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) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Sergecross73: Is the article currently restricted to autoconfirmed or confirmed access? 208.53.226.47 (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

@Sergecross73: Thanks for answering. This is another yes-or-no question. If you're not saying my attempted clarification was a violation of WP:VANDALISM, do you mean to say a good-faith edit you deem "unconstructive" is grounds for page protection? 208.53.226.62 (talk) 05:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Sergecross73: It looks like you've made several contributions to Wikipedia today. Are you abandoning this discussion? 208.53.226.62 (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No, it’s more that the way you framed the question can’t really be answered with just a yes or no answer. (And 12 hours is generally not long enough to assume someone has “abandoned” a conversation generally, though I do think you should focus on formulating WP:EDITREQUESTS than asking me questions over and over again. You never seem to like or accept what I have to say anyways, so why not ask someone else? That’s what edit requests do. Please do that.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: Do you mean to say you're abandoning this discussion? 208.53.226.62 (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Sergecross73: I'm retracting my last question. The end of your preceding comment seems to indicate you're abandoning the discussion, but the beginning of the comment directly says you're not. On September 27, you restored page protection[7] after Wallyfromdilbert removed my attempted clarification.[8] If you're not saying my attempted clarification was a violation of WP:VANDALISM, do you mean to say a good-faith edit you deem unconstructive is grounds for page protection? To answer your question, I don't ask someone else what you mean to say because I don't think anyone else can tell me. 208.53.226.62 (talk) 05:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The page is protected because there’s a history of edits by IPs that do not conform to policy. I’m saying that, rather arguing with me about that, which will get you nowhere, you should focus your efforts on formulating constructive WP:EDITREQUESTs, which has the potential to change the article, which is, I assume, the whole reason you’re here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: Nearly every Wikipedia article that touches on a public controversy presumably has a history of revisions by IP editors that don't conform to policy, and I don't see how that alone could be grounds for page protection, but you seem to be going to great lengths to change the subject and avoid answering very simple yes-or-no questions. Would you say a good-faith edit you deem unconstructive is grounds for page protection? 208.53.226.62 (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I don’t answer your yes or no questions because they’re weirdly worded and leading, like an ill-conceived effort to get me to say something other than what I mean. Which is why I just respond with what I mean directly instead. Here’s the situation. Does Wikipedia policy allow for content to be added without sources? No. (WP:V) Did you do this? Yes. As such, it was one of a number of non-policy-following-edits that lead to the pages protection. Judging by the vandalism prior to your edit, and that there seems to be ongoing developments with the subject, protection would have happened whether you made your unsourced edit or not. Sergecross73 msg me 21:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: No, I didn't add unsourced content. The cited source clearly indicates that Mitchell achieved the perfect score without manipulating the game's hardware to freeze play: ["He planned to grab a bite the next morning, but he again arrived too early to get food, so he started playing Pac-Man. He kept playing for just under six hours... With a crowd of fans and media looking on, Mitchell navigated his way through 256 boards, periodically employing the hiding spots to pause and do interviews."] Your responses directly imply that a good-faith edit you deemed unconstructive was grounds for page protection, which means the answer to my question is yes. Your suggestion that the question was "weirdly worded and leading" is absurd. Do you also mean to say "ongoing developments with the subject" are grounds for page protection? 208.53.226.62 (talk) 05:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That is not what I said or implied. If you’re not going to read what I say, and just jump to whatever conclusions you want to regardless of what I say, then I’m not going to bother to respond. I am under no obligation to explain or gain your approval in page protection. Your edit was reverted due to being an unsourced addition. If this was incorrect, free to try again through the WP:EDITREQUEST system. But even if it was perfectly sourced, (I’m not sure it is, that excerpt doesn’t really verify your addition), it was not the sole reason for the protection, so it will still remain in place. Sergecross73 msg me 11:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: You indicated that my attempted clarification wasn't a violation of WP:VANDALISM. You indicated that you deemed my attempted clarification to be unsourced. You indicated that my attempted clarification was one of the revisions that led to the page's protection. Your responses directly imply that a good-faith edit you deemed unconstructive was grounds for page protection. Would you say "ongoing developments with the subject" are grounds for page protection? 