Talk:Ruben Sim

establishing the article's relevance

hello! to anyone viewing this page wishing to dispute its existence, please note that it is fully compliant with the following criteria:

• does not violate WP:1E (the article proves sustained, multi-year notability)
• does not violate WP:BLP (the article balances unproven courtroom allegations with neutral public denial. note that, legally, simon was not required to admit wrongdoing.)
• does not violate WP:GNG (most major sections are anchored by globally recognized media outlets)
• does not violate WP:NOT (the article strictly focuses on events with real-world, legal or corporate consequences.)

please take this into consideration before attempting to take unnecessary action, thank you! 9koyami (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Removal of primary source tag

@9koyami I saw that you removed the primary source on the paragraph of Ruben Sim defending himself. I personally see the paragraph as unduly self-serving as described in WP:ABOUTSELF. The limited scholarly sources about the lawsuit that I was able to find take a neutral () to negative () stance on Simon, and I see a similar trend among the reliable news sources. Allowing this much time to Simon in the article comes at the cost of giving less weight to these reliable secondary sources. Additionally, many of the allegations beyond mere harassment are not stated in the article, and going into them is not necessary for the reader. Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

i understand concerns about WP:ABOUTSELF, but there are a few things to keep in mind here:

• when it comes to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV in particular, there are multiple severe defamatory (and unproven) claims by roblox. inferring simon made "terrorist threats" in any way is basically libel outside of a journalistic context.
• it obviously cannot be proven or disproven that journals had prior knowledge of simon's internet activity, to the point where the secondary sources would know how to appropriately label simon outside of what roblox used to describe him.
• simon was not required to admit wrongdoing in the stipulated order. admittedly, it's my mistake for not having added it yet, as it was in my draft rewrites.

i will better acknowledge this by condensing the paragraph(s), per WP:CONSENSUS, though simon's defense through primary sources is still warranted and allowed. heavy focus on roblox's claims, or an omission of primary defense citations, goes against WP:BLPBALANCE here. 9koyami (talk) 06:30, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

reviewed citation #2 (i couldn't access #1), and this journal article is ass. the two paragraphs mentioning simon have textbook violations in both WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:ASSERT, and would NOT stand if cited. the tone of the authors takes roblox's (mind you, civil) allegations and asserts them as objective facts:

- "for organizing a cybermob to terrorize the platform,"

- "Ruben Sim had been banned... for right-wing extremist rhetoric,"

- "Sim's rhetoric escalated to ominous threats of violence,"

editorializing. "terrorize" the platform? not even the lawsuit says that. no claim or link to the alt-right has been made by any other source. and what "rhetoric"? not to diminish the tweets made, but those were largely references to other controversial users on-site. it's clear no independent research was done on that front. 9koyami (talk) 06:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Going point by point:

• Remember that the court ruled in favor of Roblox, and while the truth of the claims made by Roblox was not addressed, calling them defamatory is just as much of overreach as calling them true. While we generally tip the scales towards living individuals, that does not mean that they must get the same weight as the accusations repeatedly published by reliable sources.
• Much of Simon's activities were public (and probably archived somewhere), so it is not inconceivable that researchers from the second linked source could cross reference Roblox's claims with Simon's content and come to the conclusion that they were safe to state the accusation without attribution. Unlike us, they are free to synthesize the primary sources as they please. Of course, it's not really our place to second guess academic literature unless it is in obvious contradiction with a primary source (which this is not) or another reliable secondary source calls it into question.

I am okay with having some of Simon's defense in the article even without a secondary source, but I am saying that there is too much. In particular, the claim after he denied the corporation's most severe claims should be removed for not coming up elsewhere. The accusation that Roblox was silencing Simon in specific through this lawsuit also does not come up elsewhere and should be shortened to give it less weight for similar reasons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:58, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

see my above message for further replies, posted while you were typing your own.

