Talk:Recommended Web Video Channels

Regarding Arch

Some Controversy has arisen regarding his mods and him making some not very appropriate jokes and saying crude things about people of other races. I am curious as to what we should do? part of me says "Whatever, more Arch drama." But anothre part isn't so sure. Thoughts? --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is the wrong place to be discussing him. I don't think he has done anything on this page so why are you bringing it up here? --73.41.249.220 22:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Because that part of the page is about him. How is it wrong to talk about him in a section about him? -- Triacom (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• You think something should be done about "some not very appropriate jokes and saying crude things about people of other races"?! Do you realize you're literally on a 4chan wiki? --Agiletek (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

We're talking about a dude who has pedophiles as his mods, and since that section's about him, why shouldn't that and his racism be mentioned? I also fail to see why you're cutting out his VtM game when that's the source of the original Nazi accusations. -- Triacom (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

VTM is a fucking game, do you call people on axis in battlefield Nazi's over playing and discussing the era and war the setting is in?

If they unironically go out of their way to create and portray the Nazi's in their games as sympathetic and ignore the shit they did, then yes. VtM is a game, the characters and scenarios he used were custom made however. -- Triacom (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Last I checked, VTM is literally about roleplaying as an abomination against God with that's a parasite upon humanity, most often as part of a giant company, with a record of genocide, that's willing to brainwash and murder innocents to keep things secret. --Agiletek (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Big difference between roleplaying as a vampire and making the Nazi's sympathetic. Those characters you play as are also acknowledged to be villainous, unlike the Nazi's in that campaign. -- Triacom (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, I've moved his section off to its own page, Arch Warhammer. Feel free to continue this debate there. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Puffin Forest

Every time I've seen him brought up on /tg/, people cringed themselves to death, but not before pointing out that his stories have either never happened, or he's a truly godawful GM if they really did. His bit here about hilarious stories and amazing humor seems highly suspicious. --Ratman (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry. I was the one who wrote that. I am a bad writer. Go ahead and correct it. --73.41.249.220 04:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Plus I also don't ever visit 4chan so I don't actually know what the community's opinion of him is. I recommended him based on the fact that I find his videos very enjoyable and he has a very high number of subscribers. --2601:203:480:4C60:54D6:9E50:8C82:5B99 04:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Alright, hope this is neutral enough. --Ratman (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I made some made some more changes to it but I think it still needs some work. --2601:203:480:4C60:54D6:9E50:8C82:5B99 07:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I did some further edits. I think it is a lot better now.--2601:203:480:4C60:2190:A86E:19E1:EC73 00:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The Other Circle and Leakycheese

Anyone have thoughts about including The Outer Circle or Leakycheese? -- HussarZwei (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• I mean that's up to you. Personally, I think Outer Circle is okay, but he does have a tendency of devolving into a bitter rambling curmudgeon. -- Bear Eater (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2020

Winters SEO

Channel I go to for Warhammer battle reports, but I don’t know many others since I’m fairly new to WH40k. Can he be added to the list? Thoughts?

Sign yer posts anon. But yes, assuming he isn't already there that should be a mighty fine addition. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 06:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, at this point

Move "Arch Warhammer" over to his own page, so we can just link to it, like we do with Counter Monkey? Saarlacfunkel (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Good idea--2601:203:480:4C60:A0AC:5C3C:53A6:E621 01:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

We could just collapse the section as well. -- Triacom (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

He doesn't need validation from generating controversy, nor do we need to do anything more than bare bones stuff. I say keep it as it is now, let people decide what their opinion is. I.E. We don't mention SS82 can be a bit of a droner in some people's opinions, only that he does only batreps or whatever. To some degree we need to let our audience form their opinion of him. Politics makes people want to go there, alright, you do you. Not your thing? Leutin09 is a great alternative. I hardly believe we need to be /tg/ drama upkeepers. Otherwise we're just reporters, but worse because we aren't even payed. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

