Talk:Recommended Web Video Channels

From 1d4chan

Regarding Arch[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Nuke Review.pngThis article covers a topic that, by its very nature, is a magnet for flamewars. Try not to get too assmad at what you're about to read.

The Below is part of a long discussion between multiple people that has taken up a substantial portion of the page. For the sake of shortening the page, all content has been collapsed.

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)

Ironic how Triacom cites a Vaush video to support his hate boner against Arch, even though Vaush is literally defending CP in a debate against Vegan Gains. Also lol at citing a Vaush vid period -- Anon who's sick of the bullshit

Do you think it's impossible to think more than one thing is bad? You can say why one thing is bad and go over why, then you can point out why something else is bad and go over why. In case that's too complex for you, I'm not giving Vaush a free pass on everything because of the video he did on Arch. I'll admit I haven't seen that particular video yet, I don't watch much of Vaush, so I'll wait until I've seen it to comment on it. -- Triacom (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Right but you'll take the word of Vaush and a literal subreddit full of communists (who themselves have enough skeletons in their closet to discredit their entire argument against Arch). Can't say I'm surprised -- Anon

I'm not taking anyone's word, I've seen the original unedited videos, and the discord. -- Triacom (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

You mean the screenshots that were made up by Sigmarxism (pic can't be posted due to the captcha stopping links)? Do you mean the screenshots that show Arch repeating what CHRIS ROCK said? Or how about Arch mocking the communist shills' thought process by replacing 'true communism' with 'true fascism', which you wouldn't know since reddit only gave you a single out-of-context picture. Maybe we also have the numerous videos where Arch clearly states the Imperium is a hellhole, sounds like such a shining endorsement of the Imperium after all... - Anon L

I mean the words typed by Arch and his mods, and I mean the videos he uploaded to his own channel. Even with the videos he unlisted it's not hard to find videos where he's proud his channel became associated with the words "house ni--ers". -- Triacom (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah the words on his server that you blatantly misinterpreted . And quit crying so much about the Gnblar video, he's not suddenly a card carrying KKK member due to one vid made at least a year ago...

Oh please do tell me how I misinterpreted his mods discussing how they think child porn is fine. -- Triacom (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I never mentioned his mods, and I don't pay lipservice to the 'guilt by association' bullshit. Countless servers I've been on have had mods with sketchy shit. I'm talking about the alleged smoking gun against Arch, with photo evidence suggesting parts of it are false or clearly shown without the full context that tell a different story.

Except you did mention his mods when you said the discord pics were faked. If you have photo evidence they were faked or taken out of context why aren't you showing it? You're also not addressing the fact that prior to the gnoblars video the "house ni--ers" term was so associated with his channel he not only commented on it, but did so proudly. -- Triacom (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Except I clearly didn't mention Arch's mods, I mentioned Arch and only Arch. I explicitly stated that the stuff Arch is being accused of is (for the most part) false, I made no mention of his mods. I'm not disputing what Arch said in his gnoblar video, but like I said I think it's irrelevant and a grab at straws. I also told you why I can't send you these two photos that shed additional light, the captcha stops me from sending links and I have no clue what the response to the question is. So unless you either tell me your email or the answer to the challenge captcha question, my hands are tied.- Anon

Either the discord is faked or it's not, you said the photos (plural) was faked and since there's only two that means you were referencing both. If you didn't mean to reference both you should have specified. As for the captcha, if you cannot figure out the answers then I highly doubt you have any evidence the photo is faked. Going over his videos for a second, the gnoblars video and videos like it make up most of the reason people call him a racist, and once he proudly asserts that people associate his channel with the term "house ni--ers" I don't think anyone can dispute whether or not he's a racist. The discord photo is just the cherry on top. -- Triacom (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

How specific do you need me to be when I only mention one person? And more importantly, how does not knowing a password (which could be any given case-sensitive phrase) mean that I have no evidence? There's literally no correlation. And since you're still hung up on the fact he used off-color language a year ago, where is your evidence that he's PROUD to be associated with that term and that he used it? P.S. @Lord of The Lemmings: name checks out

I'm bringing it up because it sounds like backtracking, as if you found out it was something you can't defend and now you're trying to pretend you didn't bring it up. As for your "password", you can look all of them up on this wiki. If you're not going to even try doing that then I doubt you have any sort of compelling evidence; and it's not that I think you have no evidence because you don't know the captcha, it's that I think you don't have evidence because you're not willing to do a 3-second search for the answer. And since you're still hung up on the fact he used off-color language a year ago, where is your evidence that he's PROUD to be associated with that term and that he used it? In the Gnoblar video. -- Triacom (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

There's literally no part of the twitter video capture that was taken to suggest Arch was proud, and I listened to the whole thing. Sure he'd acknowledge that he's infamous for saying that, but not proud. And the entire idea that he'd be proud of saying House Ni--ers is extremely stupid; why would you unlist/delete something you're proud of? There's also nowhere online that shows what this captcha password is.