• "Remember that the court ruled in favor of Roblox" verifiably false. this is misinformation. an out-of-court financial settlement is not a guilty verdict or a factual validation of a plaintiff's claims.
• "it is not inconceivable that researchers from the second linked source could cross reference Roblox's claims with Simon's content and come to the conclusion that they were safe to state the accusation without attribution" though true in concept, this is completely wrong in practice. see WP:NPOV, which this statement flies in the face of. "assert facts, including facts about opinions, but don't assert opinions themselves."
• "The accusation that Roblox was silencing Simon in specific through this lawsuit also does not come up elsewhere" this is only accurate for highly specific defenses, which i have already agreed to trim down. the core of his rebuttal, that he believe the lawsuit was "retaliatory" and meant to "silence his criticisms" is his fundamental right to reply.

i do not agree with any of the points made here. i reiterate i will trim down the affected paragraphs, per WP:CONSENSUS, but no other changes will be made in this regard as these claims don't hold up. 9koyami (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Okay, that was overstating it, but that still doesn't explain why you consider Roblox's claims "defamatory", given that no lawsuit has been levied against Roblox over these particular claims, no reliable secondary source seems to think they are defamatory, and in the settlement, Roblox got basically everything they wanted.
• Secondary sources are not required to follow Wikipedia's rules; otherwise, we literally couldn't cite any secondary source because every secondary does WP:OR. I don't see why researchers writing about right-wing activity in games would not do their due diligilence and risk getting sued. In particular, while the terror accusation is attributed to Roblox, the subsequent accusations are not, presumably because of the reasons I said earlier. If you think the source is wrong, feel free to write to the author or the journal explaining why you believe them to be wrong, but excluding the source from consideration right now seems to be the wrong move.
• Okay, go ahead and do that. I will note that there is currently a subtle WP:WIKIVOICE violation, ongoing criticisms of their child safety and moderation failures states in wiki voice that there were failures on the part of Roblox (compare Child safety on Roblox, which contains many accusations and controversies but is silent on whether these were moderation failures).

Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:23, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

it feels justified to say posting the wrong verdict in a case you pulled up scholarly articles for (which weren't even reliable) is a huge faux pas. i acknowledge the quoted sentence slips up on WP:WIKIVOICE, and i'm in the process of fixing other instances of it throughout the article.

though, on secondary sourcing, refer to WP:REDFLAG. major relevant claims by roblox, which showed up in multiple articles, were cited in the article. fringe allegations made by selective sources which editorialized the content of the lawsuit are not a sound basis, and are not included.

by the same reasoning, simon's right to reply means he can inherently deny or reject roblox's claims, and he has the legal right to do so, seeing as there was no guilty verdict, it was settled out of court, and he admitted no wrongdoing. all of which has sound basis: in the court, which roblox filed through. equal weight. 9koyami (talk) 07:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm still not sure how we get to a scholarly source being unreliable when it does not say anything that we know is categorically false (there is a claim in the Polygon source which very much tracks with the whole right-wing stuff). Even if we did want to scrutinize the source with the traditional components of source assessment:

• Publisher: Sage Journals is a reasonably good open access scholarly publisher. Games and Society seems like the right kind of peer reviewed journal to use for this claim, and the editorial board look fine. No signs of predatory publishing here.
• Authors: First author did their PhD thesis on combating misinformation and worked with the second author on it. All authors have experience in research on games.
• WP:USEBYOTHERS: 55 citations, I checked 10 and no one seemed to have qualms with the article.
• WP:REDFLAG/WP:FRINGE This source does not actually significantly depart from the other sources on this; at most, it uses stronger language than the others. It does not take a conspiracy theorist to go from allegeded use of racist and homophobic slurs to right wing. The fact that this is a seemingly peer reviewed, mainstream journal this is published in means that either someone is not doing peer review properly or it's not a fringe theory.

