Talk:Billy Mitchell (gamer)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Edit requests

With the page being protected for the foreseeable future, please use the WP:EDITREQUEST function to request changes and have other editors implement the changes on your behalf (if appropriate.) Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: I found a spelling error in the Disputed Records section: "by knowing using modified games" should be "by knowingly using." Someone who can edit this article should fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.190.175 (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. --Masem (t) 04:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Poorly-sourced information. "In August 2017, Jeremy Young, a moderator on the Twin Galaxies online forums, expressed concern..." Jeremy Young is a moderator for the Donkey Kong Forum. He filed a dispute at Twin Galaxies, yes, but he doesn't have any significant leaderboard authority over there. "Young subsequently removed the three scores from the site as the use of MAME emulation was considered invalid for high-score recording." Implying that this was on Twin Galaxies. If he removed them before the dispute he filed actually closed then the story would be completely different. This was on DKF. It also had nothing to do with MAME being unacceptable; in fact, the leaderboard is unified there. It was because Mitchell tried to present the MAME gameplay as authentic arcade gameplay that those scores were disqualified. 2600:1702:18F0:5180:C495:1289:1DD8:B13 (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done I made this edit to try to address your concerns. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Appreciated, but it still states that he's a moderator on TG when he doesn't; he moderates DKF. Line 54, first sentence. 2600:1702:18F0:5180:C495:1289:1DD8:B13 (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:18F0:5180:74D9:C346:F5D9:2F3F (talk)

 Done Thanks for the correction! – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Perfect pacman score

Seriously? On source which not at all WP:RS. This guy is a con man, and the speedrunning community knows this. 95.198.23.209 (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:EDITREQUEST. You can request changes, but they must be specific and constructive. As is, this isn’t actionable. Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Billy Mitchell cheater

Billy Mitchell was caught using emulated copies of games he was claiming to set his records on as well as claiming they were legitimate copies even going as far as to provide fake evidence. Billy has been stripped of his world records and labeled a fraud in the gaming community. Many of Billy Mitchells accomplishments were false including being the first person to ever get a perfect score on packman and donkey kong record — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.6.31 (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we neutrally word things based on what reliable sources say. The article currently does a far better job articulating what's happened with Mitchel than all of...that...does. If you've got a specific, constructive request, feel free to do an WP:EDITREQUEST, but any more idle complaining will be removed per WP:NOTAFORUM. Sergecross73 msg me 03:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2021

I need to fix some grammar in this article. NBA2K16 (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Feel free to use the edit request system you're already using to propose grammar changes. Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2021

The line "In 1999, Mitchell became the first person to record a perfect score of 3,333,360 points on the arcade game Pac-Man." Is not true, and has been debunked many times on youtube and gaming forums. Now the next line is true and the statement " Twin Galaxies and Guinness World Records recognized Mitchell as the holder of several records on classic games including Pac-Man and Donkey Kong," however this should also be removed because guiness only recognized Mitchell as the World record holder because Twin galaxies did so. But now Twin galaxies are suing both Mitchell and the former owner of TG because of fraud, and they are claiming that most or all of Mitchells records are false.

Because of this I strongly suggest to remove all information claiming Mitchell is a great gamer and claiming records or World records, and I suggest taking some time to research what is true and false. Or put an * next to any claimed record and wait for the lawsuit to end before making any claims. 84.211.6.106 (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you please reply with a couple of links to reliable sources that say these things? Anything controversial on Wikipedia needs to be backed up with reliable sources such as newspapers and books. If reliable sources say these things, we can begin changing the article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Changes require reliable sources that support it. Sergecross73 msg me 23:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Rejected edits\Apollo Legend info

Hello there Masem! I completely understand your logic for reverting the "good faith edits". I was wondering why the Apollo Legend stuff got deleted? If they are worth adding, where would the appropriate spot to put it? I assume just start a new paragraph under the Twin Galaxies part. I'm so new to this, so I appreciate your patience!! Thank you so much for your time and help!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicahLuv (talk • contribs)

As I mentioned on my talk, we already mention the Apollo lawsuit but we don't discuss its closure, and part of this is that the RSes for covering it are just not there given this is a BLP. However, I'm not finding any RSes that talk about the suit being settled before Apollo's death at all, so this is a fair question: we should confirm that the lawsuit was closed out given that its onset was discussed in RSes, but I don't know if we can use less-reliable RSes for that. --Masem (t) 12:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

"Video Game Player of the Century"

The article currently states "For this, Namco, the makers of Pac-Man, brought Mitchell to Japan for the Tokyo Game Show that year to name him the "Video Game Player of the Century"." and cites https://egmnow.com/the-split-screen-man/ as the source. This source currently features the following correction: "Correction Sept. 24, 2021: An earlier version of this article mistakenly attributed Billy Mitchell’s “Player of the Century” award to Namco. In light of recent research published at perfectpacman.com, the language used to refer to the award above has been clarified."