208.53.226.62 (talk) 03:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No, the point of that statement was that vandalism is more likely when a subject is in the news and has recent developments going on. Just basic common sense type stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 10:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: Thanks for answering. Are you aware that, per Wikipedia's protection policy WP:PP, semi-protection shouldn't be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that hasn't yet occurred? The policy says "brief periods" of protection are allowed when "blatant" vandalism "is occurring" at a "frequency" that "requires" it. It says the duration of the protection should be set "as short as possible". As far as I can see, it doesn't say anything about semi-protection when two inexperienced IP editors have simply added unsourced content they believe to be true, much less when there's an honest disagreement about whether the content is supported by the source. Regarding the previous instances in which you protected the article on July 26[9] and August 16,[10] are you aware that, per Wikipedia's protection policy WP:PP, temporary semi-protection may be applied to pages subject to edit warring only when all parties involved are unregistered or new editors, and not when autoconfirmed users are involved? The policy says explicitly that semi-protection shouldn't be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in content disputes. You appear to have repeatedly violated the policy, but as usual, I'd like to hear your point of view. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yes, I’m very aware of the policy. But I didn’t preemptively protect it. As I’ve told you many times, I protected it due to vandalism that had already occurred. Sergecross73 msg me 22:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHERE: "Excessive soapboxing, escalation of disputes, repeated hostile aggressiveness, and the like, may suggest a user is here to fight rather than here to build an encyclopedia. If a user has a dispute, then they are expected to place the benefit of the project at a high priority and seek dispute resolution. A user whose anger causes them to obsess may find the fight has become their focus, not encyclopedia writing." – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wallyfromdilbert: We talked about this briefly in August, but Sergecross73 unilaterally closed and archived the discussion before we resolved it. Billy 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 "businessman" from the opening sentence of the article? 208.53.226.62 (talk) 05:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have no interest in engaging with your tendentious editing or bad faith assumptions. Submit an edit request and provide sources to support your claims. Wikipedia does not include original research. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wallyfromdilbert: This revision[11] was made per a discussion on the BLP noticeboard.[12] You changed the section header again just over a day later, from "Disputed score performances" to "Disqualified records".[13] Some people and organizations have disqualified three of Mitchell's records. Some have disqualified two. And a few hangers-on haven't disqualified any. Twin Galaxies and Guinness, the primary organizations under discussion in the section, have disqualified all of Mitchell's records. Would you say all of Mitchell's records are really the subject of the section, or does it only mention them in passing as they relate to his three disputed score performances? I obviously have a suspicion about the motives behind your revision, but as usual, I'd like to hear your point of view. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have no interest in engaging with your tendentious editing or bad faith assumptions. Submit an edit request and provide sources to support your claims. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wallyfromdilbert: Three hours after semi-protection had expired and I'd finally been able to correct your repeated, unsourced BLP violation,[14] you made this additional revision to the opening sentence of the article.[15] That revision looks to me like an effort to continue promoting your false claims that Billy Mitchell is no longer competing. I didn't object at the time, mainly because I don't think it will work, but it's yet another apparent violation of WP:NEUTRAL on your part. As usual, if there's some other believable explanation for your revision, I'd like to hear your point of view. 208.53.226.62 (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop badgering editors. If you want a change, make an WP:EDITREQUEST. This editor has made it clear they don’t wish to engage with you further, and when there is no active dispute ongoing, they are not required to. Unless you wish to open up an edit request for a specific change, this is nothing more than harassment and needs to stop. Sergecross73 msg me 01:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: I'm citing apparent WP:NEUTRAL violations and giving one of the apparent violators the opportunity to respond. It's true that he isn't required to engage with me further, but your claim that this is nothing more than harassment is absurd. 