Community talk:Explode1

(No title provided)
Yo why were the allegations removed from the page? Right now it makes the page seem extremely unprofessional and bias, not to mention disrespects explode's victims. Might wanna get that fixed, guys.
 * Fandom required us to remove said information; it was not our decision. Wikis on the Fandom platform are only allowed to document major claims like CSA on articles of "people" in an informational, documentative manner (i.e. no allegations or accusations), and if secure evidence such as legal documentation or admission is provided and can be referenced from a publicly accessible, reliable location on the web. The is on the Fandom platform and therefore we must comply with their requirements and guidelines for sensitive information. ~✨~ Karasu || user // contact // CC wall ~✨~ 06:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Rephrasing the termination section
If Fandom is saying you have to clarify it's just accusations (even though there's plenty of evidence showing their actions), then why do you have to phrase it in a way that leans towards implying that people have no evidence whatsoever? Is something stopping you from saying something along the lines of "Fandom rules on CSA dictate yadda yadda unverified" while not going into specifics so it doesn't seem like people are just lying about what they did? Cuz I'm 100% sure I didn't just make up the last 4 years of my life.

Or like, just delete the article as a whole, I sure wouldn't mind not seeing his face. ArrisTheRound (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * On review, the wording isn't as objective or neutral as it should, and we'll look into fixing it. Our staff team understands the interest to have something done about the page and/or its contents, and can empathize with the concerns; for wikis the concept of assuming good faith is crucial, and some of us also have similar experiences to know where you're coming from. We are currently bringing it up to Fandom again on what to do about the page, as any move further from where it is now (besides rewording the section for objectivity, though give us a bit on this as many of us are or should be sleeping right now) is not something we can or should be doing without their review or input. May take a little time though, depending on staff availability to continue the discussion, make consensus, back and forth forwarded inputs from different groups within Fandom staff, etc. ~ Karasu || user // contact // CC wall ~✨ 09:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * How about: "Explode1 was terminated on November 30, 2018. A number of players made serious allegations of misconduct around this time, which may be related to his termination."


 * It doesn't say what the allegations were, or go so far as to make the allegations here. It also doesn't say that his termination was due to these allegations or claim that we know why he was terminated, but still shows that possibility. And, importantly, it doesn't negate the experiences of his accusers, it does not say they are wrong, just stops short of making accusations on Fandom that can't be verified outside of first person experiences.


 * What do you think? -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 16:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * If that's as far as Fandom will allow it to go, then I suppose I can't ask more than that, my thoughts on that rule notwithstanding, especially given how hard it can be to actually get authorities involved to the point of Fandom accepting the evidence. Upsetting that it won't lay bare their actions but admittedly better than implying the actions never occurred. ArrisTheRound (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Why is Misterobvious's page clear on what he did but explode1's isn't? There's a massive discrepancy to what has been said/what the rules are and what is being done. Torchick11 (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it met the proof standards Fandom posed without major concern of libel and this one doesn't. The MisterObvious evidence was, at the time (2017/2018), considered something that could not be modified and held up (audio clips validated with separate audio clips that were confirmed to be from him), and a YouTube video doing these comparisons (along with more information that would otherwise not be acceptable on its own) + the fact Roblox terminated his account, was approved to meet these standards. The Explode1 accusations don't contain the same level of proof; from what we're aware of, it is either statements, of mediums that can be easily manipulated (e.g. images of text in chat platforms), or images that on their own do not have enough context to validate anything. Most that exists is the account termination. Since those mediums are very easily something that could be faked, that makes their validity possibly something that could be debated if the accused were to sue for libel, hence why Fandom has historically requested we only allow something more concrete. However, we are debating if we may need to simplify the MisterObvious article down to the extent of what has been given here; while by the standards of those times audio wasn't that easy to fake, AI audio has certainly advanced ridiculously quickly and become in accessible use making it less viable to validate with in recent years. So if the video ever has to get reuploaded again because it keeps getting taken down, people can certainly doubt the checks were actually done in 2017 which then makes it hard to actually use that same video. And with people disputing the content of the article recently it is something that also must be considered. ~ Karasu || user // contact // CC wall ~✨ 01:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * From my experience with the roblox and wiki community, it would make most sense for us to simply blanket ban documenting any allegations in general. Though Wikia is intended for editors over the age of 13, a significant portion of Roblox's audience is below that. We assume good faith, but history has shown us that we can't trust most of our editing base with writing about said issues without bias or turning it into rumor/libel central. How you word it sounds like our best possible approach as well as further re-iteration of some of our concerns from a reputatution/defamation/libel standpoint. ☕️ Acebatonfan (Talk) 21:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * This seems like it will work to meet the concerns in relation to the lack of items meeting the standards we were told to follow to say anything further. Though we weren't aware that we could even mention the concept of allegations from previous discussions we've had with Fandom with these sorts of concerns, which has brought up quite a bit of conflict when allegations get major but don't meet the specifications for documentation we were given (they are very often only statements given with a collection of Discord conversation screenshots or similar). So if we're permitted to mention that allegations were made if such has become relevant in the community, that would solve the primary concern that comes up whenever these incidents happen in the first place. Assuming consensus holds on this, we might want to discuss internally how this practice may be used in other instances however (as there are other articles that currently stand in a kind of "disputed" indefinitely-locked state for similar reasons). So RE Sannse specifically, if your team could give our wiki representative Pcj something to forward to us in our WR contact channel that outlines more clearly what we can/can't and should/shouldn't do in these situations as per any new standards or internal decisions as of recent, that would be appreciated. ~ Karasu || user // contact // CC wall ~✨ 01:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * As Karasu said, we weren't aware we could document the idea of allegations at all here based on previous discussion with Fandom, so many thanks for your clarification Sannse. I do think your suggestion is adequate for this case. &mdash; 0Michael105 (talk  · CC talk  · contribs ) 02:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * There are no specific rules for this situation, we look at each situation to work out what's best, Although we do remove pages on request of the subject if they are non-famous - like we wouldn't remove a page about Trump or the Kardashians, but an admin on a website would be removed if they asked for it. Basically we don't want articles that can ruin the subjects reputation - especially off-line. Imagine an accusation (true or not) and someone going for a job where the company checks social media for the username. We don't want to go there!

I'll point this conversation out to pjc (I think I did already, but nm) -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 15:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)