Talk:Billy Mitchell (gamer): Difference between revisions

The Banhammer falls.

Billy's records have been removed from the Twin Galaxies DB. See the dispute thread here. The news is already on CNet and Variety. ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 17:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC) ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 17:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Disgraced?

With reference to describing Mitchell as "disgraced" - this is sourced, and just because it's negative doesn't make it a POV issue - especially when the claim is backed up by more than a single source as is the case here.

Additionally - while Hitler himself may not be described as "evil", the term is used to describe his regime - and besides; WP:OTHERSTUFF prevails here.

Please discuss why the term should not be used? Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The burden is on why it SHOULD be used. Compare this article to Pete Rose, Lance Armstrong, and other similarly disgraced athletes. The articles speak for themselves.Captbloodrock (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF - wikipedia articles should not be used as a yardstick for other wikipedia articles.

The term is used in a plethora of articles to describe the scenario that made him become a "former competitive gamer" - that the term holds negative connotations is not a reason to exclude it. Being "neutral" does not mean that terms should not be used, rather that if they are used it is with good reason - and in this case there are multiple reliable sources that use the term to describe him:

• Disgraced Donkey Kong champ Billy Mitchell releases statement [1]
• Disgraced Donkey Kong Champ Billy Mitchell’s Redemption Is a Sloppy Soliloquy[2]
• Dethroned ‘King of Kong’ Promises Evidence He Didn’t Cheat[3]
• Who shot Billy Mitchell? – Reader’s Feature[4]
• Billy Mitchell says he’s “not going to stop now” after scoreboard ban (Disgraced score-chaser promises witnesses, documents will redeem his name)[5]
• Billy Mitchell, disgraced 'Donkey Kong' champ, defends disqualified video game scores[6]
• Disgraced Billy Mitchell makes statement after being stripped of arcade records[7]
• Disgraced Donkey Kong Master Says He's Got Proof He Didn't Cheat[8]
• Billy Mitchell vows to clear his name after being found guilty of cheating[9]

And I claim Godwin's Law for your use of Hitler: "there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that, when a Hitler comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whatever debate is in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law." Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject". The word "disgraced" seems disparaging to me. Instead, better to simply describe what happened to Mitchell, as we do later on in the paragraph. Thoughts? Λυδαcιτγ 02:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I posit that we are simply describing what happened to him. I have provided eight different reliable sources to show that the term is being used to accurately describe him. The articles in question adhere to NPOV, and yet are comfortable with the term. I reiterate - this is not a word that has been thrown in for effect, but one that is being used by multiple news outlets as what they consider to be an accurate description of his status within the industry. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• "Former" works just fine for the lede sentence and avoids WP:LABEL. The word "disgraced" may have a place in the article, but not in the first sentence. ^Falling_Gravity 15:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

References

• • I agree; its one thing if certain media sources call him "disgraced", but that doesn't make it wikis place to make a judgement like that. You can use quotation marks around it or otherwise specify that he is a person that many consider disgraced, but that's not the same as saying he IS. According to others I am sure he is "wrongly accused" instead. I am sure I could find plenty of articles calling Roseanne a racist, but that doesn't make it appropriate to start her article by describing her as "an actress, comedian and racist". No, you say she has been ACCUSED of racism, or "sometimes described as" racist. Unless its basically indisputable scientific facts, wiki ought to present everything as "this is what sources SAY is true", not "this is a fact, period". Personally, I don't know anything about the case, but I do know that without some further explamation I find even the description of him as "cheating" in the article seems excessive to me. It sounds more like he was disqualified for using equipment other than specified. Unless that gives you some clear advantage, its not "cheating". If it does give advantage it ought to explain this. Because it sounds to me like the poor ba#%rd accomplished something pretty admirable only to be disqualified over a technicality and then smeared as a "cheater" and "fraud" by a public ready to hate him ever since he was cast as the unlikeable douchebag in that film. I may be totally wrong but its still not for wiki to go beyond reporting what others claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.87.157 (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Date of Birth

Wikipedia lists Mitchell's DOB as July 17, 1965. Google has it as July 16. Neither cite a source. It doesn't seem like a big deal one way or the other but a citing a source on the DOB currently listed seems like a good idea.