Twitter video? Have you not listened to the actual video? His tone where he continues to use it is pride. He didn't acknowledge he was infamous for saying it, he seemed to be under the impression it was a good thing. "why would you unlist/delete something you're proud of?" Same reason he tried hiding the discord stuff, it eventually came back to haunt him. "There's also nowhere online that shows what this captcha password is." Yeah that's not true. 3 seconds in a search bar gives you the answers. -- Triacom (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The original video is gone, all I have to go off of is a snippet on twitter where he acknowledges that he'd be infamous for saying it. That's not a prideful tone in the slightest, and hiding something you said is the very opposite of pride. No search results are showing the captcha password either, so I'm done trying to wrangle with the stupid thing.

I linked the original video earlier on this very page, and hiding something years after the fact still means there were years where he was proud of it. As for the captcha, I don't believe that for a second, control+c, control+v into any search you want would give you the answer. -- Triacom (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Not hiding some dumb thing you said years ago doesn't mean you're proud, you just didn't think a subreddit full of communists would force your hand. I'm also not finding any captcha so I'm just going to read the pictures directly. Anonymous 06/06/20(Sat) 01:50:46 No.73019730 File: sigmarxism.png (26KB, 621X387), the text below depicts a discord chat.

Arch (05-Jun-20 01:28 AM): Lol (30 thumbs up emoji reactions)

Arch (05-Jun-20 01:28 AM): It turns out anyone can change their name and avatar to anything on discord (18 le thumbs up reactions)

TauZedong (05-Jun-20 01:29 AM): That's nothing, if you hit F12 in the web client you can change timestamps too

loldongs (05-Jun-20 01:34 AM): Oh, this is gonna be great.

Yet it still remained up for far longer and he never made any sort of retraction or apology, he just tried sweeping it under the rug and hoped everyone forgot. You can also be proud of something while not wanting to deal with the backlash. As for that evidence, are you seriously telling me your evidence that the pic is fake is just Arch saying it's fake and that's it? -- Triacom (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Bruh. These are sigmarxists pretending to be Arch and reveling at the ease of impersonating people. That's NOT ARCH in that conversation, and that isn't in his server. When people delete old tweets of things that could get them cancelled today, that doesn't mean they're proud to have made that tweet. Unless your mind is already made up and think Arch is a card-carrying racists there's no reason or evidence aside from speculation that he'd be proud of the vid.

Dude, it was already confirmed to be him by people on his side who were on the discord and claimed the discussions those were taken out of were jokes. When people delete old tweets of things that could get them cancelled today, that doesn't mean they're proud to have made that tweet. If they act proud of it at the time of posting then yes, they were proud to have posted it. How they feel after the fact doesn't change how they were in the past, and hiding it instead of owning up to it shows that they don't want to deal with the consequences of their actions, not that they changed. -- Triacom (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
>Unironically using Sigmarxists
Anon, I think you're a bit too obvious in the trolling. Maybe cut back a little? --58.162.223.230 06:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Go back to drinking your soylent beverage, Mr IP address. For the 3rd time acknowledging that you'd be infamous for saying something is not the same as taking pride. That confirmation you're referring to came from Arch, where he strongly denies ever endorsing fascism and whatnot despite many retards lying that he did, and manipulating the 'evidence' to support it.

Wait a minute, so you're saying Arch confirmed it was him, and that Arch also claimed it was all faked by other people? You can't have both, it's either one or the other. As for him being proud, he didn't acknowledge he was infamous for it, he was proud that his channel was associated with the term and continued to use it for years before hiding the video and hoping people didn't notice. Even if he thought he was infamous for that phrase, you don't continue to do something you're infamous for without being proud of it. -- Triacom (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

No. Arch was confirming that he made quotes bashing fascism and the state of the Imperium (if you bothered to fully read them). Arch however has vehemently denied many of the false allegations against him. If sigmarxists keep pushing this verifiably false narrative that Arch endorses nazis, that can only mean they've outright fabricated stuff. Also, he doesn't keep using the N word in his vids and hasn't for quite a while, quit lying lol

