The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
This article was copy edited by Dhtwiki, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on June 11–13, 2024.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
Apologies to Masem for apparently having violated Wikipedia rules. I understand the website "perfectpacman.com" is regarded as self-publishing, is that correct? I do not know who is behind that website, but perhaps it does not matter for the concern to apply? N.B., I submitted my "undo"-edit prematurely, before I could add the reason as to why I thought I had addressed the "primary source" concern, please accept my apologies for that.
I feel it should be possible to allow the reader to see the technical arguments provided by Tanner Fokkens as to why the Michael Zyda testimony is highly problematic, purely based on a technical analysis. Is there any proper way to accomplish that? If there currently is no proper way, what would have to happen to make it possible (e.g., would a newspaper have to report about the Fokkens refutation)?
BTW, I do not think that my reordering of the sentences should have been undone. I do not want to engage in a "do, undo, redo, rinse and repeat"-cycle so will not make any changes for now, but I believe my joining of the two sentences regarding the Twin Galaxies scores was an improvement and is not subject to the "primary source" and/or "direct SPS usage" concerns. May I attempt to reinstantiate my suggested reordering? class=A42 (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need to have the refuting document be covered in a reliable source to include. Zyda's statement is mentioned in reliable sources, so we can include mention of it. We'd need the same for Fokkens, which hasn't happened yet, as best as I can see. Masem (t) 20:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His scores on the Twin Galaxies website are not and will not be reinstated, that was not part of the recent settlement, the settlement was for defamation. ManBearJordan (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TG's letter says "Twin Galaxies shall heretofore reinstate all of Mr. Mitchell’s scores as part of the official historical database on Twin Galaxies’ website." They're not being reinstated as the current record holder lists, just a list for records before 2014. Masem (t) 13:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It feels like people are deliberately trying to interpret the public statements here in a way that is unfavorable for Mitchell. Let's try to remain neutral here. The scores have been reinstated. Twin Galaxies' own language uses the word "reinstate." Mitchell says they are reinstated. Every reliable source says they're reinstated. While we do not know the exact terms of the settlement, the following things can be inferred from statements from both Twin Galaxies and Mitchell:
1. Billy's scores have been acknowledged as legitimate by Twin Galaxies. Their last review of his scores has deemed them "verified." This was done by the old ownership of Twin Galaxies, but the new ownership has acknowledged these records as legitimate and archived them.
2. Billy's scores do not appear on the "current" or "modern" leaderboards. However, their lack of appearance on these leaderboards appears to be from a mutual agreement from TG and Billy that Billy would remain banned. Thus, his scores are not deemed cheated or failing verification, but they are merely not considered for verification or displayed because Billy is banned from submitting scores.
So, in short, Billy's scores have been reinstated and are regarded as legitimate by Twin Galaxies, and the only official reason they aren't displayed on the "current" leaderboard is he is banned from the website. While Twin Galaxies has expressed that they think his scores are not valid, they have publicly declared them valid in an official capacity. They have acknowledged the old TG ownership and verification processes as legitimate and hosted the archive on their own website. Arguing how much Twin Galaxies cares or how much anyone should care about their archived scores is kind of a moot point. Legally speaking, they have been reinstated as legitimate as a result of the settlement, and until someone successfully brings Mitchell to trial for fraud and proves he cheated, those records will remain treated as legitimate world record submissions. 2001:558:6017:18C:145:9CCC:4D40:C01E (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read all of it because it's too long but the fact remains they reinstated the fact that his score used to be there. A histocal record of the high scores, but his record is not currently accepted by Twin Galaxies. They have accepted that it was once on there and are allowing people to see that, but they have not "reinstated" his records, just the way back machine type recording of the fact it once existed. Do some research, look at the site, watch some YouTube videos where people have spent alot of time on this subject 193.116.104.61 (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gave a valid reason not to read it all and gave another valid point about the subject. Please leave arrogance to social media platforms. This is meant to be an information website. 193.116.104.61 (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't. Something being too long is not a valid reason to ignore it on an "information website." It would have taken you about 60 seconds to read the entirety of my post. If your level of investment on this topic is so low that a minute is too much of your time, then whatever information you could share with anyone on this topic obviously isn't worth reading.