Machine Man (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I just asked Billy's younger daughter about his birthday, and she says it's the 16th. I googled up this possible source: http://www.themanitoban.com/2009/12/introducing-billy-l-mitchell/

That source says "L" is Billy's middle initial. Wikipedia says his middle name is James. His daughter says the "L" was wrong and James is correct.

Billy earned the first perfect Pac-Man score of 3,333,360 in July 1999 in front of a live audience at the Funspot arcade in New Hampshire, and he repeated the feat this month (20 years later) at the same arcade on the same machine, with a live in-person audience and about 600 more of us watching online. This Wikipedia article creates the false impression that his 1999 score was unwitnessed, and I see that some editors are rejecting this month's live stream as a valid source. I think it should be accepted. 216.249.247.141 (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's a write-up on Billy's first perfect Pac-Man score from 1999, which was widely reported, including in the Wall Street Journal: https://www.classicarcademuseum.org/billy-mitchell-achieves-perfect-pac-man-score-at-acam

Billy's longest-standing Donkey Kong record was set many years before emulators existed, and several of his later DK scores were also witnessed live. The Guinness Book of World Records defers to Twin Galaxies, which no longer recognizes any of Billy's high scores, but no one credibly asserts that none of those scores were ever valid. 216.249.247.141 (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

His kid

His son ended up kicking at West Point. But the existing link is just to some kicker fantasy camp. Even worth mentioning the kid? BoosterBronze (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The father-son connection got some media attention:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o-R7ETd0ijA

I'd vote to leave it in. 216.249.247.141 (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Mitchell's son was a first-team all-Florida football player who was named to Florida HS Football's all-finals team after a 27-yard field goal and a 70-yard punt in the 2015 Class 3A state championship game. Wikipedia biographies routinely include noteworthy and reliably sourced information like this about immediate family members. 208.53.224.72 (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Mitchell's son is not a public figure, and I don't see how his football achievements are noteworthy or relevant to his father's biography. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. You apparently don't see how it's noteworthy or relevant, but WPTV News in West Palm Beach did. Reliably sourced here: 208.53.224.72 (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Personal life and family information

I left a message for "Smuckola" to let him know about the discussion on this talk page. He appears to be a pretty good copy editor, but I don't understand his objections to what I would have regarded as routine contributions to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.236.34 (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Smuckola, so that the user is aware of the attempt to discuss a dispute or matter here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to Oshwah for labeling my unsigned comment and pinging Smuckola. Thanks also to Wallyfromdilbert for adding the reference box in the preceding section, but I really don't see how Wallyfromdilbert can continue to argue that Billy Mitchell's sister and children are irrelevant to his biography, especially when Mitchell has been included in media coverage of his sister's campaigns for Congress and his children are prominently featured in his documentary films. I'd obviously appreciate a clearer, more specific explanation of what Wallyfromdilbert would say constitutes relevance in this context. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I just found this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergecross73&oldid=908026153 208.53.227.250 (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Serge, we have us a content crusader who's on a WP:3RR bender with a lake of oh-so-reliably-sourced WP:FANCRUFT over at Bitchy Mill! He's been warned countless times in edit messages and Talk page but WP:ICANTHEARYOU WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If we can't out-talk his war of words (and edit messages don't count), then we're wrong and all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are wrong. Anyway, 3RR. Update: he got a bunch of warnings, but I won't expect him to ever drop the stick. I guess he's Billy's son's football cheerleader. — Smuckola(talk) 22:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  