If feel like we've both lost the plot over the original WP:ABOUTSELF problems, so here it is again. Roblox's claims get one paragraph. The court order gets one paragraph. Simon's defense gets a paragraph which is about the same size as Roblox's and is entirely sourced to Simon himself. Almost all reliable sources, including the scholarly one, tip the scales in favor of Roblox. While we should tip the scales towards living people more, that does not mean that their claims must get the same weight. We don't extensively quote from If I Did It in Murder trial of O. J. Simpson for similar reasons. If I were to rewrite it, I shorten it down to:

After the settlement, Simon acknowledged creating several offensive Roblox accounts in his youth but accused Roblox of weaponizing past violations to silence his criticism of Roblox's handling of child safety.

(insert citations as needed). Based5290 :3 (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

there's not gonna be a consensus here. i will not be responding to any further messages as there continues to be blatantly false and downright libelous claims in your replies, and i've already made several changes to the article in agreement with your previous corrections. i feel like i've appropriately addressed all valid concerns.

without arguing the veracity of scholarly claims (see: Media bias), there are four major problems with this reply:

• "(there is a claim in the Polygon source which very much tracks with the whole right-wing stuff)." VIOLATION. in accordance with WP:BLP, personal deductions like this do not constitute political labels.
• "It does not take a conspiracy theorist to go from allegeded use of racist and homophobic slurs to right wing." VIOLATION. this implication violates both WP:SYNTH and WP:LABEL in a single sentence. citing polygon's coverage of the roblox lawsuit in tandem with the sage journals article follows the previous point's logic. if secondary sources don't EXPLICITLY label simon's actions as "right-wing", wikipedia cannot either.
• "Almost all reliable sources, including the scholarly one, tip the scales in favor of Roblox." VIOLATION. per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, wikipedia doesn't "tip the scales" to decide who's right or wrong in a civil lawsuit, only to document what was alleged and how it was resolved.
• "We don't extensively quote from If I Did It in Murder trial of O. J. Simpson for similar reasons." VIOLATION. see WP:BLPTALK. arguing a defendant who settled without admitting wrongdoing for online gaming behavior as comparable to someone facing double murder charges (though, yes, acquitted) is editorial bias and a false equivalency.

additionally, i want to address this:

• "If feel like we've both lost the plot over the original WP:ABOUTSELF problems," this is the only valid point here, though very loosely, and here's why: i just forgot to add an additional source. yes, i did not have one added at the time, but simon's defense has already been validated in secondary sources. this means the paragraph won't be bound by WP:ABOUTSELF anymore, and i will make changes accordingly.

if you continue to believe i'm misrepresenting simon's case, please follow WP:DR, as i'm welcome to a second opinion, a mediator, or ANI intervention. this will be my last reply in this chain. 9koyami (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Most of these "violations" were meant as components of source assessment, not things which should be added to the article. I am not arguing that the label "right-wing" should be included in the article. I am saying that the scholarly source is reliable and should be considered in how we follow WP:WEIGHT. Based5290 :3 (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:3O requested. Based5290 :3 (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

3O Response: 9koyami and Based5290: Oh, this is an easy one. Mandy Rice-Davies applies!

Oh... Oh...

In all seriousness, Simon's responses should at least be included in some capacity, per DENIALS. So that leaves us two options: two sentences of denials, or one sentence. I really think either option is fine, but I'm somewhat sympathetic to Based5290's DUE arguments, so I'm leaning one sentence.