Perhaps take your own advice and learn that rudely and arrogantly opening with "tl;dr" is not a great way to engage someone in conversation. Unless you have some kind of actual point to make about the statements I put forward in my other post, then I won't fill this Talk section with pointless responses to your weak trolling attempts. 2001:558:6017:18C:145:9CCC:4D40:C01E (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This section of the Twin Galaxies website hosts a historical archive of the original score database, copied verbatim from the system obtained during Twin Galaxies' acquisition in 2014. It serves as an unmodified, legacy snapshot preserving performances and achievements predating the current TG ownership and modern adjudication protocols. As a matter of archival integrity and providing continuous access to records under previous administrative standards, this database remains static and sealed. No new submissions or alterations can be made, only original scores and titles retained as they existed upon ingestion in 2014. It stands as our commitment to custodianship of gaming's antiquity. Submit or view scores on the live modern version of the Twin Galaxies database here: [...] or at least that was the quote back in January. In any case, I believe Masem resolved this back in January with the current wording. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Twin Galaxies have reinstated Billy Mitchell's scores. They use the terminology reinstate, as does Billy, and as does every reliable source. You cannot "reinstate" a score to a leaderboard that never previously existed. The official language from Twin Galaxies suggests that Billy's scores were reinstated, considered verified at the time of their submission/verification dates, recognized as legitimate, and archived. Twin Galaxies has made no further rulings to these submissions or rejected them in any capacity. The reason they are not displayed on the 'main database' is because Billy is banned from submitting scores, and his ban was issued after the archive's end date. 2001:558:6017:18C:145:9CCC:4D40:C01E (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And we've made clear that Mitchell's scores are not present in the current active leaderboards. And its clear that the historic database was the pre-2014 acquisition. I think we're reasonably clear here. Masem (t) 13:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, the wording in the article is actually deliberately biased against Mitchell. I would have fixed it myself, but have long since forgotten the password to my Wikipedia account and the e-mail that it's tied to. Some examples:
-"He said he recaptured the world records for both Donkey Kong (1,062,800 points) and Donkey Kong Jr. (1,270,900) on the weekend of July 24, 2010." There shouldn't be any "he said" here any longer, just "He recaptured". Both TG and Guinness have reinstated his records, so at least in an official capacity, there is no current dispute about the legitimacy of his score from any major public entity.
-"In 2015, both these records were surpassed." Not really relevant information and lacks consistency with the rest of the scores. Either all of his scores should include notes of when they were surpassed or none of them.
-"Evidence was presented that the score was falsified. This makes it sound conclusive and factual, but it hasn't been legally established so it really shouldn't read like this. The entire line would read better as "The Donkey Kong record was removed by the Donkey Kong Forum in February 2018, which prompted Twin Galaxies to remove the records from their own leaderboards in April 2018 after their own investigation concluded. Twin Galaxies subsequently released a statement declaring that they believed Mitchell's score had been falsified based on evidence of various perceived inconsistencies between the gameplay and hardware behavior in Mitchell's submission compared to that of typical behavior present in other recordings of the game."
-"However, Guinness World Records reversed their decision and reinstated Billy Mitchell's previous world records." The section never stated Guinness removed them in the first place. This line can read "However, both Guinness World Records and Twin Galaxies reversed their decisions and reinstated Billy Mitchell's previous world records."
-"Due to Twin Galaxies disqualifying all of Mitchell's scores, none of these records are considered valid by Twin Galaxies although they have restored records listed in their historical database without acknowledging their authenticity." This is very misleadingly worded. Mitchell's scores are not disqualified, banned, rejected, or officially regarded as "invalid". Mitchell himself is banned from submitting scores. Twin Galaxies has reinstated his scores and considers them valid and verified. Neutral wording would be "Although Mitchell's scores have been officially reinstated by Twin Galaxies, they have openly expressed their personal opinion doubting their legitimacy. Mitchell remains banned from Twin Galaxies, and so his reinstated scores are not visible on the active leaderboard and are only visible on Twin Galaxies' historical archive."