That's like talking about GW and just going "they make finely detailed miniatures for tabletop wargames" and leaving it at that. It would be doing a huge disservice. Also letting people form their own opinions is exactly why I linked the sources of my claims. -- Triacom (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I should also probably mention that I don't see why we would be listing people on here while avoiding talking about their personality. That's going to make up a huge reason for why people watch certain channels. Why even list any channels at all if it's not going to include the person who's running the channel and making the videos? -- Triacom (talk) 06:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I dunno, part of me thinks that giving him his own page seems like a little much. Like, the political talk that's been plaguing this wiki recently (The Zwei situation in particular being a more recent example) is making me more than a little reluctant to start letting anything along these lines onto the wiki. I get you've been around longer an all, and I get the whole GW analogy. I think the concern also arises from the fact that right now this is a very recent development, and I am concerned about raids. Can we objectively prove all this crap about him? I usually avoid this kind of drama because I have a life that revolves around things besides politics and the like. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 06:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree it's a bit much, that's why I'd rather collapse the controversial bit below a small descriptor of him. That being said, it's not political to say somebody's a racist and then show them being racist, or say that they made pedophiles their mods and then show their mods defending child porn. When I made the claims I made sure to link proof about what I claimed, so yes we definitely can prove it, and collapsing the section would stop most casual viewers from seeing it anyway. -- Triacom (talk) 06:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I would be down for having a drop down box below a main description, along the lines of twilight on the Rage page. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Below is how I would prefer to do it. -- Triacom (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Arch Warhammer

Mister Skubtastic himself. He has made a name for himself by producing Warhammer 40K and Warhammer Fantasy lore videos and depending on who you ask is either a funny guy with a purposely offensive sense of humor, a literal Nazi, or a Skaven. The best way to describe him is a somewhat well-read but politically outspoken prick with an insufferable accent. Also makes videos on 40k related games and the occasional video or series of videos on miscellaneous games that grab his attention, and recently GW filed a trademark complaint against him reducing his name simply to "Arch".

The controversy around the guy stems from a few main issues. Firstly he's accused of making shit up in his videos and claims to be a "loremaster" despite not knowing a lot of things (like how Angron became a daemon prince). Secondly he ran a Vampire: The Masquerade game where he tried to make Nazi's sympathetic, and finally he's a very outspoken racist on his discord (although some people would argue that's dark humour taken out of context) and he chooses racists, and even pedophiles to be his moderators. He's also somebody who seems convinced that if the Imperium of Man were real, everyone would be better off.

Replace "a bit of a prick" with " a prick and I agree with it. No one can really argue he isn't one. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Triacom (talk) 06:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

As long as you don't reinclude it on the main article. I'm getting tired of 90% of all edits being about this one asshole. Why shouldn't we just do the same thing we did for Spoony, and move the drama off to its own page? That way, at least the drama goes where it belongs, where I (and most others) can ignore it. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The point is to include it back on the main article. I already covered this earlier, what's the point of listing any channel if you don't talk about the person running it? As for giving him his own page, there's no need, you can just collapse it. -- Triacom (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

A collapsible does not fix the "90% of all edits to the page" problem. As far as I can tell, the only two long-term options are to remove him completely, or move him off to his own page. I chose the latter, but the former is just as valid if his content isn't all that great, which is what I'm getting from reading the above section. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

How is making edits to the page a problem? What's it matter if most of the edits are about one of the users? Nobody's jumping in like on the SJW or /pol/ pages, there was just a short argument. -- Triacom (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Sort of fair enough... but I've yet to hear anything resembling an actual recommendation. This article is for creators people at least some people on this wiki recommend, or are in some way important or useful, and I've yet to hear anybody actually recommend Arch. If he's important enough to be worth discussing, he gets his own page, where the issues can be made clear. If he's not important, and nobody actually recommends him, he's not worth including here. Again: (1) Is he recommended by anybody here? (2) Is he important enough to warrant his own article? If the answer to both questions are "no", he doesn't belong anywhere on this page. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Some people are good to mention just because if we didn't then users would be asking about them anyway, or somebody else would try to give him a recommendation not knowing that you didn't want him on the wiki. Also at one point he was recommended on here, his racism and pedophile mods have only come to light fairly recently. -- Triacom (talk) 10:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Having thought about it more, I'm putting him on this page again since giving him his own page just makes it a beacon for vandals, as we just saw from an anon. I highly doubt they'll go scrolling through this page to find him, and it's much less likely to come up in search engines. -- Triacom (talk) 07:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

From Arch's own page

Those videos linked on the front page are just embarrassing. Dude thinks he made a difference and scored a win because there was no change in policy on an intentionally dry financial report that would've been made weeks earlier? He thinks progress was made because a web page was taken down and a fan complained on twitter? You could slap his picture in the dictionary under "delusional" and it would be a perfect fit. -- Triacom (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

