this article or some other since it does involve child safety. Theepiczephyrix82 (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Child safety on Roblox <-- this article Theepiczephyrix82 (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Child safety already has an article and this article is independently notable, warranting its own article. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 October 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

on the background paragraph where it says See also: Child safety on Roblox, change it to See also: List of Roblox controversies because of the article being moved Arkoftwo4 (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done because the undiscussed page move was reverted. λ NegativeMP1 16:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh right Arkoftwo4 (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]