The source article currently says "It’s this achievement that prompted Twin Galaxies to declare Mitchell the “Video Game Player of the Century.” Namco, the company behind Pac-Man, even flew Mitchell to Japan, brought him onstage at the Tokyo Game Show, presented him with a commemorative plaque, and offered him a chance to meet founder Masaya Nakamura." In actuality Walter Day, Mitchell's close friend as business partner, made this VGPotC declaration of Mitchell, but Day and Mitchell have suggested the award was provided by Namco or alternatively JAMMA. Ref: https://perfectpacman.com/2021/09/20/dot-six/ 1dragon (talk) 10:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I've only fixed it to refer to TG giving him that award and Namco flying him out to Japan as a result, per the updated EGM article, rather than remove it all together. --Masem (t) 12:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

first donkey kong kill screen

I know it's Billy Mitchell we're talking about, so facts are bit more like suggestions, but there's some contradictory details about his November 1982 LIFE Magazine Donkey Kong game. Article currently says "Mitchell challenged Sanders to Donkey Kong and demonstrated that the game had an impassable "kill screen" when he reached level 22, while subsequently beating Sanders and setting a high score of 874,300". Now I know Twin Galaxies (and I think even Guinness, no doubt via TG) have dramatized the game as the first Donkey Kong kill screen, but Mitchell himself has been fairly elusive about whether or not that's true. In fact, when he talks about the game, he rarely says anything more specific than "I got 849,000 on my first guy". We can go down the rabbit hole of why he prefers that figure to saying his final score, or how Twin Galaxies didn't actually record his score until almost a year later, and there are existing contradictory accounts of what his final score actually was, but that would just be speculation. What it might help explain though is why Mitchell himself has contradicted whether or not he got a kill screen that day.

In the East Side Dave interview, he claims he came one level shy that day: "I was in Twin Galaxies when I got 849,000 points on one guy. I came a level shy of a kill screen... in front of all the players in Twin Galaxies... in front of the cameras of LIFE magazine. It was an environment that you would consider indisputable" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWLxh9Yi5Dc&t=1647s (27:27) In a 2017 interview, he claims he got the first kill screen in July 1982 at an event in Florida and it wasn't repeated again for 20 years: "I played and excelled and got to a level on Donkey Kong, the kill screen, in 1982.. in July, 1982... at an event there, in South Florida. And the fact that that wasn't done again, in any venue like that, for 20 years. Um. That tells me that was a difficult game" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Flj8qbuR-Mc (6:29) To me, this points to details that were "remembered" long after the fact, and Billy Mitchell perhaps not agreeing with the version Twin Galaxies came up with (at least not fully, I know he has repeated the TG version himself also, further adding to the confusion). Anyway, there's more than one story, and I don't think it's as simple as he misspoke, so I think we should perhaps acknowledge the contradiction. 2600:8800:239F:A900:2036:4DF:36D:F638 (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2022

Fix the typo in the last sentence of the 'Disputed records' section. (defomarty to defamatory) Scyphozo (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for pointing it out. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

State of the article and Billy Mitchell's fraudulent activities

It is my opinion that this article is rather unsatisfactory and in need of improvement. It has been very well established by multiple different people via the reviewal of physical evidence that Billy Mitchell fraudulently attained is Donkey Kong high-score, on of the feats that gained him international fame and even got a film (The King of Kong) produced centered around Mitchell and his exploits. Not to mention his repeated failure to score well in live arcade game tournaments (nowhere near to his alleged high-scores), as well as his profuse interactions and association with disgraced fraudster Todd Rogers, who assisted Mitchell in his fraudulent Donkey Kong high-score after falsifying many of his own high-scores in the Twin Galaxies database. I however will not be recapping all of the copious amounts of evidence against Mr. Mitchell here, that is readily available online.

I bring this up because that article mentions these issues as if they're speculative, and as a footnote to the rest of his "accomplishments". Billy Mitchell is most famous for, and built the rest of his persona on his reputation as a "skilled" arcade video-game player. His records have since been proven to have been attained fraudulently, and he has known dealings with others who have lied and falsified records. This should be featured more on the article, and calls into serious question the validity of all Mr. Mitchell's high scores and video game exploits. Either way, this article could use some serious editing. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLP a key policy around living persons. While there are accusations towards Mitchell and which we can document them from reliable sources, we cannot take any stance on the matter whether he was fraudulent or not. We have worded this article carefully to leave the fact that whether these scores are legit or not being still up for debate, but we're definitely not going to take the stance that he was a fraud. --Masem (t) 21:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Seconded. Sergecross73 msg me 21:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thirded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:F2A0:4230:474:4970:28FB:FAF1 (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a very strange stance considering:

1. This article implies there were no disputes prior to 2018 - when he was a highly suspected cheater from the early 2000s.