208.53.226.62 (talk) 03:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wallyfromdilbert: You completely deleted Mitchell's 1,047,500-point Donkey Kong public live stream from the article, along with the source,[16] which looks to me like yet another way to promote your false claims that Mitchell is no longer competing. You left the claim that Mitchell has only "a single publicly witnessed Donkey Kong high score of 933,900 from 2004", which is obviously untrue. If that isn't a violation of WP:NEUTRAL, what's the explanation? 208.53.226.62 (talk) 03:06, 12 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) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Wallyfromdilbert: You've now taken the time to make three separate revisions to this talk page applying WP:SPA tags to six of my comments, but you haven't taken the time to correct "at age 12" to "around age 16" in the article. Fixing blatant errors in the content seems to be a lower priority for you than presenting Mitchell in the worst light you think you can get away with, and there's a whole list of examples to support that perception. If you insist on suggesting that my revisions violate WP:NEUTRAL, I'll be glad to present the evidence that yours do. 208.53.226.62 (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Under that reasoning, you’re equally to blame, as you are aware of issues but have not done an WP:EDITREQUEST to fix it either. But the truth is that it’s a volunteer project, and no one is required to do anything. And that said, if you don’t stop with the idle complaining and start suggesting som constructive changes, I’m going to start protecting the talk page too. Sergecross73 msg me 23:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: I'm not reasoning that Wallyfromdilbert is to blame for the uncorrected content. I'd say your deceitfully rationalized page protection is to blame for that. Wallyfromdilbert is to blame for repeatedly violating WP:NEUTRAL and then employing an absurd double standard to suggest I'm violating it. You keep pushing me to make formal edit requests, but you assure me that those requests will be "inevitably rejected"[17] before you even know what they are. It really doesn't seem reasonable to trust you as the mediator of any discussion in which I'm a participant. As I'd first asked you nearly two weeks ago, does Wikipedia have any formal policies pertinent to the removal of an administrator under any circumstances? 208.53.226.62 (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

So, to be clear, your approach is to repeatedly ask questions of someone you outwardly don’t trust, and reject an approach that would involve asking the input of an unrelated editor? See, this is why I call your discussions unconstructive. You don’t seem to want to do anything other than just argue circles. Sergecross73 msg me 03:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: In the interest of showing you how to answer a question, yes, that's my approach for now. Does Wikipedia have any formal policies pertinent to the removal of an administrator under any circumstances? 208.53.226.62 (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If you’re openly admitting that you’re just here to argue and have no intention on engaging in discussion related to edit requests or making constructive change to the article, we’re done here. These talk pages are for improving the article, not idle complaining and airing of every grievance that comes to mind. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 11 October 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) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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]

@Sergecross73: As I've pointed out above, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel identifies the subject's 78-year-old father as William Mitchell Sr.,[18] which means this Wikipedia article correctly identifies the subject as William Mitchell Jr. Do you mean to say the Sun-Sentinel isn't a reliable source? What alternative approach would you suggest for distinguishing between Billy Mitchell III and his father? 208.53.226.47 (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC) — 208.53.236.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

From the EGM profile:[19] "Billy Mitchell [III] described his father as endlessly supportive of his dream to play football, recounting the time and money he poured into making it happen. Mitchell [Jr] enrolled his son in the school with the best football program in the area and drove him back and forth each day, despite the fact that it was nearly 50 miles from their house." 208.53.226.179 (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the EGM profile:[20] "On April 12th, 2018, Twin Galaxies ruled that the first two of Mitchell’s disputed scores, the 1.047 million King of Kong score and 1.050 million Mortgage Brokers score, as depicted on the tapes, were not played on genuine arcade hardware. It declined to make a determination on the 1.062 million score from Boomers, citing a lack of direct evidence... In the year that followed ... [Billy Jr] began streaming on Twitch with the help of his son [Billy III], eventually obtaining scores equal to those that had been disputed, broadcast live from public venues... Mitchell had proven he could earn those scores now. But he hadn’t outlined a clear defense to prove he’d achieved them at the time of the original submissions." 208.53.226.179 (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the EGM profile:[21] "In July [2019], [Billy Jr] returned to Funspot [in New Hampshire] to recreate his perfect Pac-Man score 20 years later, almost to the day." 208.53.226.179 (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]