So then he's saying the thread's real but the contents of that thread were faked, even though they were already confirmed by other people and he has no evidence besides his word backing him up? You say the accusations are false, so where are you verifying that they're false? If it's just him claiming he and his mods were all impersonated then that's not a defence unless he can show you proof that he was actually impersonated. As an example, if I signed my posts with Newerfag's username you could tell I impersonated him by checking the history of the page. Also I didn't say he uses the N word in his current videos, I said he hid the videos where he used it and hoped people didn't notice, because that's what happened. -- Triacom (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
You're claiming screenshots can be verified as fake by checking a log? Really?! You're also saying it's someone's burden to show something was faked. That's exactly the opposite of how evidence works: The burden is on the person presenting the evidence to show it's real. Screenshots are easy to edit: All modern desktop browsers have inspect element functions (ctrl+shift+I on Chrome based browsers) that allow text alteration with trivial levels of ease. This is why people with any sense don't take screenshots seriously without an archive link. --Agiletek (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
"You're claiming screenshots can be verified as fake by checking a log? Really?!" No, you obviously missed the part where I said "As an example," but don't worry, I'll write it in all caps and bold it next time so you can't miss it. "You're also saying it's someone's burden to show something was faked." Yeah, because when somebody accuses someone else the burden of proof is on them to show evidence, and screenshots are evidence. After that it's on the accused to disprove the evidence if possible, and if you want to disprove evidence then you'll need to show how they're fake. If somebody was accusing Arch without evidence I wouldn't give them the time of day. As for your claim that evidence can be manipulated, there's not only no sign of that, you have the opposite with people claiming that was actually said, but in discussions that have been taken out of context. The fact that something can be manipulated doesn't mean it has been manipulated. -- Triacom (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
And what would you consider signs the "evidence" was manipulated? Like I said, it's trivial to edit the text of any web page directly, without leaving any artifacts like photoshop would. "A group of pseudonymous people on the internet said it was true!" hardly bolsters an unverifiable screenshot that's disputed by the one party that would undeniably know if it's true or not. Like I said, archive or nothing. --Agiletek (talk) 02:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Chat logs and/or a history of the accuser editing footage before would be pretty compelling evidence that it was manipulated. -- Triacom (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Produce them and authenticate them. --Agiletek (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I think you're confusing me for Arch, I'm not the one who had access to the chat logs, and since he's the one accused and his accuser is not known for fabricating evidence, he needs to produce the chatlogs if he wants to defend himself and his mods. -- Triacom (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh, so you're just demanding someone make unreasonable effort to disprove random accusations with no verifiable proof. --Agiletek (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
It's not an unreasonable effort, if somebody makes a claim and has evidence backing it up then it's on the other person to disprove them. -- Triacom (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
A random out of context screenshot isn't "evidence backing it up", it's just a random claim. I've never seen any of ArchWarhammer's content, I'm just telling you your arguments are retarded: Screenshots of text on the internet is so easily faked it has no value as evidence on its own. --Agiletek (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
And what's the context behind it? How do you know it's out of context? If you have extra context to give and it would show the screenshot in a new light then that would disprove it. If screenshots are genuinely faked then the person being accused can prove that they were faked, yet for some reason nobody's been able to do that yet, how strange. -- Triacom (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea what the context is. That's why it can't be trusted. Again, demanding someone actively disprove every flimsy claim against them made with minimal to no evidence is retarded, especially when it's really hard to prove you never said something. --Agiletek (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
If you don't know what the context is then how do you know it's taken out of context? -- Triacom (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
You're asking how I know I don't have the context if I don't have the context? Really? Random screenshots of text aren't evidence --Agiletek (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
How do you know you don't have the context? Seems like you're just assuming you don't. As for the screenshot, if I wanted to disprove that it would be entirely on me, and I could do that by doing a search through his Twitter history. -- Triacom (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Obama deleted it he posted it. --Agiletek (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
In that case look to see if anyone else claims he said that, because there will always be people responding to someone that popular, deleted tweet or no, and if people agree he said that then I'll say it's more likely than not. -- Triacom (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Putting aside the sheer difference in attention between literally a public post by a former President of the US and (from what I can tell) a private chat room from a random e-celeb... I'll agree Obama said it. How many other people do you need to agree saw it before you'll admit trusting random screenshots of text you see on the internet with nothing else backing them is a retarded idea? --Agiletek (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
"How many other people do you need to agree saw it-" It's not just about who says they saw it, it's about people who as far as I can tell haven't talked to each other who can independently agree he said it. If I asked you for example if he said this and asked you to quote it for me without looking at what was said (for example, prompting them with "has Obama ever mentioned somebody named Triacom") then I'd start to believe he said it, and that would also be further helped along if you could find other mentions where he does the same thing. Remember, the accusation that he's a racist is only partly because of the screenshots, and is mainly because he was proud his channel became associated with the term "house ni--ers", and he kept using that term for years. I'm not just trusting random screengrabs, I've both seen and linked the video from his own channel where he does this. -- Triacom (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
You were just arguing the random screenshots were legit. --Agiletek (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm still arguing that I haven't seen anything that discredits them, the reason I brought up his videos is because you said with "nothing else backing them-" and even though I was sure you were just referring to the legitimacy of the screenshots, I wanted to point out the idea the screenshots were supporting (that he's a racist) did have other sources backing them up. -- Triacom (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Then give them, because all you've said is "other people said they're real". --Agiletek (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I already linked the video earlier on this page, would you like me to link it again? It's the gnoblars video in case you've already seen it, sorry if that wasn't clearer. -- Triacom (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
That's it? That's what you've spent weeks arguing that means someone is a Nazi because he spoke metaphorically about a fantasy creature and compared it to a real world position while admitting he's being edgy in the same sentence? Where the fuck do you think you are?! This is 1d4chan, not some Something Awful spawned shithole! In your own link the guy calling him a Nazi is a self-admitted communist (as in, the failed ideology that holds the world record in death count) and can hardly be seen as a rational person. Sorry did I say weeks? You've spent months obsessing over this! What's wrong with you? Argue he's wrong on the lore all you want, dig up all the examples you can find. At least obsessing over detail over a hobby is something rational! You've been assmad for months because someone said a bad word once! --Agiletek (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