2. The 2018 lawsuit was the first case where he was PROVEN a cheater. Just because the court case hasn't ended doesn't mean the evidence isn't visible to the public. It is perfectly acceptable to mention these details, without expressing a determination.

While it is correct that wikipedia can't take the stance of outright saying "known cheater", it is common to mention "suspected" allegations for people who are notorious for certain things. Arguably, he has been MOST famous for being a cheater since 2007, and it is weird that wikipedia, the site people go to in order to learn... does not make that clear. 75.52.156.154 (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a "Disputed records" sections with information from 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 in it, so I'm failing to see what's "unclear" about this. Sergecross73 msg me 16:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way that we (on wikipedia) can use submitted evidence to conclude Mitchell is guilty. That is a BLP violation. And if there was concerns about possible cheat from before 2017, we need sourvesvto include for that. Masem (t) 17:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Somebpdy other than MASEM Call a Moderator please; I have no reason to trust MASEM who is claiming to speak for Wikipedia; @MASEM that is not how Wikipedia works. This article reaks of problematic. I always sign TalonX78.54.104.64 (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I am an admin. I know our policies and under WP:BLP we have to have reliable sources to speak to that. Period. Masem (t) 13:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm an Admin too, for the record. One with no connection positive or negative with Mitchell, simply an Admin who was asked to intervene and moderate years ago because issues perpetually erupt here. Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Billy Mitchell Twitch channel should be added

https://www.twitch.tv/billy_mitchell 2600:6C5D:37F:3E8B:EC55:432A:E7B2:1E6E (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect Link to Todd Rogers Page 7/31/23

In the end of the second paragraph of the disputed records section, the link for Todd Rogers will get redirected. The link is found here:

"Further, it was determined that the verifier for the Boomers and Mortgage Brokers scores was Twin Galaxies referee Todd Rogers, who had himself been banned from Twin Galaxies for submitting fraudulent scores, putting Mitchell's scores in doubt.[4]"

The link for Todd Rogers is redirected from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Todd_Rogers_(video_game_player)&redirect=no, the page for Todd Rogers (video game player) when it should go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Rogers_(gamer), the page for Todd Rogers (gamer)

There is nothing in that Todd Rogers (video game player), except Todd Rogers (gamer) so there is no need to send them to Todd Rogers (video game player) only to redirect them to Todd Rogers (gamer).

I think I've fixed it.Emmmm.Ayyyy. (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2023

I would like to add a section detailing his many lawsuits, as well as the fact that many of his records were proven to be fake. This is not meant in malice or distaste for Billy Mitchell, but only for all public information on this individual to be present. 107.11.172.145 (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 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. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

We have already discussion of the lawsuits as reported through reliable sources. WP does not use primary sources like court records or unreliable blogs to source content about BLPs.

Much of the issue around Mitchell's records and whether they are fake or not is a lot of "he said she said", so we can't factually report that these scores were falsified/cheated on/etc., though we can outline accusations related to that as documented in reliable sources. Masem (t) 13:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I hate to be rude but this is very untrue. There are large amounts of technical evidence and analysis, as well as images of illegally modified arcade cabinets where he claims to have achieved records. It is not a "he said she said" situation. Wikipedia can and should reflect the news coverage and the rulings from scoring authorities that the scores were not achieved on authentic arcade machines without illegally modified hardware. Emmmm.Ayyyy. (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to some reliable sources for the contrary and they can be evaluated. But they need to be reliable sources in the Wikipedia sense, it can't be this amateur Reddit/YouTuber investigation stuff people always try to present for use. That's not the sort of sourcing Wikipedia allows. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Please see below. Emmmm.Ayyyy. (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Technical Analysis from 2022, direct link [1]

News coverage links [2][3]

I also have added links and explanation with the recent coverage regarding the photos showing that the joystick at the Mortgage Brokers convention was an illegal modification. Emmmm.Ayyyy. (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

PerfectPacman isn't going to cut it, but Vice and NME are generally usable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The PerfectPacman link is the primary source where the expert report was published. My point was that there is a primary source (an expert report) and multiple sources covering it. My understanding based on Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sourcesis that should be usable in combination with the secondary sources. None of the secondary sources available contradict the technical analysis of either Twin Galaxies or of this later expert analysis, so in my view Masem's claim that this is a "he said she said" situation is not correct. Emmmm.Ayyyy. (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