The preceding comment is a quotation from the link above it. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
For the record, Smuckola apparently leveled those accusations against me based on my contributions of the second through fifth paragraphs (and references) under "Personal life" here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Billy_Mitchell_(video_game_player)&oldid=908024385#Personal_life
Also for the record, Smuckola has yet to offer a single comment to the discussion on this talk page, and Wallyfromdilbert, the other editor who objects to my contributions, doesn't appear to be participating either. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 04:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I apologize if it was inappropriate for me to ping Sergecross73 here. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I can try to mediate, as I have no real opinion or interest here. Why do you feel your additions are essential to the article? Sergecross73 msg me 09:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I think I'd describe the "Personal life" section as supplemental rather than essential. If my contributions are essential, it's probably just because most of the people who take the time to read a Wikipedia article about Billy Mitchell will enjoy them. To clarify, I pinged you mainly to give you a chance to evaluate Smuckola's accusations against me in context. He seems to regard you as a buddy, so you wouldn't have been my first choice to mediate. No offense intended. Thanks for at least acknowledging my attempts to discuss this. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I encourage editors in the video game and music content area to come to me if they need administrative help. I did not intervene because I supported or opposed either side of the argument, but rather because I saw edit warring, which is not okay on Wikipedia. When people oppose your edits, you need to stop and discuss, not continually try to re-add them over and over again. That’s said, the editors who oppose you should also be more active in engaging in discussion of their stance as well. Sergecross73 msg me 03:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Sergecross73. I understand your responsibility to stop edit warring, and I don't hold your decision to semi-protect the article against you. Wallyfromdilbert continues to argue that Billy Mitchell's sister and children are irrelevant to his biography, even though Mitchell has been included in media coverage of his sister's campaigns for Congress and his children are prominently featured in his documentary films. I'd obviously appreciate a clearer, more specific explanation of what Wallyfromdilbert would say constitutes relevance in this context. Instead he just obliterates my contributions, instructs me to "please gain consensus on the talk page before reinserting the content", and then refuses to discuss the matter on the talk page. It feels like I'm being bullied by two editors (one of whom apparently refers to Billy Mitchell as "Bitchy Mill" and resents the fact that Mitchell's son was a first-team all-Florida football player). What recourse do I have in this situation? Thanks again. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert and Smuckola - please engage on the talk page further about this issue. You can’t tell someone that there’s no consensus for an edit and then not participate in discussions. Also be aware that WP:BLP guidelines apply to talk pages as well, so you cannot be calling the subject names. Sergecross73 msg me 11:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Hi Serge. As I clearly said in the report to you and as has always clearly been stated in the talk page and edit messages, which I dont know why nobody can read at all, no such thing happened. We stated the summary rationale according to all the cited guidelines and policies which the person completely ignored the entire existence of with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT WP:ICANTHEARYOU WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This includes their edit warring against the encyclopedia itself until you just now absolutely physically forced the issue and interrogated directly. Then they just directly laid out to you personally their rationale for nonessential and irrelevant content directed solely at indulging the imagined personal pleasure of hypothetical fanatics, aka WP:FANCRUFT. Arent you touched that he disclaimed his privilege of blocking you from doing your job without contriving an accusation of personal attacks? So what else do you want me to say dear sir? Cowtow to his demand for another personally written summary of the content of those nonexistent policies and guidelines that we didn’t already directly link to? Shall I just repaste it or need I retype it in a higher and more accusatory pitch to match his? Sorry, I'm on mobile. Totally ignoring the existence of all policies, guidelines, decorum, and even existing discussion itself, is not a content dispute or even a legitimate discussion; it’s a disruptive behavior coaching, and I brought in the admin to end the disruptive editing, perchance to again refer the abuser to the guidelines and policies and existing discussion and for them to thus WP:DROPTHESTICK. A mill is a place where stuff is made, not a name to call a person, sorry for the obvious joke. So please do let me know exactly what more you would like to be done that hasn't already been done, and then maybe I can do that if this ever someday finally does become a content issue and thus exits your realm into mine. I can repaste the list of totally ignored wikilinks to all the offended guidelines and policies, WP:BLP WP:FANCRUFT WP:NOTNEWS WP:NOTWHOSWHO WP:PLOT, all of which disclaim the significance of what could be a WP:RS when