No, the argument that he's a racist is from the screengrabs and his own videos, the argument that he's a Nazi comes mainly from his VtM campaign where he made Nazi's the sympathetic party. As for the bit you say where he's intentionally edgy, there's a point where it stops being a joke, just like there's a point in that Cuties movie where it stops being about child exploitation and becomes child exploitation (before you claim I'm calling him a pedophile, I'm not, I'm using this as an example of how something can become something else). If you're so proud of a phrase that's become synonymous with your channel and decide to fully own it, then you've gone past the point of just making racist jokes and have become a racist. "In your own link the guy calling him a Nazi is a self-admitted communist-" Weird, because he calls himself a socialist anarchist. Bad ideology aside, he's not the topic here. "Sorry did I say weeks? You've spent months obsessing over this! What's wrong with you?" You're hardly one to talk, you've been reading and responding to it, although I question whether or not you paid attention since you're all over the place. The answer's quite simple: I've got some free time, and there's evidence backing up my claims. On the other hand you've got some free time, and the evidence backing up your claims is... well just let me know if you find any. "At least obsessing over detail over a hobby is something rational!" It's not rational to call out a racist when you see one? That's what I've been doing (to Arch, I'm not calling you a racist). "You've been assmad for months because someone said a bad word once!" He said it so often it was associated with his channel specifically, and if I was butthurt about it I'd be talking like you. -- Triacom (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
No, it's not rational to spend months on 4chan to "call out a racist". Months is a lot of free time. "Post Modern Neo-Marxist Game Master || he/him || Warhammer YouTuber (new video in bio) || Gnoblar Supporter" is not "socialist anarchist". Like I said, you could have easily spent this time cataloging how he's wrong on lore, producing objective evidence for why he shouldn't be on the page and skip and skip all this stupid shit. Instead you've focused on easily your weakest argument for why he shouldn't be on the page and backing it up with non-sense (it's real because people said they're real and he isn't releasing a bunch of private stuff to disprove it!). I'm annoyed because two idiots have been eating up the recent changes page for months making stupid arguments to eachother on the most petty bullshit. It's clear your top priority is calling him racist and anything else is incidental. That and your other insistence on tone policing articles (again, on 1d4chan) makes you look like the bigger of the two idiots. --Agiletek (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
"No, it's not rational to spend months on 4chan to "call out a racist". Months is a lot of free time." I've got downtime when I'm waiting for videos to render, when I'm in transit, when I'm eating and before I sleep, if I choose to spend that time arguing that using the N word so often it becomes associated with your channel makes you a racist then why is it unreasonable to do that as opposed to something like playing mobile games? I don't go out of my way to find these kinds of things, they simply pop up and that's when I notice them. "-is not "socialist anarchist"." It's also not Communist, but is it really worth it to argue over which is worse? "Neo-Marxist", "Communism", and "Socialist-Anarchist" are all terrible and can join Capitalism as other shitty systems that don't function thanks to human nature. "Like I said, you could have easily spent this time cataloging how he's wrong on lore, producing objective evidence for why he shouldn't be on the page and skip and skip all this stupid shit." Him being wrong on the lore wouldn't be evidence for him not being on the page, and it's already so widely known that a warning was already on his section before this started. Also nobody is arguing that his lore videos are accurate, if they were then I would be doing what you want me to. "Instead you've focused on easily your weakest argument for why he shouldn't be on the page-" Wait a minute, I think you misunderstood why I'm arguing. I'm not arguing to remove him from the page, I think he should be included, however I also think the page should reflect the user's it links to, and that's why I'm arguing against people arguing it's inaccurate to label a guy who got his channel associated with the N word as a racist. "and backing it up with non-sense (it's real because people said they're real and he isn't releasing a bunch of private stuff to disprove it!)." Well yeah, if people say something happened, and they back it up with pictures of that thing happening, and people on the side of the accused said it happened, and the accused does nothing to disprove it, then yes it's reasonable to believe it happened. "I'm annoyed because two idiots have been eating up the recent changes page for months making stupid arguments to eachother on the most petty bullshit." Uh-huh... just a warning, you should not look at the talk page for the Damocles Gulf Crusade. "It's clear your top priority is calling him racist and anything else is incidental." My top priority is arguing against people who try to change a page or argue with no evidence of their own. If Arch came out today with a video where he apologized for associating his channel with the N word I would happily reflect that on the main page and link to it. If he went 6 months after that without any racist jabs on discord, his videos or social media then I'd be happy to include that as well. Furthermore, if anyone came out with proof that the screengrabs were fake and that the videos uploaded to his own channel were also somehow fake then I'd stop arguing against them. As of yet nobody has provided any sort of proof, they haven't even provided any link or citation beyond Arch saying "it's possible to fake stuff" (which isn't even a denial). "That and your other insistence on tone policing articles (again, on 1d4chan) makes you look like the bigger of the two idiots." Tone policing? I don't do that, when anon's edit into the Gue'Vessa page the Angry Marines call them "Weaboo faggots" I leave it, same with many other instances. If you're thinking of referencing the Yugioh page and the discussion that happened there I'll remind you that you were not only in the minority for how COVID-19 should've been presented, but you also agreed with my edit that it could've been excised since the "joke" was redundant (after mocking my offer to do that no less). The only general change I make to the wiki is to undo strikethroughs when people use them to argue on the main page, and I do that because it was widely agreed upon years ago that those were a plague that offered nothing, and they needed to go. -- Triacom (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
"associated with" "associated with" "associated with". By who? Under what standards? Nobody cares. 4chan (and Xbox Live) is far more "associated with" people on the internet saying the same word than some random Youtuber. At best you're just arguing any entry should have a NSFW tag. "I'm not arguing to remove him from the page, I think he should be included" So you think he should be recommended and that he's a vile racist who doesn't know what he's talking about? --Agiletek (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
By himself and his community, as according to Arch and his own standards. "Nobody cares. 4chan (and Xbox Live) is far more "associated with" people on the internet saying the same word than some random Youtuber." Yet those people aren't on the page, if they were we could talk about them the same way. "At best you're just arguing any entry should have a NSFW tag." Well if the shoe fits, why not? "So you think he should be recommended and that he's a vile racist who doesn't know what he's talking about?" I think he deserves a mention, and that we need to think about expanding the scope of the page to "skub" users, if we don't create a spot for them on the page then their own fans will try to do it and we'll be back here all over again. As far as him being a racist who doesn't know what he's talking about, yes and yes. -- Triacom (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