They are not even close to a professional publication. You're now falling into the same issues so many before you fell into. Wikipedia has a strict WP:BLP policy saying that sourcing have to be particularly strong when against living people. We can't use a self-published website started up a couple years ago by some guys with a mission statement of calling him a fraud. Not even close to acceptable. You're not on to something here. Sergecross73 msg me 20:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

They are experts in this admittedly niche field, and reliable secondary sources have produced coverage of the report they issued, though. Emmmm.Ayyyy. (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

It simply doesn't pass WP:BLPSPS. You're not going to muster up a valid consensus to support this. Sergecross73 msg me 21:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I will point out that Ars Technica seems to be the primary RS we have that is covering the ongoing issues with Mitchell, they reported on the questionable joystick thing from Feb, but they haven't had anything new yet. Masem (t) 01:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Jobst lawsuits dismissed?

The sourced article states that the lawsuits are currently ongoing. Where is the source that these lawsuits were dismissed? 2600:1700:4769:A030:ED8E:AFBE:9E3A:A7E1 (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I also noticed this. Is there anyone that can correct this or add a source to back up the statement that the lawsuits were thrown out? I couldn’t find any sources myself. It looks like the suits are ongoing. Extoverse (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9umbsmrFk08&feature=youtu.be time 19:10. As of today, July 31, 2023, Karl Jobst himself says he is being sued currently! 67.4.196.55 (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP, so a much better source than a YouTube video is needed to add content to this article. Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

But if there's no source for the lawsuits having been dismissed, and the existing source states that they're still ongoing, shouldn't that line about them being dismissed be removed? Thezanlynxer (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Anything that doesn't have a reliable source verifying it should be removed, yes. Sergecross73 msg me 20:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Article, upon reading, seems to have a positive bias toward Mitchell

I couldn't think of a better way to word the title so you'll have to bear with my explanation, which is probably not up to the level of conciseness or quality that the other posts seem to be here.

Anyway, I casually use Wikipedia for research and i don't tend to edit it particularly, but I noticed while reading this article that it really does not seem to like to outright call Mitchell a cheater, or say his scores are cheated. the article for the most part seems to (somewhat falsely) portray Mitchell as a legitimate gamer, when almost all of his most prized records are faked.

I hope this isn't an awful topic, I just noticed this while reading the article. I think it would be helpful to outright state where Mitchell's records have been proven to be fake. One part that struck me is that it states Guinness reinstated his records, and while i know this is factual it could give off the belief to someone inexperienced with the subject that the records were proven to be legitimate.

I am aware and agree that the article should not label Mitchell as a fraud, but it should be stated that the common belief is accepted that he has faked many of his records. Furthermore, the end of the article talks about his lawsuits towards the YouTuber Karl Jobst and upon further research, Mitchell makes a habit out of filing lawsuits which can be regarded as frivolous - perhaps this can be touched upon. I wouldn't dare edit the article myself due to my lack of experience with it but hopefully this can be taken into consideration. Sorry about this rambling mess, hopefully you can understand what i mean by this.51.52.224.164 (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Because there is yet no decision on the case, we really cannot call out Mitchell asa cheater under WP:BLP. We talk of the accusations but as there is no verified or confirmed form of cheating, we cannot outright say these are true. Masem (t) 19:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Every person who likes him says we're too tough on him. Anyone who dislikes him says we're too easy on him. The truth is that we've got to stick to what reliable sources say on him. That's more or less where we find ourselves today. Feel free to propose specific changes. Until you understand Wikipedia's standard for usable sources, WP:VG/S is a pretty extensive resources of sources to use or avoid in the video game content area. Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

What I do not seem to understand is that most of those "reliable sources" are mostly Mitchell himself, how is that not biased? I however agree with the notion that he is innocent until proven guilty. Gonace (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The way I see it, those who are with him, are with him purely for the nostalga of the game, and probably looked to him as some kind of inspiration. Probably similar to how Kanye West defended Bill Cosby in his own way after his scandal. Those who are not with him are bullied into a corner about this, weither they are right or wrong, and the main reason I think Wikipedias administration is not unbiased in the article so carefully is because they don't want to get sued. That's a major reason people are not actively behind Karl Jobst who is also being sued by Mitchell. To both sides before the Truth comes out in either case, there is no cure for stupidity, and you can't stop a pathological liar. Just look at the American political system for that example. Maxcardun (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The sources are not "mostly Mitchell himself". This assertion greatly puzzles me. Sergecross73 msg me 18:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 In relation to one particular claim - that Billy Mitchell was crowned 'Video Game Player of the Century' by Twin Galaxies - there seems to only be evidence that Mitchell is indeed the source for this. Twin Galaxies themselves are demonstrating in court that no titles, or plaques, that were given to Mitchell by Twin Galaxies or by Nintendo ever called him the Video Game Player of the Century.