it's used to cite WP:UNDUE WP:TRIVIA even if in other articles WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and to which I'm seriously considering adding WP:NOTHERE. They do exist, and that is so they can be read and pored and labored over and personally comprehended, to take to a help desk to discuss the fine points with WP:COMPETENCY. — Smuckola(talk) 18:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Its not the editor conduct I’m asking you to explain, I would just like you to explain, in more plain English, why you oppose the content additions. He’s obviously not well versed in policy, so something a little more universally understood. Perhaps “it’s not an important aspect of the subject” or “those aren’t reliable sources” or something like that. I’m not personally questioning anything here, it’s just clear that the arguments aren’t clearly being communicated on either side I believe. Sergecross73 msg me 18:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: You just replied to my having done exactly that, exactly as you just paraphrased, in my last two sentences. Again. As I already said in my edit messages and on your talk page. Even the names of the policies are so perfectly clear and germane that they serve as words in the sentence. And oh yeah not all of the given sources are WP:RS and the rest are weak local news at best, which Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS). Wallyfromdilbert couldn't have said more crystal clear in the Talk page above, before this editor needlessly created a second redundant thread, that the subject's child is not notable, is not a public figure, and not relevant. The editor unilaterally declared the end of the discussion as per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and proceeded to unilaterally edit war, and then complain that the discussion attempt above doesn't exist and never happened. Then recite to you their singular commitment to the definition of WP:FANCRUFT. I'm sorry to say sir, but you are enabling their WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT WP:ICANTHEARYOU WP:IDONTLIKEIT and amplifying their self-victimization. That editor is the only one who will not read or discuss, without even a pretense of attempting to read the documents but rather just repeatedly bleating their own fancruft advocacy and self-victimization fantasy alone in a vacuum. — Smuckola(talk) 19:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Please see Wally’s comment below, as he has provided that brief, simple, summary of their stance that I’ve been requesting. It’s a simple, reasonable request, and the starting point for any sort of mediated discussion. Simple and shortly restate your stance on the content itself. Sergecross73 msg me 23:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, the additional content by the IP editor — who is editing under 208.53.227.250 (talk), 208.53.236.34 (talk), 208.53.224.72 (talk), and 208.53.230.247 (talk) — is not relevant to a biography on Billy Mitchell. If his family members have done notable things, then their achievements would be appropriate for their own Wikipedia articles. If the information related to Mitchell in some way other than him merely being a family member, then it may possibly be relevant to his biography. However, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or trivia (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE). The reason given by the IP editor ("because most of the people who take the time to read a Wikipedia article about Billy Mitchell will enjoy them") is not an adequate reason for inclusion on Wikipedia, which is based on encyclopedic value as related to the article subject. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. This is exactly the sort of discussion I was asking for, and these are all valid arguments per Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Sergecross73 msg me 23:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The content is subject to WP:BLP but it is a very basic case of obviously unencyclopedic content. As is also seen in the agenda the editor explicitly described, it is actually WP:FANCRUFT WP:NEWSPAPER WP:NOTWHOSWHO WP:PLOT based content. The video stuff is more akin to a shred of a plot summary about an unrelated movie, and all of it is a "who's who" of names—except of nobodies, not public figures, not authorities, and not of substantial works. The content does not define the article's subject or its notability, and the content's existence is not even owed to the subject's notability. Many or all of its sources are weak and fail WP:BLPRS in a way akin to tabloid journalism. Overall the sources seen in the written word, and the given description of the video sources, are indiscriminate, trivial, tangiential, unencyclopedic content with an admittedly contrived attempt at justification. Even if there was what would normally be a WP:RS among them, the subject matter would fail WP:UNDUE and the previously mentioned list of wikilinked anti-trivia documents. If WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in other articles, thank you for the notice, as that should be deleted too. — Smuckola(talk) 00:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, this is exactly what I was asking you for. Okay, that’s two policy-based arguments against inclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 01:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again to Sergecross73 for intervening here. I'm planning to submit further arguments for inclusion, but if you'd like to remove protection from the article, you have my word that I won't try to restore the family information under discussion before there's a consensus to do so. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 04:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