How many times do I have to spell it out for you tri? The very same screenshots you insist prove that arch is a racist nazi actually exonerate him unless you ignore their context or interpret shitposting as endorsement. Additional screencaps that conveniently weren't provided by the sigmarxists support that. You're trying to operate off of already manipulated screenshots (why else would they be single-line, out of context photos) and insist that none of them could've been tampered with, despite the fact that it wasn't Arch in the convo transcript I typed out. What's worse is that you actually think Arch endorses nazis and the imperium's government despite him repeatedly condemning them in past videos. Also you literally just said he keeps using the N word in his vids. As for Mr Lemming and Bear, go pop a knot. You might claim you're 'willing to defend him from unfair criticism' but you never pushed against Tri's BS narrative on him because you're too busy sucking him off. You let him cite a vid by a marxist CP-defender that claims Arch backs the Christchurch shooter. For allowing such a grand act of stupidity and hypocrisy you're arguably even less trustworthy. Also congrats on redditors making a circlejerk, definitely an achievement that can never be matched or exceeded...

Hang on a minute, you just spent the past couple paragraphs telling me that those screenshots were fake, then suddenly they're no longer fake and actually exonerate him? Then you go back to "actually they are fake". You can't have it both ways, and if you really have additional screencaps then I'd love to see them. "You're trying to operate off of already manipulated screenshots (why else would they be single-line, out of context photos) and insist that none of them could've been tampered with-" Except I never did that, I said that if there's no evidence that it's been tampered with and if the person posting does not have a history of tampering with evidence then there's no reason to assume it's been tampered with. I'm not saying it hasn't been tampered with, just that there's you shouldn't assume it has been. "despite the fact that it wasn't Arch in the convo transcript I typed out." Except I wasn't referring to the transcript, I was referring to this: "That confirmation you're referring to came from Arch-" I get that following a conversation is hard for you, so I'll directly spell it out next time. "What's worse is that you actually think Arch endorses nazis-" Because he ran a game where he endorsed Nazi's, not hard to make that connection. "and the imperium's government despite him repeatedly condemning them in past videos." And yet he still also praised them, so he's trying to have it both ways again. "Also you literally just said he keeps using the N word in his vids." No, I said he kept using it for years until he tried to hide all the videos where he said it. "you never pushed against Tri's BS narrative on him because you're too busy sucking him off." Or they followed the conversation, read the screencaps, watched the videos, and waited for you to present actual evidence instead of just claims that all the evidence against Arch was faked. "You let him cite a vid by a marxist CP-defender that claims Arch backs the Christchurch shooter." I checked Vaush's vids, that video you're referring to where people claim he's a "CP-defender" came out after I linked his video on Arch, and Arch actually did back the Christchurch shooter and try to absolve him of as much blame as possible. If you're going to continue going after Vaush, I'll tell you right now I'm not going to stop you, he's not relevant to the current conversation and I am not interested in defending him or anything he said. I'm sure he can do that himself in the video where he directly responded to those accusations, and it's funny how you'll take Arch's word and ignore everything else (even when, according to you, it's directly contradicting himself), yet you won't extend the same courtesy to other people. -- Triacom (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Imma say this one more time since you still don't get it. Arch never defended nazis. You are using clearly manipulated screenshots to claim he did, as Arch explains on multiple interviews that he never did so. He or his fans also presented other pics that showed what Arch ACTUALLY said. For example, one of them has Arch ACTUALLY saying the following: 'I mean fuck it! If the communists are gone keep going 'no no no REAL bla bla bla will lead to the perfect world' may as well use their logic'. When you combine this with the fact that a screengrab of sigmarxists pretending to be Arch exists, that means that the sigmarxists have been tampering evidence and it's thus invalid. You might try and deny that you're relying on those screenshots, but the fact you keep defending their veracity and the people who posted them clearly means you are. Arch explicitly and regularly claiming the Imperium is a hellhole invalidates your accusation that he endorses the Imperium, end of discussion. On Arch's Christchurch video, one of the first things he says is that it's a terror attack, he is actually pushing back against the popular narrative that online meme culture is to blame and censorship is the solution. This means you either didn't watch the video, you're a liar, or you actually put more stock in Vaush's word than you're letting on. What's most pathetic however is thinking that sympathetically portraying the bad guys in a GAME makes you a nazi. It's a GAME, roleplaying as the bad guys doesn't actually make you a bad guy or a believer in their ideology. That's the most infantile thought process I've ever seen. I'm also going to say this one last time: acknowledging your infamy for using a metaphorical (if off-color) term for a fictional species does not make you are racist, especially since it happened years ago and hiding it is the direct opposite of pride. If he was proud he'd repost it and keep using that term to this day. The entire 'disclaimer' section you and your mods signed off on is a load of BS that was created when woke/cancel culture hit its peak.

You do know that there’s a difference between role playing and just being an ass right? That can apply to both sides of the political spectrum. Arch knows how much of a rise he gets out of people for doing stuff like that so he does it just to see their reaction. It’s not about nazis or being woke or whatever the fuck the buzz word of the week is. It’s just an internet troll being a douche.GreySeerCriak (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Anon, nobody is saying the screenshots have anything to do with him being sympathetic to Nazi's, they say he's sympathetic to Nazi's because he ran a campaign where he was sympathetic to Nazi's. "He or his fans also presented other pics that showed what Arch ACTUALLY said." Yet again you're not going to link them and it seems like you're expecting us to take your word for it. "When you combine this with the fact that a screengrab of sigmarxists pretending to be Arch exists-" Again you're flip-flopping between "They're not real!" And "They're real but taken out of context!" Either it's one or the other, make up your mind. "You might try and deny that you're relying on those screenshots-" Again, I can point to his own videos to call him a racist, I don't need the images for that, and you've yet to cast any doubt on their legitimacy. "Arch explicitly and regularly claiming the Imperium is a hellhole invalidates your accusation that he endorses the Imperium, end of discussion." And Nixon repeatedly said he wasn't a crook, guess that means he wasn't. "On Arch's Christchurch video, one of the first things he says is that it's a terror attack, he is actually pushing back against the popular narrative that online meme culture is to blame and censorship is the solution." Yeah, he said that was the problem and put as much possible blame on everyone except the shooter. "It's a GAME, roleplaying as the bad guys doesn't actually make you a bad guy or a believer in their ideology." But portraying them as sympathetic certainly lends credence to that. This isn't just a video where he was trying to get a ride out of people, it was a genuine campaign. "I'm also going to say this one last time: acknowledging your infamy for using a metaphorical (if off-color) term for a fictional species does not make you are racist-" Unless that term is racist, then it definitely makes you a racist. "If he was proud he'd repost it and keep using that term to this day." That's exactly what happened until he started getting more of a negative reception than a positive one. -- Triacom (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Bottom text
How long are you gonna keep up the mental gymnastics Triacom? You're clinging to the idea that Arch is a nazi who likes Brenton Tarrant and the Imperium, with nothing but conjecture and your personal (mis)interpretation. Your 'silver bullet' is proof Arch used an edgy metaphor he made years ago a couple of times, and the false assumption that he pridefully kept doing so up to the present. As the photo shows you're also operating off of manipulated out of context screenshots, which seriously questions how reliable the rest of your screenshots are (or if they're even real). Even for you that's quite the grasp at straws, but I shouldn't be shocked since your go-to is Vaush and R/Sigmarxism.
You just fucked up hard anon, you just proved the stuff in the screengrabs are not faked because you provided a separate section where Arch actually did say what they posted, so you can no longer claim all of it was made up. As for him portraying Nazi's as sympathetic, that actually happened, how long are you going to deny reality? "Your 'silver bullet' is proof Arch used an edgy metaphor he made years ago a couple of times, and the false assumption that he pridefully kept doing so up to the present." Pay attention, it's not a metaphor, and I said he kept using it to the point it was associated with his channel, which Arch confirms. I also didn't say he kept using it up to the present, I said he kept using it until he was given a lot of shit for it, then he tried to hide the videos, which is also what happened. Also Vaush doesn't add any additional evidence, Arch sinks his ship on his own and all Vaush does is point out how. As for Sigmarxism being my go-to source, that's not true, my go-to source is Arch's own videos and their screengrabs help back that up. -- Triacom (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
>Showing the guy supporting any form of Fascism (while seeming to believe that it's somehow a good thing)
Are you just retarded or did you intend to defeat your argument? --58.162.223.230 04:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey IP address, switching the words around in a popular phrase to make a point isn't endorsement. If you weren't such a bugman who didn't know what context was, you might've been able to catch onto that. Seems like online learning is really hard on the special ed students...