I understand that Mitchell's article has to remain neutral and based on solid evidence, but the statement is a bit too definitive considering it is the topic of a highly public lawsuit. Besides, the source given for the claim is from an interview with Billy Mitchell himself and doesn't offer any other evidence.

Overly lengthy way of suggesting that 'the video game player of the Century' sentence should be at least rephrased to be less definite :) Niall45567 (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

This article is large - can you link to the exact statement and source used? Sergecross73 msg me 11:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

That is being sourced by the Split Screen article, of which there is no reason to doubt that unless you question the reliability of that source. It doesn't appear to be a claim by Mitchell. WaPost doesn't seem to doubt it, nor NPR. Masem (t) 12:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

There we go. Third party sourcing easily found. Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Disputed Records section title - in need of change?

@Sergecross73 so here is where the problem seems to be with this section. I am open to options on how to fix it.

Mitchell has been determined to have been cheating, as in submitting scores that were not achieved via the unmodified arcade hardware he represented achieving them on, in multiple instances. This was confirmed by the two main authorities on these scores, Donkey Kong Forum and Twin Galaxies. It was also confirmed by a panel of multiple experts doing detailed technical analysis in 2022.

While Guinness restored Mitchell's listing in their books under the threat of a lawsuit, Guinness is also not in the business of verifying video game high scores.

I think that the section needs to be renamed to something more clear, such as "Donkey Kong Cheating Scandal." Emmmm.Ayyyy. (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:CSECTION and WP:NPOV, we've got to keep section titles neutral. So terms like "controversy" or "scandal" are going to be out. Sergecross73 msg me 19:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

We really need to wait until the court case is resolved before any changes are made. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Why? The court case isn't to prove that Billy cheated. It's to determine if Twin Galaxies published false statements that are damaging to a Mitchell's reputation. The issue is both TG, DK Forums, along with multiple experts have all concluded that Mitchell did not play on unmodified hardware (Also, Mitchell, himself, accidently stated it in his own deposition with Twin Galaxies). 2600:100A:B1E4:6D02:A434:446E:811C:671 (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

WP policy requires us to only factually state such cheating if the court asserts this is true. Doesn't matter how many experts here throw their hat into the "cheating" ring, we can't use these opinions regarding Mitchel per WP:SPSBLP Masem (t) 00:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Which policy? Is lying about a Donkey Kong score a criminal offense? ApLundell (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP. Doesn't matter if it is something as trivial as a video game high score, we have to use high quality RSes for any such claims. Masem (t) 03:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

But why is a court of law the only reliable source for Donkey Kong scores? What special authority do judges have in that domain? ApLundell (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

At the core, whether Mitchell cheated is an unresolvable argument, as without the actual machines to validate the hardware used and the like, it will be what those claiming Mitchell cheated against Mitchell's own word, and there's no way to prove either side. (This is not in sports where they do drug testing and can demonstrate an athlete was on performing-enhancing drugs right then and there) All that can be said is how that will be resolved in the court of law, and what the judge says will be the factual resolution of the matter. Masem (t) 17:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Not only this, but quite frankly, most of the sourcing that seems to get proposed doesn't even meet regular RS standards, let alone BLP/crime stuff. An awful lot if it comes from "YouTuber Investigators", "Redditors", or personal blogs/websites. Sergecross73 msg me 20:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2023

108.160.30.59 (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done 1) There is still no legal case that Mitchell has concluded (though at the same time, no case also claiming his scores were fully legit), and as such we aren't going to move this to a incorrect title 2) We would never use such a negative-laden title. Even if a court determined he did cheat, we would still name him as a (gamer) as a neutral title. --Masem (t) 01:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Request for Inclusion of Legal Context in Billy Mitchell (Gamer) Wikipedia Article

I am writing to bring attention to what I perceive as a potential bias in the Wikipedia article for Billy Mitchell (gamer). While the current article admirably highlights Mr. Mitchell's accomplishments in the gaming community, it seems to lack coverage of significant legal issues and litigations that have been associated with him. In the interest of maintaining Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and verifiability, I believe it is imperative to provide a more balanced and comprehensive view of his public profile.

