Talk:Billy Mitchell (gamer)

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)

Twin Galaxies reinstatement

His scores on the Twin Galaxies website are not and will not be reinstated, that was not part of the recent settlement, the settlement was for defamation. ManBearJordan (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This is being discussed in the discussion above. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

TG's letter says "Twin Galaxies shall heretofore reinstate all of Mr. Mitchell’s scores as part of the official historical database on Twin Galaxies’ website." They're not being reinstated as the current record holder lists, just a list for records before 2014. Masem (t) 13:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

It feels like people are deliberately trying to interpret the public statements here in a way that is unfavorable for Mitchell. Let's try to remain neutral here. The scores have been reinstated. Twin Galaxies' own language uses the word "reinstate." Mitchell says they are reinstated. Every reliable source says they're reinstated. While we do not know the exact terms of the settlement, the following things can be inferred from statements from both Twin Galaxies and Mitchell:

1. Billy's scores have been acknowledged as legitimate by Twin Galaxies. Their last review of his scores has deemed them "verified." This was done by the old ownership of Twin Galaxies, but the new ownership has acknowledged these records as legitimate and archived them.

2. Billy's scores do not appear on the "current" or "modern" leaderboards. However, their lack of appearance on these leaderboards appears to be from a mutual agreement from TG and Billy that Billy would remain banned. Thus, his scores are not deemed cheated or failing verification, but they are merely not considered for verification or displayed because Billy is banned from submitting scores.

So, in short, Billy's scores have been reinstated and are regarded as legitimate by Twin Galaxies, and the only official reason they aren't displayed on the "current" leaderboard is he is banned from the website. While Twin Galaxies has expressed that they think his scores are not valid, they have publicly declared them valid in an official capacity. They have acknowledged the old TG ownership and verification processes as legitimate and hosted the archive on their own website. Arguing how much Twin Galaxies cares or how much anyone should care about their archived scores is kind of a moot point. Legally speaking, they have been reinstated as legitimate as a result of the settlement, and until someone successfully brings Mitchell to trial for fraud and proves he cheated, those records will remain treated as legitimate world record submissions. 2001:558:6017:18C:145:9CCC:4D40:C01E (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2024

Change, "...as an expert that it impossible to tell if Mitchell..." to "...as an expert that it is impossible to tell if Mitchell..." Jeremydbradford (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)