If you find yourself at a stalemate after that, a WP:WIKIPROJECT, such as WP:VG, can be neutrally contacted to see if any additional people would like to weigh in as well. You just have to be careful not to be WP:CANVASSING or trying to “recruit” people for your cause. It would have to be something neutral like “Hi, we’re having a dispute on what content to add to the Billy Mitchel article, please come weigh in”. It can’t be “Hey come help me convince people that I’m right in including my content” type stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 11:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Thank you. Is there a standard Wikipedia protocol that governs indentation and other formatting on talk pages? 208.53.227.250 (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure - WP:TALKPAGE gives some general pointers, while WP:INDENTATION gives pointers on indentation. Sergecross73 msg me 17:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Thanks. I'm open to being advised or directly edited if I continue to mess up the indentation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Also, would you mind labeling the unsigned comment above? (Ugh.) 208.53.236.34 (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Never mind. I think I got it. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 05:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Our service provider sometimes changes our IP address when we power up the router. I haven't discerned a pattern that would enable me to explain when or why. I'm sorry for any inconvenience this may cause. During our first conversation on your personal talk page,[10] you tried to point me to something at WP:BLP, but I wasn't sure what. Do you remember? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

All of the BLP policy is important. You should read it carefully, along with all of the related policies, including WP:What Wikipedia is not. Biographies must be written conservatively, and Wikipedia is not a tabloid, does not indiscriminately collect information, and favors privacy (especially for those who are not public figures). Random trivia about family members is also simply unencyclopedic. You may want to work on some non-biographical information if you are still learning some of the more fundamental policies governing editing, especially since BLPs have many more rules to understand. For your IP address, you should create an account or disclose your previous editing IPs when appropriate to avoid violating WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Thanks for the response. I'd read WP:BLP carefully before, and I read it again when you referenced it in our discussion on your personal talk page, and I read it again this afternoon. I also read "What Wikipedia is not" yesterday after you linked to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It would be helpful to me if you'd tell me exactly what part of an article you're trying to point me to, and maybe even directly quote from it, because there seem to be many things in each of these articles that aren't directly relevant to the specific content under discussion here. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Thanks also for cleaning up my indentation and line breaks. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I've quoted the policies numerous times. If you don't understand them, then avoid BLP articles. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Just to be clear, my question here was about what part of the WP:BLP policies you were trying to point me to during our initial conversation on your personal talk page, and the question was part of an honest effort to understand. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 04:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Smuckola: Billy Mitchell's son was an all-state, all-finals, top-100 national prospect who apparently went on to earn a scholarship to West Point, and Mitchell's sister won heavily contested Republican primaries in 2010 and 2012 to challenge Debbie Wasserman Schultz for her seat in the United States House of Representatives. I don't want to offend you, but I (predictably) don't agree with your description of these family members as "nobodies". Are you sure that's a fair characterization? Come on, fella. Work with me here. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 05:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

To explain their point a little more: I believe the two editors are trying to tell you that his family life isn’t particularly tied to the reasons why Billy is notable, and aren’t independently notable themselves (in the capacity that they dont have their own articles at least), and therefore should probably be kept to a minimum. That’s likely what they’re driving at when they cite things like WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE. Sergecross73 msg me 11:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Thanks for the clarification. My perception that Mitchell's son is particularly relevant here is probably influenced by the content of the WPTV News story I've referenced, which directly explores his relevance to Mitchell's career and personal life, but wouldn't a two-time major-party nominee for the U.S. House of Representatives normally have a biography on Wikipedia? I've seen Wikipedia biographies of many, many less significant state and local political figures. Is this an oversight on Wikipedia's part or simply a case of "other stuff exists" in which the biographies of the less significant political figures should be removed? I don't necessarily expect you to respond to these questions if you're trying to stay neutral in this discussion, but I'd definitely be interested in the opinions of any administrator or editor who wants to address them. (As a side note, I've attempted to thread my preceding comment to the Smuckola comment from which it quotes, and I'm wondering whether I was successful.) 208.53.227.250 (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Billy’s claim to notability is video game records. How exactly are his children’s activities in football and politics related to that? If there’s a connection, these edits aren’t making it readily apparent. I don’t edit much in politics, so I’m not sure at what point politicians tend to have their own article. But yes, you may want to consider asking for outside input if you wish to keep pursuing this, as Wally and Smuckola seem pretty steadfast in their stance here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Candidates who have lost in state or local elections are generally not notable. The political figures you have seen were likely either actually elected or are notable for a reason other than losing their elections. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

It's kinda weird that information about Mitchell's sister and son sat in this article for four and a half years and only got removed after I'd spent nearly two hours of research on a good-faith effort to improve the sources. It's kinda weird that there's a "Personal life" section where even the most public information about the subject's personal life is forbidden. And it's kinda weird that one of Wikipedia's five pillars is that there are no firm rules, when the rules are actually insanely detailed and inflexible. I'm apparently faced with a choice between dropping the stick and pursuing a lost cause on principle, and I think I need some time to think about it. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