On the topic of that scholarly source, I too am somewhat skeptical of their placing of Roblox's claims in "journalvoice". This is a literature review, and this claim is cited to a Wired article which I don't yet have time to listen to. I won't make any firm judgement on that claim as a result. However, I will say that I think it's exceedingly unlikely that this source did the sort of deep dive Based5290 describes, and that it absolutely cannot be used to say that Roblox's claims are true, per BLPCRIME. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 03:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

i'll maintain that i didn't object to either shortening the length of the denial response (which i did, though only by a bit, and further emphasizing undue "alt-right" / extremist / slur usage concerns) or switching the primary sources to reliable secondary sources, which i did, but then Based5290 immediately claimed this "failed verification". (though no source was cited as "generally unreliable" per cite unseen, and neither did any of the 31 citations in the article)

if, during the GA nomination or any other review, a request to shorten the specific paragraph is made, i will abide by it. though, adding my personal opinion would make this message three times as long, and i wish to avoid further disputes or edit wars. 9koyami (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

i've further shortened the paragraph to the following;

"Following the settlement, Simon publicly addressed several of the lawsuit's allegations, broadly denying the corporation's most severe claims. Simon maintained that the corporation weaponized his past terms of service violations to aggressively police his off-platform conduct and silence his ongoing criticisms of their alleged child safety protocol and moderation failures."

as it stands, i don't see this as violating any relevant WP: page rules. i expect a resolution. 9koyami (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

NOTE: in the live article, i've fixed the potential WP:SEAOFBLUE issue in "alleged child safety protocol and moderation failures." 9koyami (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Barbalalaika (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that YouTuber Ruben Sim created an independent initiative to document explicit content on the Roblox platform?

• Source: https://hindenburgresearch.com/roblox/
• "Since September 2nd, 2024, third-party monitor ‘Moderation For Dummies’ has reported ~12,400 erotic roleplay accounts on Roblox."
• "Moderation for Dummies – a Twitter account operated by an individual sued by Roblox named Ruben Sim ..."

• ALT1: ... that YouTuber Ruben Sim contributed to the FBI arrest of a prominent Roblox game developer for criminal sexual activity?

• Source: https://www.pcgamer.com/software/platforms/a-pedophile-used-roblox-to-groom-abduct-and-sexually-assault-a-15-year-old-girl-a-full-18-months-after-the-community-had-outed-him-as-a-predator/
• "One of the figures involved in exposing DoctorRofatnik is Ben Simon, a controversial Roblox YouTuber who goes by the handle Ruben Sim."
• "As the FBI investigated how this happened, it was surprised to discover that Roblox users had already exposed Castillo 18 months prior."

• Reviewed:

Created by 9koyami (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

9koyami (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Article is new enough, long enough. Hook facts are interesting, though I'd avoid ALT1 due to BLP concerns. No close paraphrasing found. Image has an OTRS ticket submitted.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ruben Sim/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: 9koyami (talk · contribs) 03:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Crispybeatle (talk · contribs) 00:07, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

hi, let me know if/when i can fix some of the prose mistakes that were accidentally introduced during maintenance, just in case you plan to add more fixes. just don't wanna interrupt 9koyami (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

to quickly address 2d, the two other article sources i had that properly characterized simon as a "critic" and not just labelling his content "criticism" by association were... not great? the times of india , gaming amigos . the source was used to account for this because it later comes up for other relevant claims.

slight WP:SYNTH concern is valid though, but my phrasing is mostly because the three sources are like "simon was sued in 2021, but he has also done this" and there isn't really significant news coverage from between the settlement and castillo's arrest 9koyami (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I haven't checked anything in 2D because it's a part of the source check that I will be starting now. Crispybeatle (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

my mistake, i assumed the hold on 2d meant there was a hold because of that specific source usage 9koyami (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

You may proceed. Fancy, eh? Crispybeatle (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

recommended fixes:

• #1: improper synthesis: replaced the verge article with the tubefilter article, refining the phrasing to ...later building a large audience on YouTube under the pseudonym Ruben Sim., which additionally links his legal name to the pseudonym
• #2: improper synthesis: the overarching ban bypass claim has been rephrased to avoid a potential WP:NPOV violation, though the fact is he did bypass roblox's bans using alts. he readily admits as much in his videos, but i just don't want to be overreliant on primary sources, because i was before.
• #3: non-primary source needed: citing WRAL article which states the figures, and more clearly outlining the source of the claim. keeping the original SGGH webpage alongside it for the sake of reference.