Examples of legal matters involving Billy Mitchell that are currently absent from the article include among many others:

1. Doppelganger Gaming Lawsuit: In recent years, Mitchell has been involved in a legal dispute related to the alleged use of his likeness and gaming persona by another individual or entity. The outcome of this lawsuit and its implications for Mitchell's public image should be explored to present a well-rounded perspective.
2. Trademark Disputes: There have been instances where Mitchell has pursued legal action to protect his image and trademarks associated with his gaming persona. The article could benefit from an examination of these trademark disputes and their impact on Mitchell's standing in the gaming community.
3. Contractual Disputes with Gaming Events: Mitchell has been known to participate in various gaming events and competitions. It would be informative to include details about any contractual disputes or legal issues arising from these engagements, providing readers with a broader understanding of his interactions within the gaming industry.

By incorporating information about these legal matters, we can contribute to a more nuanced and impartial representation of Billy Mitchell's public life. This aligns with Wikipedia's commitment to providing a fair and accurate portrayal of individuals, ensuring that readers have access to a comprehensive view of the subject.

I propose that we collaborate to thoroughly research and add verifiable information about the legal issues mentioned above, adhering to Wikipedia's content guidelines. This will enhance the overall quality and objectivity of the Billy Mitchell (gamer) article. Cpayb (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

We need reliable sources - which cannot include blogs, YouTube videos, or court documents - for all of these. Masem (t) 02:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to propose specific content you want to add, but on Wikipedia, we're required to abide by concepts like WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP, and the article is already pretty actively written and maintained by experienced editors, so I wouldn't expect that there's a ton out there to be added that would comply with our encyclopedic policies and guidelines. 02:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Sergecross73 msg me 02:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Clarifications for Donkey Kong Forum score removals and 8-way joystick speculation

Current(1): Young continued to investigate the Boomers video as well as the King of Kong and Mortgage Brokers scores, and in early 2018 posted evidence that both scores were made on MAME, an emulator, rather than actual hardware.[4] Young subsequently removed the three scores from the Donkey Kong Forums website for misrepresenting MAME emulation as authentic gameplay.

New(1): Young continued to investigate the Boomers video as well as the King of Kong and Mortgage Brokers scores, and in early 2018 posted evidence that both scores were made using MAME, an emulator, rather than original hardware.[4] Although Donkey Kong Forum does accept MAME scores, Young subsequently removed the three scores from the site for misrepresenting the platform they were performed on.

Explanation(1): The original phrasing inaccurately suggests that MAME is not authentic gameplay. Edit clarifies that the primary justification for score removal was the platform misrepresentation. Additionally, the site's name is Donkey Kong Forum, not Donkey Kong Forums (present elsewhere in the article as well).

Current(2): Photographs from the 2007 Florida Association of Mortgage Brokers convention uncovered in January 2023 showed that the Donkey Kong cabinet Mitchell used there appeared to have a modified joystick that may allow for eight-way motion rather than the standard four-way joystick. This would be in violation of Twin Galaxies' rules against playing on modified hardware.[43] Eight-way joysticks are banned because they potentially give an unfair advantage over the game's original 4-direction joystick, making it easier to perform moves in the game.[44]

New(2): Photographs from the 2007 Florida Association of Mortgage Brokers convention uncovered in January 2023 showed that the Donkey Kong cabinet Mitchell used there appeared to have a modified joystick. This would be in violation of Twin Galaxies' rules against playing on modified hardware.[43] This discovery led to additional speculation that the joystick may have allowed for eight-way motion rather than the standard four-way joystick. Eight-way joysticks are banned because they potentially give an unfair advantage over the game's original 4-direction joystick, making it easier to perform moves in the game.[44] However, because the component used to restrict the movement of arcade joysticks to certain directions is generally installed underneath the control panel, it is not possible to confirm this from the photos alone.

Explanation(2): The movement of arcade joysticks is typically restricted by a metal or plastic plate installed near the base of the joystick, which has a cutout shaped like the intended directions. Such restrictor plates are generally concealed by the control panel and not visible without opening up the machine. In the relevant photos, although the joystick itself is clearly modified, it is not possible to determine if a four-way restrictor plate was installed. Realistically, the mention of it should be dropped entirely as speculation, but at this point the speculation has spread enough to be itself noteworthy. Zerst1234 (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done There's too much going on here. Please try again, suggesting simpler, smaller changes across multiple requests. Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Clarifications for Donkey Kong Forum score removals (resubmission)

Current: Young subsequently removed the three scores from the Donkey Kong Forums website for misrepresenting MAME emulation as authentic gameplay.