1. Sign your fucking posts
2. Using unrelated insults is irrelevant
3. I wasn't talking about the stupid 'real fascism has never been tried'. That's just switching the terms around. But real fascism leads to a utopian state... part. Which isn't a common communist phrase, as a simple google search turns up no results. --58.162.223.230 04:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

1. Fuck you 2. Fuck you, hypocrite 3. Tankies always go on about how communism leads to a utopia so yes, it is switching the words in a common phrase.

1&2. Insults will get you nowhere.
3. There's a difference between Communism and Fascism, however. Communism is good in theory but doesn't work because it requires the assumption of innate human good. Fascism simply doesn't work because it relies oppression and competition (aka the exact things that cause Communism to fail in practice). So tl;dr: Communism no work because it can't avoid humanity's innate failures. Fascism no work because it tries to rely on those exact failures. --58.162.223.230 04:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Cool so how does that disprove what I said?


Holy shit Triacom you're delusional. There's irrefutable evidence that you're using screenshots which were manipulated to create a false narrative, and your first impulse is to claim victory in that your screenshots are real & solid evidence. You're clinging to this desperate leap in logic that RPing as nazis in a game supports the accusation that he is one. You're trusting the interpretation of VAUSH, instead of the unmistakable fact that Arch condemned Brenton Tarrant in the SAME VIDEO you think is evidence. Using an edgy metaphor a few times YEARS ago and then hiding it when cancel culture went for Arch is somehow your proof that he's proud of using the word and kept doing so. I'M the one that needs to pay attention? You keep shifting your own goalposts and using mental gymnastics to jump to conclusions.

Except he said what was written, the only thing that was added is him saying that if people wanted to talk up their ideology, then he'd talk up fascism as if it was his favoured ideology, it changes nothing. "You're clinging to this desperate leap in logic that RPing as nazis in a game supports the accusation that he is one." Well, yeah, if you roleplay as Nazi's and make the Nazi's sympathetic then it's kind of hard to say you're not one. "You're trusting the interpretation of VAUSH-" Wrong, I'm going off of what Arch said, as I've repeatedly stated. "-instead of the unmistakable fact that Arch condemned Brenton Tarrant in the SAME VIDEO you think is evidence." After he put as much blame as possible on everyone else and acted as if the shooting was a byproduct of other people's actions. "Using an edgy metaphor a few times YEARS ago and then hiding it when cancel culture went for Arch is somehow your proof that he's proud of using the word-" Yes, because he said it so much the phrase was associated with his channel, also that's not a metaphor, a metaphor is a means of comparison without using like or as, his phrase is to say something IS something else. "I'M the one that needs to pay attention?" Yes, because I need to correct you on at least three things every time you post. -- Triacom (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Bullshit, you and Vaush aren't using Arch's own words against him, because you're deliberately ignoring that Arch's own words include condemnations of the very things you accuse him of. You're not turning words against him, you're twisting and cherry-picking them to form a narrative. I know that's exactly what you're doing because when confronted with explicit proof that Arch condemns what you accuse him of, you just fall back on your personal interpretation. I'm not even going to bother addressing your retarded mental gymnastics on how RP in games=IRL sympathy, anyone who thinks like that isn't qualified to distinguish reality. You also aren't correcting me on anything, you just keep spinning the facts and asserting that your opinion is fact because reasons (P.S., Arch didn't use like or as when comparing the Gnoblars, since you can't even argue semantics properly).