grammar fixes:

• #1: phrasing in lead:
• The litigation was settled out of court in January 2022, with Simon agreeing to a $150,000 monetary judgment without admitting wrongdoing. As well as a legal permanent injunction banning him from the platform.
• The litigation was settled out of court in January 2022, with Simon agreeing to a $150,000 monetary judgment and a permanent injunction banning him from the platform, without admitting wrongdoing.
• #2: sentence fragments:
• misleading terrorist threats on social media.[3][7][6] Which prompted a temporary lockdown of the 2021 Roblox Developers Conference in San Francisco.[8]
• misleading terrorist threats on social media,[3][7][6] which prompted a temporary lockdown of the 2021 Roblox Developers Conference in San Francisco.[8]

if there's anything else that needs to be done, let me know! additionally, i think 5a should be accounted for as the email to VRTS from the author was provided. 9koyami (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Fix number 2, isn't really a fix. You are not committing an NPOV violation as most RSS conclude, and Ruben, that he is doing ban evasion. Crispybeatle (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

thank you for your help and maintenance throughout! 9koyami (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   There were various run-on sentences before I edited the article, also you used the Oxford Comma wrong in two instances.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Please fix the synthesis issues I marked with the inline templates.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am not holding a GA due to an image. The deed is done.

Political views

Do we have any sources regarding his political views and statements, which have been a source of controversy in some areas? Gregory "Greg" Heffley (talk) 08:43, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

hi Gregory "Greg" Heffley, per wikipedia policy, things like this have to be:

• handled with care, especially for controversial living people (WP:BLP)
• notable enough that it's been mentioned at least a few times, to stay neutral (WP:UNDUE & WP:NPOV)

zero sources talk about it. wikipedia isn't for minor social media drama (WP:NOTNEWS), so this won't be included. Kinnimeyu (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, the article puts him in a positive light without any mentions of his controversies regarding transgender and alt-right views GodzillamanRor (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

lead image

image is currently gone because WP:VRT for some reason refuses to reply to my emails after an entire month. waiting on them to actually do something about it because things have been radio silent since i submitted permission. Kinnimeyu (talk) 05:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest?

After reviewing this article it apperas that every primary source is cited through Ruben Sim. I do not think that is a neutral perspective. I am not saying that this article is violating WP:ABOUTSELF. But the paragraphs at the beginning of the article seem unduly self-serving to Sim. For example, Sim even provided the image for the article itself. Are we sure that this article is not a Conflict of Interest? Not to say that it looks like a paid contribution in favor of Sim given that user Kinnimeyu produced much of the current article?

"Benjamin Robert Simon (born May 12, 1997), known online as Ruben Sim, is an American YouTuber best known for his commentary and criticism of the online game platform Roblox."

By whom? And:

"His investigations contributed to the FBI arrest of a prominent Roblox game developer and the creation of "Moderation for Dummies", an initiative to document explicit content on the Roblox platform..."

The prominent Roblox game developer is not even mentioned in the lead of this article. A better rewrite would be "His investigations contributed to the FBI arrest of prominent Roblox game developer identified as Arnold Castillo and the creation of "Moderation for Dummies", an initiative to document explicit content on the Roblox platform..." Still only one source mentions Sim here that being Hindenburg, and it still portrays him in a neutral to negative light. "It should be noted that Roblox has actively taken steps to silence critics who point out safety deficiencies, like Ruben Sim."

This is not to say that the article is not inherently relevant. The secondary sources are relevant given that they focus on child safety on Roblox. But shouldn't it redirect to that article instead of being placed on Sims?

Thanks, Admiralable (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore if Schlep (Youtuber) who has been featured prominent in the news redirects to Roblox–Schlep controversy why does Sim have an entire article for himself? Admiralable (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC)