This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Sports and Games C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance). United States C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Florida C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Video games: Esports C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the esports task force. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: Food and drink: Foodservice C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Related taskforces: /  This article is supported by the Foodservice task force (assessed as Low-importance). Food and Drink task list: To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Template:Vital article

@Sergecross73: Your suggestion that you've been merely a "mediator" here is absurd. In the discussions you've now archived above, you insinuate that my original contributions to the "Personal life" section consist of "completely disconnected ideas" and reflect a random, indiscriminate, "write whatever I want" approach. Would you say the modified content I proposed also consists of "completely disconnected ideas" and reflects a random, indiscriminate, "write whatever I want" approach? Also, does Wikipedia have any formal policies pertinent to the removal of an administrator who subjects an editor to an avalanche of false accusations and flagrant double standards and then throws his weight around like a bully on a power trip to stifle that editor's responses? 208.53.224.239 (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I protected a page due to edit warring, and then protected it again when an editor attempted to make an edit again without consensus after page protection expired. That’s very basic policy following. Then I spent a ton of time responding to your every whim because others had tired of talking circles with you. That breaks zero policies. I’ll be clear - as I’ve told you before when you explicitly asked me for my opinions, I think you’ve done a very poor job of explaining why your content is important/noteworthy to the subject. But that’s not why your content isn’t in the article. It’s not in the article because not only do you not have a consensus for inclusion, but you haven’t even attempted to make any effort to work towards a consensus in weeks. You seem to do everything but create discussions that would work towards creating a consensus. Honestly, I kind of hope someone pops up and commands you to never start up a discussion to create a consensus, because you seem to go out of your way to do the exact opposite of what you’re told. Sergecross73 msg me 00:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: You seem to go out of your way to create distractions from my questions about content and policy by relentlessly smearing me with false accusations and other personal attacks. If someone "pops up" and commands you to ignore my questions, will you finally start answering them? In the discussions you've now archived above, you insinuate that my original contributions to the "Personal life" section consist of "completely disconnected ideas" and reflect a random, indiscriminate, "write whatever I want" approach. Would you say the modified content I proposed also consists of "completely disconnected ideas" and reflects a random, indiscriminate, "write whatever I want" approach? It's ridiculous to claim you've responded to my "every whim" when you're still refusing to answer the straightforward yes-or-no question that should be at the center of this discussion. It's also ridiculous to claim you intervened because others had tired of "talking circles" with me. Who would you say those "others" were? Your ongoing accusations that I've engaged in edit warring are also false. My initial contributions relative to Mitchell's personal life were prompted by discussion on this talk page, and I sought further discussion here at every step along the way. I undid exactly one edit without attempting to improve the content, and that was only to call attention to the fact that the editors who were repeatedly obliterating my contributions refused to clarify their objections or engage in any back-and-forth discussion whatsoever. You suggest I've done a very poor job of explaining why the content is important or noteworthy. I've pointed out that the content is objectively true, directly relevant, and reliably sourced. What would you say is the purpose of an encyclopedia if not to give its readers relevant, accurate information about the subject? I'd say you've done a very poor job of explaining what additional standards you think the content would need to meet in order to qualify as noteworthy. As I'd asked repeatedly in the discussions you've now archived above, why would you say the fact that Mitchell has three children is essential to his biography, but the fact that he included his children in his documentary films is irrelevant to his biography? Finally, regarding your assertion that I haven't "attempted to make any effort" to work toward a consensus in weeks, how do you claim to know what I've attempted to do? 208.53.226.115 (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s been almost a month and a half since you rescinded your most recent proposal. It’s been almost a month since I locked the page from editing after you implemented your rescinded proposal without a consensus. You have made no further proposals, largely opting to bicker with me and to take extreme offense at anyone who disagrees with you. That is what I am talking about. Please make a new discussion/proposal and garner a consensus for it, or move on. Sergecross73 msg me 00:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: Your accusation that I take extreme