The wording of the article has been meticulously reviewed for neutral wording over the years, because there's a constant barrage of editors who either hate him and want to trash him, or love him and want to defend him. Masem and I are probably the only fully neutral editors who are consistently here without any agenda - he writes much of it, while I mediate discussions on the talk page. Sergecross73msg me18:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you I am fully committed to neutrality myself, and it's part of the reason I came here to discuss this. Do you have any particular problems with the wording or issues I proposed in the previous text? If not, is there any reason not to make those changes or similar changes?
I want to be really clear about a misunderstanding a lot of people appear to have and this article currently reflects that confusion. There has only ever been one Twin Galaxies leaderboard. There is no "current leaderboard" and "archive leaderboard". It's been one continuously updated leaderboard. The historical archive is just the state of that leaderboard at a specific date. Twin Galaxies did not reinstate Billy's score to the archive; there WAS no archive that they removed his score from. Billy's score was removed from the Twin Galaxies' leaderboards and then it was reinstated to their leaderboards. The current status of Billy's scores is that they are reinstated and verified by Twin Galaxies, but they merely are not visible on the current leaderboards because he is banned.
I think wording like "Due to Twin Galaxies disqualifying all of Mitchell's scores, none of these records are considered valid by Twin Galaxies although they have restored records listed in their historical database without acknowledging their authenticity." is misleading in the extreme. First of all, they completely acknowledged the authenticity of the archive by hosting it. They may not WANT to acknowledge the authenticity of it, but they did as part of the settlement. They outright state in their public statement that they recognize it as official documented history. The very act of hosting and chronicling those scores is authenticating them. The scores are validated both in a historical context in the archive and in the context that Billy's scores on their leaderboards remain verified but disqualified due to his ban. Now, they're not REVISITING reviewing these scores and judging them according to modern verification methods, but that doesn't mean they're not authenticated.
Billy's submissions being disqualified on merit/validity and them being disqualified because he is just uniformly banned from competing without any stated reason are two completely different things and the article should clearly reflect that and I don't feel it currently does. I apologize for the length but I want to be as clear as possible with my wording here. 2001:558:6017:18C:145:9CCC:4D40:C01E (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has only ever been one Twin Galaxies leaderboard. There is no "current leaderboard" and "archive leaderboard". There was no current and archive leaderboard until this settlement and now there is with the archive being called the "Original TG Historical Database." You can look at Dragster from the Atari 2600 and see Todd Rogers' 05.51 from 2001 on the Historical Database as the record and 05.57 by multiple people on the current leaderboard as the record just like you can see the differences on the Donkey Kong and Donkey Kong Jr. scoreboards between the two. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the text you quoted differentiates it as a separate leaderboard. It is an archive and snapshot of the leaderboards they inherited. Twin Galaxies would LIKE to separate themselves from those scores, but they legally can't without actually battling it in court. They have no reason to state they reinstated Billy's scores at all if it were only applied to the archive; he was never "banned" from the archive to begin with. Billy's scores were removed from their leaderboards and he was banned from further submissions, and then later, as a result of the settlement, Twin Galaxies reinstated those scores, but his ban remained in place and that's why they don't show up on Twin Galaxies. The scores show up in the archive because it is a snapshot that does not retroactively apply the ban placed on Billy in 2018. It sounds like stupid semantics, and it is, but that's how it fell out for both parties so they were both satisfied. Billy can claim his scores were reinstated, Twin Galaxies can claim some integrity for their "current" leaderboard since Billy's suspect scores don't show up on them. 2001:558:6017:18C:145:9CCC:4D40:C01E (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like stupid semantics, and it is, but that's how it fell out for both parties so they were both satisfied. Billy can claim his scores were reinstated, Twin Galaxies can claim some integrity for their "current" leaderboard since Billy's suspect scores don't show up on them. At the least we seem to agree with this part here and that works for me. As mentioned by Masem, there are certain things we cannot say due to not being explicitly stated. Do you have a revised suggested wording change that might work for the article? --Super Goku V (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say I think the wording on this needs the most attention:
"Due to Twin Galaxies disqualifying all of Mitchell's scores, none of these records are considered valid by Twin Galaxies although they have restored records listed in their historical database without acknowledging their authenticity."