New: Although Donkey Kong Forum does accept MAME scores, Young subsequently removed the three scores from the site, as misrepresenting the platform they were performed on brought their authenticity into question. Zerst1234 (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

This just sounds like a more drown out version of the same thing... Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The current statement is materially misleading, because MAME is still "authentic gameplay" within the scope of the community, just a different category with a different set of verification rules (MAME, versus, Arcade/Original Hardware). The scores were removed plainly because of the platform misrepresentation, with "inauthentic gameplay" noted as a further possibility that has not been conclusively proven (albeit with substantial weight due to Wes's analysis, covered later in the section).

The reason I made this request was to make it concise what the specific reason for removal was, with a clarifying comment that indicates MAME itself does not equal cheating, in an effort to prevent readers/secondary sources from conflating the two points (effectively proven platform misrepresentation, versus, suspected cheating) and just reporting the latter as proven fact, which by now seems to have become the common understanding of the situation.

I don't think I can simplify the change further without losing accuracy. Zerst1234 (talk) 05:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but I dont think it's a problem with the current wording, which doesn't suggest all MAME usage is illegitimate to begin with. I think this is clarifying a question largely not being asked in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 18:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree to disagree, then. We can boil this thread down to, that is exactly how I parse the clause "misrepresenting MAME emulation as authentic gameplay", because the use of "gameplay" generalizes the statement to all aspects of the recording, whereas something more specific like "original hardware" would sustain the context of the dispute being first and foremost about the physical platform. Zerst1234 (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

The way the Ars Tech source reports this, it was the use of MAME as why their were doubts to the scores. Thus, the clarification given above isn't supported by the source above. Masem (t) 00:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

There are multiple Ars Technica articles in the citations, but if you are referring to this source, the relevant quote is:

"While there's no direct evidence that Mitchell did this kind of rerecording, presenting a MAME run as actual arcade gameplay would certainly introduce the possibility of such cheating."

This quote itself is accurate per the primary source, but "actual arcade gameplay" means "gameplay on original arcade hardware". The phrase in the article here ("misrepresenting MAME emulation as authentic gameplay") appears to instead truncate the Ars quote to "actual gameplay" and then word-swap "actual" to "authentic", losing the original meaning by associating "actual" to "gameplay" instead of the dropped word "arcade", consequently suggesting "MAME is not authentic gameplay" as the reason for score removal, which is not correct. Zerst1234 (talk) 07:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the double-post, but separately to address your point, I'll add context to the Ars quote.

MAME scores are commonly accepted at DKF and other score-tracking sites.

Unlike Arcade (original hardware) submissions, there is an additional level of verification required for MAME submissions, because MAME has added functionality to use cheats and create tool-assisted gameplay recordings (referenced by Ars as rerecording, a common type of tool-assistance).

Because Billy submitted the scores in question as Arcade rather than MAME, the submissions were not checked for cheats/tool-assistance. Had he done so and they showed no sign of them, the scores would most likely remain accepted and there would be no dispute.

So saying the doubt was introduced by the use of MAME misses the point - the doubt was introduced because the platform misrepresentation meant that the submissions were accepted without being checked for tool-assistance, as all MAME submissions should be. Zerst1234 (talk) 09:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that we need to go by the reliable sources, and those reporting on this only make the distinction that the run appeared to be on a MAME machine, but high scores are supposed to be tracked using authentic hardware. Perhaps it is the case that they do accept MAME based scores, but our sources don't say that. Masem (t) 16:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The proposed wording sounds like an editorial on MAME rather than what we're really trying to document anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 16:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Here is a link to donkeykongforum.net, the primary site relevant to this discussion. At the top of the site, there is a leaderboard with the top 10 accepted scores. To the right is the platform they were performed on, which includes both Arcade and MAME scores interspersed, as equivalent.

I am writing as a member of this community and a referee at a peer site. The classic arcade gaming community is very small, with the drama over the DK high score being the only newsworthy topic. The only articles are going to be about the drama, not the details of the community. The secondary sources do appear to have gotten the facts generally right, but that specific sentence in the Ars article is phrased in an odd way that was misinterpreted when integrated into this article.

If you need an official news outlet to publish the fact-correction on that detail, we're too small for any major outlets to bother, so I suppose the article will have to remain inaccurate and continue to misinform readers about the nature of the dispute. Zerst1234 (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Twin Galaxies reinstates Mitchell’s past records

https://www.twingalaxies.com/feed_details.php/6194/twin-galaxies-statement/5 Alex9234 (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

No they have not they have added to their historical data base. Basically Twin Galaxies equivalent of the Wayback Machine 2600:1700:2430:1F80:505E:DBB4:E55F:9D9D (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Just checked and the 2014 database shows Mitchell while the current database does not. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Somewhat misleading phrasing

I feel like this phrasing is misleading: Twin Galaxies restored Mitchell's scores the same month, and in a statement, said that the evaluation of an expert likely validated that Mitchell achieved these score on valid hardware.