offense at anyone who disagrees with me is yet another installment in your long series of lies and personal smears. How do you claim to know what offends me? Then when I point out your lies, you throw in the false accusation that I'm bickering. As I've indicated in the discussions you've now archived above, if you'd like me to stop responding to your false accusations, you're more than welcome to stop making them. As I've also indicated above, nearly two full days passed after I said I'd appreciate any feedback on the modified content and before I withdrew the compromise offer. Suddenly you were quiet as a mouse, and you finally unprotected the page. How would you say I was supposed to know you objected to the modified content? In the discussions you've now archived above, you insinuate that my original contributions to the "Personal life" section consist of "completely disconnected ideas" and reflect a random, indiscriminate, "write whatever I want" approach. Would you say the modified content I proposed also consists of "completely disconnected ideas" and reflects a random, indiscriminate, "write whatever I want" approach? As I'd asked repeatedly in the discussions you've now archived above, why would you say the fact that Mitchell has three children is essential to his biography, but the fact that he included his children in his documentary films is irrelevant to his biography? It doesn't seem reasonable to trust you as the "mediator" of any discussion in which I'm a participant, especially when you're still refusing to answer these straightforward questions. As I've already asked above, does Wikipedia have any formal policies pertinent to the removal of an administrator who subjects an editor to an avalanche of false accusations and flagrant double standards and then throws his weight around like a bully on a power trip to stifle that editor's responses? As I'd pointed out to you a month ago, "You don't object when Wallyfromdilbert repeatedly reinserts the blatantly false claim that Mitchell is a 'former' competitive gamer without consensus." Per WP:BLP, contentious, unsourced material about living persons should be removed immediately "without waiting for discussion". As I've asked you at least four other times in the last month, why would you say this policy doesn't apply to Wallyfromdilbert's repeated reinsertions of the bogus claim that Billy Mitchell has been driven out of competitive gaming? WP:BLP further states, "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." Instead you insist that I "provide a WP:DIF of the exact edit you feel violated our BLP policy". What difference does the WP:DIF make? The policy says to remove the content "immediately" and "without waiting for discussion". Once again, why would you say that policy doesn't apply in this case? 216.249.254.82 (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you multiple times to identify what exact change violated BLP, and what content you wanted changed to what, and you never once even identified it. Even now, I can only tell what you’re referring to because you made the edit - you wanted the word “former” removed? Erroneous or not, it was not a BLP violation for it to say “former”. (It did not say he was “driven”, it merely stated he was inactive. It could be wrong, but it wasn’t a BLP violation.) This could have been resolved weeks ago if you, you know, had started a discussion to better articulate your concerns, as you were instructed. But you failed to follow protocol or understand policy, and dragged it on and on. Completely your fault.

Now that the page protection has expired (neither time did I “remove it” - it expires after a certain amount of time that I set - this is undeniably how the system works whether you understand it or not) please do not break any more policies. This includes no edit warring (reverting multiple times) and no making challenged edits without consensus. And no, there is no grounds for removing admin who are correctly enforcing policy. Sergecross73 msg me 00:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: I'm not asking whether there are grounds for removing administrators who are correctly enforcing policy. I'm asking whether Wikipedia has any formal policies pertinent to the removal of an administrator who subjects an editor to an avalanche of false accusations and flagrant double standards and then throws his weight around like a bully on a power trip to stifle that editor's responses. Does it? You continue to smear me with insinuations that I've engaged in edit warring by "reverting multiple times". As I've already pointed out above, my initial contributions relative to Mitchell's personal life were prompted by discussion on this talk page, and I sought further discussion here at every step along the way. I undid exactly one (1) edit without attempting to improve the content, and that was only to call attention to the fact that the editors who were repeatedly obliterating my contributions refused to clarify their objections or engage in any back-and-forth discussion whatsoever. Your claim that page protection "undeniably" expires after a certain amount of time that you set is also untrue. As I've already said above, 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. You ask whether I wanted the word former removed. In the interest of showing you how to answer a question, yes I did, and your claim that I "never once" identified it as the content that violated WP:BLP is absurd. I'd written the following to Wallyfromdilbert on August 16: [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?] Three hours later Wallyfromdilbert had written: [Wikipedia requires reliable sources for content on biographies of living