References

I tend to explain it with this analogy: Let’s say you drive way over the speed limit every day to work for 5 months. Nothing happens. But on day 151, a cop pulls you over and gives you a ticket. You say “well nothing happened those other days, so why do I get a ticket today?” Does that get you out of the ticket? No. Same concept here. You may witness errors and mistakes on Wikipedia. That doesn’t make it right, and it’s not a defense for when it’s caught. Sergecross73 msg me 02:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: So you admit this whole nightmare has actually been about punishing me, and for good-faith efforts to improve an article, no less. I think the core flaw in your analogy is probably that "Wikipedia has no firm rules" (WP:5P5).
@Smuckola: Read WP:CIVIL. All of it. Nearly every sentence applies to you. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I’m saying that there have likely been many mistakes made, and sadly it’s just this one - yours - that was caught. That’s sometimes how things work with WP:WATCHLISTs - only recent changes are seen. My point is that we don’t handle it by saying “well there’s lots of mistakes so let’s allow this mistake too”, it is “there’s lots of mistakes so let’s fix them all”. And you’re misunderstanding Wikipedia’s ”ignore all rules” concepts. They’re not a license for everyone to do whatever they want or win every argument. If people used the concept as you’re attempting to, then everyone would invoke it all the time, and every argument would end in a stalemate. It’s more of a “don’t let bureaucracy get in the way of improving an article. These editors have multiple policy based reasons why these additions do not improve the article. You seem to be struggling to persuade anyone that your additions are improvements. It seems like your comments have degraded in complaining and finger pointing. I recommend either neutrally contacting WP:VG for input (I can do it for you if you prefer) or dropping it, though I will say that, in my experience, the arguments you’ve presented so far are unlikely to convince experienced editors. Wally and Smuckolas stances are not uncommon or unfounded. Sergecross73 msg me 05:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying "there's lots of mistakes so let's allow this mistake too". I'm saying the article is better and more useful with the reliably sourced family information included. You disagree, but don't put words in my mouth. I'm also not saying WP:IAR is "a license for everyone to do whatever they want". I'm saying splitting hairs over whether a two-time major-party nominee for the United States House of Representatives qualifies as "notable" in this context is insane. To me that seems like the very epitome of "letting bureaucracy get in the way", not just of improving the article but of common sense. You disagree, but don't put words in my mouth. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I put words in your mouth when I misunderstood your "ticket" analogy. The irony isn't lost on me, and I apologize. I also apologize for my declining civility and more aggressive tone. I just see this so differently from the way you guys do. Plus I just noticed that only one person has even watched the WPTV News story during this discussion, which is disappointing to say the least. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, people are often surprised that there’s a high learning curve to editing Wikipedia correctly, especially when they’re editing BLPs and higher traffic articles that have a number of people monitoring it. I get it - it clashes pretty hard with the “write whatever I want” culture and attitude that flows so freely across social media, blogging, etc. but it is what it is. I’ve given you the proper avenues forward. Some take it to heart, learn, and become constructive editors. Some leave to contribute to other websites. Others fight it and ignore the correct ways, and find themselves blocked or locked out if editing pages. It’s up to you which path you chose from here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

It's increasingly apparent that there are aspects of the Wikipedia subculture I'd never known about, but I obviously don't appreciate the condescending insinuations that my contributions reflect a "random", "indiscriminate", "write whatever I want" approach. I've done my best to explain why I believe Mitchell's sister and children are relevant to his biography. Is it possible that we have an honest difference of opinion? Everyone but me seems to agree: (1) The fact that Mitchell raised three children is essential to his biography. (2) The fact that Mitchell included his (unnamed) children in his documentary films is irrelevant to his biography. Would anyone like to take one last shot at helping a lowly, unwashed IP editor understand the distinction? 208.53.227.250 (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I still don’t understand why you believe it important. You’ve made it very clear that you think it’s important and bettering the article, but you really haven’t articulated why. Like, if his son took after him and started going after game records, or became a notable game dev because of his fathers records, it make sense. But as you keep presenting it on the article, it’s just completely disconnected ideas:

1. Dad won a Donkey Kong record.
2. Son does well in high school football.
3. Sister goes into politics, loses some important elections.