For the record this isn't just me, look at the top comments in a story about this. The guy's a laughing stock, and I'm thinking we should just redirect this page so we can be done with him. It'll take forever to be deleted otherwise and even then somebody could make a new page. -- Triacom (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Done. Though I can't imagine this will be deleted, the admins never delete anything short of actual spam.--Newerfag (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm just redirecting it outright, blanking it doesn't really help us. -- Triacom (talk) 06:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Imagine if GW came across his Gnoblar or Al Muktar videos. Telling victory, my Reforged Ass!!! -- Bear Eater (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Haven't seen this Gnoblar video (can't even find it), but the Al Muktar video's not bad at all compared to his video rant about the Black Ultramarine. Admittedly it's hard telling where the ignorance ends and the racism starts (if there's even a difference in the first place), but I'd place my bet at where he starts talking about the Salamanders. -- Triacom (talk) 10:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

You won't be able to find the Gnoblar video anymore, as he actually took it down, for unexplained reasons. But rest assured, it was quite....out there in its real life comparisons. We're talking Gypsy references, stuff about Jew's noses, and the creme de la creme, a full on racial slur. Here's a clip that was saved before the video was removed: Gnoblar Controversy. -- Bear Eater (talk) 3:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Found it. Holy shit you weren't kidding, not only is he so completely wrong on the lore, but it starts out race-baiting, then after a brief bit of getting the setting wrong he goes full mask-off when he starts calling them "house-ni**ers". I should also point out that he mentions that his channel is well-known for the term. -- Triacom (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Also his response to the Christchurch shooting is deplorable. Fortunately there's already somebody out there who watched it and goes over why. -- Triacom (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Some Idiot

if you think arch is a Nazi or a pedo or enabler of pedos you’re mentally ill and have too much of a bias to decide definitions. FYI some Nazi actually were not bad guys some saved a lot civilian lives in China and during the fall of Germany, some even tried to kill Hitler.

The discord's shots are pretty indisputable, it's pretty easy to figure out that people who defend child porn are pedophiles, and when you make those people mods, it's pretty easy to see you're enabling them. FYI nobody cares about those Nazis since nobody was talking about them. It's also easy to say you're defending them when you claim that pedophiles when you try to hide them and pretend like that never happened. I'm also going to need to see proof that the comments were somehow faked. -- Triacom (talk) 08:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Also your spelling was atrocious. That alone is grounds enough for undoing any of your edits. -- Triacom(talk) 08:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Triacom. You have proven yourself to be the bane of this wiki, an SJW who deserves death. I for one cannot wait to see Arch and the rest of us with sanity profit from the golden age that is coming in the next decade when the ethnostate is finally established and the west begins to recover, while you are left behind to be raped by tyrone and his muslim migrant friend. Oh, and science proves that blacks aren't human, look into phrenology. Get triggered.

This is a really unhealthy coping mechanism for getting proven wrong on a wiki, my dude. Seek help. --2600:1700:19C0:2760:444A:7280:D358:4722 15:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Exhibit A for why people call Arch and his fans Racists. -- Triacom (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

You know what? At this point I'll settle for him not being listed here at all. It seems like nobody's interested in genuinely recommending him. -- Triacom (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

1:Anon, Triacom does good work on this wiki, so stick your addled excuse of an opinion back into the trash bin where is belongs. 2: I'm not sure about deleting him. Didn't we talk about this earlier? --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

We did, I wrote that when the anon briefly stopped trying to post that terrible edit and instead tried deleting him off the page outright. If they were happy with him being gone instead of him being badmouthed on here then I would've been fine with that if the alternative was an endless editwar against his fanbase. -- Triacom (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I suppose. Though weren't there a few fellas up above on here that agree with him being on here? Further, what is to say his fans just add him back on? It seems like a hydra: each solution just leads to a host of other problems. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on deleting him myself, I was just saying that if the fan wanted him gone that I wouldn't bother putting him back on the page, and I figured that other people would feel differently about it. You are right in that there's not really a good way to get rid of this problem, though I think permanently protecting the page would help a lot in curbing their edits. -- Triacom (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protecting the page

Since you asked SaarlacFunkel, I've already put in a request to protect the page on both Root's talk page and AssistantWikifag's talk page. If you'd like to voice your support there it would be appreciated. -- Triacom (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)