Main issues being they have acknowledged the authenticity of the historical archive and Billy's scores in an official capacity, and the part near the beginning where it says "none of these records are considered valid by Twin Galaxies" could be misleading. I think better a better tone would be something like...
"Due to Twin Galaxies banning Mitchell, none of these records are currently displayed on the Twin Galaxies leaderboards, as his score submissions are disqualified. They are, however, officially recognized as authentic and displayed on their historical archive("an unmodified, legacy snapshot preserving performances and achievements predating the current TG ownership and modern adjudication protocols.") without subjecting them to modern verification processes or authenticity standards"
Can also add more about how Twin Galaxies, despite recognizing the score as legitimate in an official capacity, has openly expressed their doubt of their actual legitimacy if you want to weight it out properly. Is that fair? 2001:558:6017:18C:145:9CCC:4D40:C01E (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We still discuss that Mitchell is banned from further TG events, separately from identify his score restored to the pre-2014 historical archive. I can easily read between the lines of TG's statement in that they probably still think he cheated, but they were unlikely to prevail in court and the cost to continue that action outweighed this alternative, simply acknowledging the scores prior to 2014 and moving on with their current scoreboards that Mitchell will not be a part of. But we can't write it like that because that's not explicitly stated. Masem (t) 03:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few things I want to discuss about this:
In 2015, both these records were surpassed. - I agree that there is a problem with this sentence, but not in the way that you have with it. Your issue is that for consistency we should mention all or none of the score being surpassed. (Aside: We do say "others have matched or surpassed Mitchell's scores" in the text.) The problem with removal is that it is relevant. The scores that were disqualified were not the top scores at the time of their removal. This line makes that clear and gives readers more clarity that the issue wasn't with the Number 1 spot on the leaderboard at the time. The issue I have with it is that the line initially mentioned that the two records were lost in September 2010 back when the article did mention all of the surpassed records. In August of 2015, the lines were modified to read "As of 2015, both these records have been surpassed." That led to a misunderstanding a few years later that implied the records were both surpassed in 2015 instead of 2010. So, I will modify the wording and provide better sourcing for that line. (Note: There is a technicality or two on the DK Jr. score, but that can be its own topic if it is a problem. This article covers the record issue regarding the date and record itself.)
Evidence was presented that the score was falsified. - We don't need to have things be "legally established." There are very few things on Wikipedia that require a court's decision before we mention or exclude something. This isn't one of those cases. Additionally, the Donkey Kong Forum (DKF) isn't considered to be notable on Wikipedia, hence why the article keeps mention of it limited and does not have any sources to DKF. (As an example, we use Ars Technica as a source for DKF in the Notable scores section instead of using DKF as a direct source as a reliable source can cover a source we do not deem to be a reliable source.)
However, Guinness World Records reversed their decision and reinstated Billy Mitchell's previous world records. - It would be easier to just add a mention about Guinness two sentences before, "which prompted Twin Galaxies, and then Guinness World Records, to remove the records in April 2018" or to remove the sentence entirely. Given that it helps the reader, I doubt that removal is the proper way. As for the "However, both Guinness World Records and Twin Galaxies reversed their decisions and reinstated Billy Mitchell's previous world records." suggestion and the other things I didn't discuss, there is a problem with the TG wording being suggested as already discussed in other comments. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
>This makes it sound conclusive and factual, but it hasn't been legally established so it really shouldn't read like this.
As I said in another comment, we don't need things to be legally established and no the scores are not legally established like most to all high scores. But as far as I am reading, Masem already resolved this issue unless I am missing something. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