people.] I'd replied: [Okay, so where's your reliable source that says Mitchell is a "former" competitive gamer?] Wallyfromdilbert never responded. That same evening I'd written to you: [You don't object when Wallyfromdilbert repeatedly reinserts the blatantly false claim that Mitchell is a "former" competitive gamer without consensus.] Several days later you'd written to me: [You haven’t provided an explanation of the exact thing you want changed ...] I'd responded by quoting my previous statement: [As I'd pointed out over a week ago, "You don't object when Wallyfromdilbert repeatedly reinserts the blatantly false claim that Mitchell is a 'former' competitive gamer without consensus."] And I'd just quoted the same statement to you again in my last comment above, the very comment to which you're replying as you claim I've "never once" identified the content. You say the situation was completely my fault, but if you really couldn't tell I was referring to the claim that Mitchell was a "former" competitive gamer, even after I'd directly quoted it no less than five times, it seems to me that would be at least ninety percent your own fault. Now you're claiming, "It could be wrong, but it wasn’t a BLP violation." That's some next-level absurdity. Repeatedly reinserting unsourced, objectively false content about a living person, even after being directly told that it's false, is a blatant BLP violation, and so was Wallyfromdilbert's refusal to remove it, and so was your demand that I "provide a WP:DIF of the exact edit" in order to prevent you from closing the discussion. You accuse me of failing to "follow protocol or understand policy", but what protocol and policy do you mean? Does Wikipedia policy require me to submit to every obnoxious demand and ultimatum you decree? I'm predictably weary of asking you to clarify your claims about the actual substance of my own contributions, but it really doesn't seem reasonable to trust you as the "mediator" of any discussion in which I'm a participant. Does Wikipedia have any formal policies pertinent to the removal of an administrator who subjects an editor to an avalanche of false accusations and flagrant double standards and then throws his weight around like a bully on a power trip to stifle that editor's responses? 216.249.254.82 (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, nothing that has happened here would cause an admin to lose their rights. Yes, you need to adhere to WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NOCONSENSUS, and WP:EDITWAR. Everything else is just talking the same circles you’ve been repeating for weeks without getting anywhere. Get a consensus for your proposal, or it doesn’t go in the article. It’s that simple. Sergecross73 msg me 00:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: Apparently you're determined to continue smearing me with insinuations that I'm "talking circles" and committing multiple policy violations. Does Wikipedia have any formal policies pertinent to the removal of an administrator under any circumstances? 216.249.254.82 (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: Is the article currently restricted to autoconfirmed or confirmed access? 208.53.226.47 (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: Apparently it was unprotected, but I kept getting a last-second error message when I tried to submit the correction of an inaccurate quotation. Now it's protected again. Do you have any idea what's going on? 208.53.226.47 (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks ago, the page protection expired, and in that time, there were a number of instances of vandalism and unconstructive edits, so yesterday the page protection was restored. Sergecross73 msg me 23:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: Do you mean to suggest it's only a coincidence that you restored page protection after Wallyfromdilbert removed my attempted clarification? Do you mean to suggest my attempted clarification was a violation of WP:VANDALISM? Do you mean to suggest good-faith edits you deem "unconstructive" are grounds for page protection? I saw that page protection had been restored yesterday. Do you have any idea why the page was unprotected this afternoon, or why protection was restored again after I first asked you about it at 20:24 above? 208.53.226.47 (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the page history to see examples of vandalism that was removed from the article by Wally these these last two weeks, when the protection was added, that it was not restored at any point yesterday, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 12:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: I'm asking three yes-or-no questions here. You're more than welcome to clarify or elaborate on the answers, but I'd obviously appreciate it if you'd begin each response with a yes or a no. (1) On Friday you restored page protection[1] after Wallyfromdilbert removed my attempted clarification.[2] Do you mean to say my attempted clarification was a violation of WP:VANDALISM? (2) You tell me[3] to look at the page history[4] to see that the protection was not restored at any point on Saturday. Do you mean to say the article was protected continuously, with no breaks, throughout the day on September 28? (3) As I'd pointed out on Saturday, a key aspect of the defense against Mitchell's defamation allegations is the fact that Twin Galaxies has never claimed he cheated (see the top of the third page in this tweet[5]). As I'd asked you a few hours later,[6], nearly five days ago, if Twin Galaxies is defending itself against defamation allegations by explicitly citing the fact that it never claimed Mitchell cheated, isn't the article's claim that he cheated a violation of WP:BLP? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, yes, and no. Sergecross73 msg me 21:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the movie 2015 PIXELS, the character Eddie (played by Peter Dinklage) is clearly based in part on or inspired by Mitchell. Would that be worth a mention? Of course, that is not exactly a compliment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.225.13.163 (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this were done, it would have to be worded carefully according to what reliable sources state, or it would violate WP:OR and WP:BLP. A brief Google search seemed to suggest that some RS journalists also made that connection, but that the movie and its makers itself do not ever officially establish the connection. If this is true, it would have to be worded accordingly. Sergecross73 msg me 10:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: According to the Business Insider article at the following link, Pixels director Chris Columbus has confirmed that the character Eddie Plant is partially based on Mitchell: https://www.businessinsider.com/pixels-peter-dinklage-playing-billy-mitchell-2015-7 216.249.254.82 (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it cites an Uproxx interview that says Q: Is Peter Dinklage’s character based on Billy Mitchell? A: Part of his performance is inspired by Billy Mitchell. So something to that capacity could be added, sure. Sergecross73 msg me 05:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: The first paragraph in the "Biography" section includes an incorrect age and an inaccurate quotation. Per the cited source, Mitchell was around age 16 when he started playing video games. As they became more popular, according to Mitchell, "Everyone was standing around the Donkey Kong machine and I wanted that attention". 208.53.226.47 (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: A key aspect of the defense against Mitchell's defamation allegations is the fact that Twin Galaxies has never claimed he cheated (see the top of the third page in this tweet): https://mobile.twitter.com/ersatz_cats/status/1177840834311385088 ... And yet somehow a "neutral" Wikipedia article uses "Cheating" as a section header. In some parts of the U.S., including mine, the word cheat is essentially an epithet. I'd recommend "Disputed score performances". It's condescending and unencyclopedic to spoon-feed value judgments to readers. 208.53.226.47 (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For new subjects, please start new discussions. To request changes while an article is protected, please use the WP:EDITREQUEST system. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 23:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: If Twin Galaxies is defending itself against defamation allegations by explicitly citing the fact that it never claimed Mitchell cheated, isn't the article's claim that he cheated a violation of WP:BLP? 208.53.226.47 (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am creating this on behalf on another editor. Any additions related to expanding the “Personal life” section of the article should be proposed and discussed here, and only added if there is WP:CONSENSUS to do so. I have no stance in the matter, I’m merely here to make sure consensus, WP:V, and WP:BLP is followed. Any off-topic comments unrelated to proposals or consensus building will be deleted or hatted/collapsed. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 18:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://egmnow.com/the-split-screen-man/ ... I'm planning to post several comments related to this article as time allows. 208.53.226.47 (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The EGM profile identifies Mitchell's son as Billy Mitchell Jr., which poses a problem. According to intelius.com, Mitchell's 78-year-old father is also named William James Mitchell, and the article at the following link identifies him as William Mitchell Sr. ... https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fl-king-of-kong-star-billy-mitchell-20180412-story.html ... That seems to mean that this Wikipedia article correctly identifies its subject as William James Mitchell Jr. and that his son is technically William James Mitchell III. I know these aren't reliable sources, but Mitchell's son identifies himself as WilliamJames in his Twitter handle and Billy Mitchell Jr. on Instagram. So if the article's subject is Billy Mitchell Jr., but his son publicly goes by Billy Mitchell Jr. himself, I'm not sure how Wikipedia should resolve that. 208.53.226.47 (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The journalist who wrote the EGM profile tells me in an email, "I was aware of the Jr./III situation but I asked the son how he'd want to be credited and he said everyone treats them as Jr./Sr., so that's what I stuck with." My recommendation for Wikipedia would be to identify the subject's son as Billy III and—when it's necessary to distinguish between them—to identify the subject himself as Billy Jr. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, we use WP:COMMONNAME to decide what names to use, which generally boils down to what name is most commonly used in reliable sources. Nothing mentioned above would constitute a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense. I’m sure you’ve got countless reasons as to why I’m wrong or evil or something for saying this, so I won’t be following up on this, I’m just letting you know that when your WP:EDITREQUESTs are inevitably rejected, this would probably be why. Sergecross73 msg me 21:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]