Do you really not see how random this all reads? Sergecross73 msg me 16:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I was the one who organized those contributions, so they predictably don't seem random to me. As I've said above, I think I'd describe the "Personal life" section as supplemental rather than essential. I'm wondering why you'd say it's important to tell Wikipedia readers that Mitchell lives in Florida and raised three children, especially if we're not allowed to provide five sentences of contextual information about their lives there. 208.53.227.250 (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

You’ve again attempted to deflect rather than answer this very basic question. Sergecross73 msg me 23:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

My "deflection" calls attention to the fact that my contributions are being subjected to a double standard. Why would you say it's important to tell Wikipedia readers that Mitchell lives in Florida and raised three children? 208.53.227.250 (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I dont find that particularly important to mention either. If this were an article that I created/maintained/edited, I would not have added the bit about Florida either. Anyways, it seems you probably don’t have a good explanation or I wouldn’t have to ask you multiple times. So I’m going to wrap things up. As is, you currently do not have a WP:CONSENSUS to add your proposed information. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, challenged proposed content additions that do not have a consensus are not to be added to the article. If you attempt to add it without consensus, you’ll find yourself blocked or locked out of editing the article. If you wish to get a consensus in your favor, neutrally contact a WikiProject like WP:VG to see if there is anyone else interested in weighing in. That’s all thats left to say. Sergecross73 msg me 00:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed compromise

As media coverage of the perfect game transcended the retrogaming community and made Mitchell a semi-celebrity, he continued operating the family business and raising three children. Mitchell included his children in both of his 2007 documentary film projects. An interview with his stepdaughter appears in the DVD bonus footage of The King of Kong, while an interview with his younger daughter and son appears in Chasing Ghosts.

In 2015, Mitchell reportedly turned down an invitation to a gaming convention in Australia because he refused to miss a Florida high school football game featuring his similarly driven son, an all-state, all-finals, top-100 national prospect as a kicker and punter at American Heritage-Delray.

References

As is hopefully apparent, this proposed compromise condenses some of the information, clarifies its relevance, and completely removes all references to Mitchell's sister and place of residence. I'd obviously appreciate any feedback. Thanks. 208.53.231.107 (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing the compromise offer above as I reconsider the notability and relevance of Mitchell's sister. 208.53.231.107 (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Smuckola: In your explanation for reverting the modified content, you write, "not any different content except to be *more* blatantly promotional and aggressively irrelevant as was conclusively decided on Talk". First off, in more than ten days, no one had raised any objection to the modified content on this talk page. Secondly, the most significant differences in the content are the removal of the name of Mitchell's son and the removal of information about his performance in the 2015 Class 3A state championship game. How would you say excluding that information makes the content more "blatantly promotional"? Finally, to follow up on a question I've already asked above, why would you say the fact that Mitchell raised three children is essential to his biography, but the fact that he included his children in his documentary films is "aggressively irrelevant" to his biography? 208.53.230.247 (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of any of that, the fact remains that there was no consensus to add the original wording, and the compromise proposal was “withdrawn”, so there’s no possible scenario where it was appropriate to make that edit. Sergecross73 msg me 01:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Consensus not achieved

I’ve protected the page again, as it seems someone has decided to re-add information despite there clearly being no consensus to do so. Ignoring policy and just trying to do whatever you want when you think no one is looking is not an option. Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: When I proposed the modified content more than ten days ago, you almost immediately unprotected the page. When no one raised any objection to the modified content, I thought that constituted consent. I'm not ignoring policy, and I'm not trying to do whatever I want when I think no one is looking. As far as I can tell, someone is always looking. You've now gone beyond suggesting I'm intentionally destructive to suggesting I'm stupid. 208.53.230.247 (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I did not actively unprotect the page, but rather, I protected the page for a set amount of time (1 week) and it automatically expired. Regardless, I’ve explained your options to you multiple times, and “just go for it again when protection ends” was most definitely not one of them, so I have a hard time believing that you didn’t know better. Anyways, re-read the old discussions if you need to recap on how to proceed. Rest assured, just re-adding it again after protection ends is not a viable option. Sergecross73 msg me