What they said here was:

To this end, Twin Galaxies openly and publicly takes note of Dr. Zyda’s expressed expert opinion in regard to providing a method by which the videotape content in question might have been produced.

Twin Galaxies' mandate is to verify that submissions meet verification guidelines, not to investigate how they are produced. This latter area remains available to experts such as Dr. Zyda and other interested parties, who may examine and assess these matters for their individual purposes. Twin Galaxies takes no official stance on the creation of submitted content but can recognize and acknowledge Dr. Zyda's expert opinion.

In fair consideration of the expert opinion provided by Dr. Zyda on behalf of Mr. Mitchell, and consistent with Twin Galaxies' dedication to the meticulous documentation and preservation of video game score history, Twin Galaxies shall heretofore reinstate all of Mr. Mitchell’s scores as part of the official historical database on Twin Galaxies’ website.

So they acknowledge the expert opinion, but carefully maintain a neutral stance towards its truthfulness. Their real views on the matter can be seen from that their e-store is filled with products referencing the hard evidence on Billy's cheating. -- kazerniel (talk | contribs) 20:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

"Twin Galaxies restored Mitchell's scores the same month" is also very misleading. His scores have not been restored to the high scores lists and he's still banned from submitting new scores. All they did was create an "official historical database" that's a snapshot of what the scores database was in 2014. 76.136.201.21 (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Usually I'd ask for sources, but I just stumbled across a reliable source that mentions a lot of this at https://www.timeextension.com/news/2024/01/twin-galaxies-restores-billy-mitchells-donkey-kong-scores-to-historical-database Sergecross73 msg me 23:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Also note how the secondary sources are all latching onto the "unmodified arcade hardware" language from the lawsuit and inverting it to make the incorrect claim that the original accusation was that he played on "modified arcade hardware", completely dropping the emulation/MAME aspect. Zerst1234 (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

We should nor cannot read any further beyond the language we're given without RS, that's original research. The "unmodified [DK] arcade hardware" is TG's language so it makes sense that the secondary sources are latching onto that. Masem (t) 13:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Your statement is correct but not my point. My point was that the secondary sources are misunderstanding that language and themselves inventing "modified arcade hardware" (in contrast to emulation) as the point of contention in this new wave of articles, which is in blatant conflict with the information written by the very same outlets in the previous wave of articles about this topic.

Asking in good faith, what happens when traditionally RS are not being RS about a topic, and instead getting into a telephone game of citing each others' loose paraphrasing, with little to no input from the actual community? Zerst1234 (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers the use of third party accounts, unrelated to the matters at hand. So we should be using the content we're seeing from websites like The Verge or Time Extension. (Or anything else deemed reliable at WP:VG/S. Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

That emulation doesnt appear in any of the primary sources (TG's statement, the expert's letter) abd that the RSes arent also using "emulation" is beyond our control. Perhaps part of the settlement was that TG could not even infer in their press that Mitchell may have used emulation. Without more coverage of the settlement itself, we wont know.

I know there are a lot of ppl out there that want to see Mitchell thrown under the bus proverbally and still believed he cheated with emulation, but WP has a strong BLP stance that we cannot go there without RSes to take us there. Masem (t) 14:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, garbage in garbage out in this case, but I understand there's nothing Wikipedia can do about it as an aggregator, especially with how hot opinions are getting with the topic.

Will just leave it with this official clarification from Twin Galaxies on the matter, for anyone who may be doing research. Zerst1234 (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Twin Galaxies 'restored' Mitchell's records as he was their recognized record holder until they revoked them. So now people can see Mitchell was once the holder. However, he is not reinstated. He is not on the current leaderboard and he is not the recognized holder of any records on Twin Galaxies. Yes, the parties settled, but all Billy won was that Twin Galaxies can't completely erase him from history. They do not recognize the disputed scores as valid and the settlement did not force them to do so. --SVTCobra 06:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

We have no idea what the settlement required. His scores are back up in the pre-2014 TG lists but since TG changed ownership after that, the current owners clearly aren't adding them to the current record boards. Whether that is TG's choice or an aspect of the settlement, we will never known until terms of the settlement are published. Masem (t) 13:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

You are correct, the terms of the settlement are not disclosed and I shouldn't have worded it that way. I am just assuming TG is in compliance with the settlement. SVTCobra 13:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)