You originally protected the page from July 26 to August 2, and I was still unable to edit it late in the day on August 3. Your suggestion that I decided to "just go for it again when protection ends" isn't true, as any reasonably honest and intelligent person could see from the timeline of events. It's amazing to me that you allow Smuckola and his apparent bitterness toward Billy Mitchell to wreak this much havoc here while he refuses to answer even the most basic questions about the content itself, which is neutral, relevant, and reliably sourced. 208.53.230.247 (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Your supposed compromise above was the same content that was inappropriate in the first place, and it was then "withdrawn" by you [11] because you wanted to readd the small amount of material you had removed. A slightly shorter version also in no way addresses the concerns raised above, and it ignores the very clear options that were laid out, which do not include readding the content. Finally, please avoid making accusations about other editors and instead assume good faith as per WP:AGF. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: We obviously disagree about what content is appropriate. To repeat the question I've already asked above, why would you say the fact that Mitchell raised three children is essential to his biography, but the fact that he included his children in his documentary films is irrelevant to his biography? The modified content I've proposed explicitly states its relevance to Mitchell's personal life, and your claim that it "in no way addresses the concerns raised above" is absurd. I've tried to assume good faith, but being subjected to multiple false accusations and one double standard after another has unfortunately made that impossible. 208.53.230.247 (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Mitchell took first place at this year's Australian Donkey Kong championships in Brisbane literally five days ago. Why do you insist on repeatedly reinserting the blatantly, objectively false claim that he's a "former" competitive gamer into the article? 208.53.230.247 (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Mitchell's primary occupation is running his hot sauce business. He's barely been involved in the day-to-day operation of the family restaurant for several years now. Why do you insist on repeatedly removing the fact that Mitchell is a successful businessman from the article? 208.53.230.247 (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable sources for content on biographies of living people. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Okay, so where's your reliable source that says Mitchell is a "former" competitive gamer? As far as his hot sauce business goes, maybe google it,[12] and take your pick. 208.53.230.247 (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

From that source: Mitchell, a 49-year-old restaurateur and hot sauce purveyor. "Businessman" is not in it, and I don't see the need for both descriptors when restaurateur seems to cover his restaurant and hot sauce business, and seems to be used far more often in the sources. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: The initial Donkey Kong world record that stood until August of 2000 dates from August of 1982. Why did you change it to 1984? 208.53.230.247 (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I clearly told you that the only path forward was to get a consensus and you objectively did not, and made the edit anyways. Anything else is just noise. Now either get a consensus in your favor, or drop it. You’re not going to bicker your way around this. Sergecross73 msg me 03:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: You're not going to "bicker your way around this" either. The edit I eventually made wasn't the same edit we'd discussed here. No one objected to the modified content I'd proposed on this talk page. If you want me to stop responding to your false accusations, stop making them. 208.53.230.247 (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

You can’t argue that “no one objected” a proposal you withdrew shortly after proposing. And regardless of slight tweaks, the general sentiments were clearly not supported by a consensus. Multiple editors made it abundantly clear they objected to expanding the personal life content about his family members. Sergecross73 msg me 10:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: "Shortly"? Nearly two full days had passed since I'd said I'd appreciate any feedback on the modified content. Suddenly all three of you were quiet as mice, and you finally unprotected the article. Are you suggesting one of you would have responded if I'd only waited a few more days? You originally objected to including the content about Mitchell's family members on the grounds that it wasn't clearly relevant, so I removed some of the content and modified the rest to explicitly state its relevance. Why are you still objecting? No one has given me anything resembling specifics. Can you not imagine how from my perspective you might just seem like bullies on a power trip? 208.53.230.247 (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

How many different ways do you need me to tell you you’re in the wrong here? You made an edit without consensus. Don’t do that. That’s all there is to it. I’ll let you know when it’s appropriate to add it to the article. You just focus yourself on getting a consensus. I’ll let you know when you have one. Sergecross73 msg me 01:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I don't need you to tell me I'm in the wrong at all. I need you to tell me why you're still objecting to the modified content. You don't object when other editors make revisions without consensus. You don't object when Wallyfromdilbert repeatedly reinserts the blatantly false claim that Mitchell is a "former" competitive gamer without consensus. You only seem to object to content that's reliably sourced and objectively true, and every word of your last comment reinforces my perception that you're a bully on a power trip. 208.53.230.247 (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)