Except I'm not, I heard his condemnation, alongside a million excuses to try and make it look as if the shooter was some kind of victim made by the system and not some psycho who should've been in therapy. Him saying "but I also condemn the shooter" alongside all that is the equivalent of "I have a black friend" when somebody accuses you of being racist. "I know that's exactly what you're doing because when confronted with explicit proof that Arch condemns what you accuse him of, you just fall back on your personal interpretation." Oh? When did Arch condemn racism, especially the racism he engaged in? Was it during the part where he and his Discord buddies all decided to start making racist jokes, after he hid the videos where he was calling things "house ni--ers", or did it just happen and I'm supposed to take your word on it? "I'm not even going to bother addressing your retarded mental gymnastics on how RP in games=IRL sympathy-" Let's do a fun little experiment anon, which people like to roleplay as Nazis and like to portray Nazis as sympathetic? I'll give you some time to figure it out. "You also aren't correcting me on anything-" If you think this then you really haven't been paying attention. You keep saying I say what I haven't said, and I have to keep correcting you on it. You also get basic English wrong, as seen here: "P.S., Arch didn't use like or as when comparing the Gnoblars-" He didn't compare the Gnoblars, to compare the Gnoblars you'd need to say they are similar to something, instead he directly said they are something. That's not a metaphor, and you should look up actual metaphors before trying to claim that it's just a metaphor. -- Triacom (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Arch called Tarrant a terrorist and cautioned against doing what the shooter wanted. Your hearing is off. But it doesn’t matter that Arch has spent hours criticizing fascism and racism, unfavorably comparing nazis to the far left, and debating against Richard Spencer. All that matters to you are manipulated screenshots from a dedicated group of communists, the idea that because his mods did something Arch is also guilty of it, and that he played as nazis in a game (which would make anyone who played a nazi in any form of fiction a nazi if we were all as smart as you). >”Or, to use a considerably more charged term, House N_ggers" OK captain shaky goalpost…

Arch also did everything he could to blame everyone else for the shooter's actions. "-unfavorably comparing nazis to the far left-" Actually that's one of the reasons people don't like him, because that comparison's outright bullshit and he knows it. "All that matters to you are manipulated screenshots from a dedicated group of communists-" Or I've seen the videos and know what he says, but just keep pretending I haven't, I'm sure reality will change to what you want. "-the idea that because his mods did something Arch is also guilty of it-" No, he's guilty of making them mods and keeping them as mods when that stuff came out. "and that he played as nazis in a game-" And I'm sure you'd tell me that the people who came out to protest in Charlottesville were also just roleplaying as Nazis. -- Triacom (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Bruh I'm kekking that you think playing as nazis in a game is the same as Charlottesville. Arch explicitly placed agency on the shooter and blamed him, simply explaining how certain things radicalized him. The nazis and far left are scum and an enemy to civilization, and I'm not gonna pretend they aren't just because one side MIGHT have good intentions. I clearly don't need to pretend you're out of touch with reality when you'll happily disregard hours of footage that debunks your argument, while trusting doctored evidence.

"Arch explicitly placed agency on the shooter and blamed him, simply explaining how certain things radicalized him." AKA he also blamed as many other people as he could for the shooter's actions. You don't get to go "He did a terrible thing, but you know who made him do the terrible thing?" As soon as you start trying to explain away somebody's actions based on what other people do, you're trying to put the blame on them. "I clearly don't need to pretend you're out of touch with reality when you'll happily disregard hours of footage that debunks your argument, while trusting doctored evidence." I find it funny you're mad about this happening to Arch, but fine when it happens to Vaush. On a different note, the evidence that you claim was doctored showed he said what he said, and the extra bit that you included made it worse. If you have more evidence like that, by all means, I'd love to see it. -- Triacom (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Congrats, you've found out what motive is. But I could say the exact same thing about you, Triacommunist. You expect me to believe you didn't know about Vaush's dirty laundry or didn't bother to look into him, despite him being Breadtube's most infamous member? To put so much stock in a vaush vid and a marxist subreddit, you'd either have to be gullible or one of them. The situation isn't even comparable anyway. A subreddit full of fascists isn't making false allegations against Vaush, and supporting these allegations with dubious screenshots, the character Vaush plays in an RPG, misinterpreting videos, or some edgy metaphor he made years ago. If that actually did happen, the allegations would be dismissed immediately because that type of evidence wouldn't pass muster and Vaush isn't guilty of wrongthink according to the woke mob. But you did get a gold medal in mental gymnastics for thinking that a screenshot that disproves your allegations automatically confirms your collection of screenshots are authentic. Congrats...

How long ago was that Vaush debate? I didn't look up anything of his before and still have no interest in his past videos, so no, I wasn't aware of it. "To put so much stock in a vaush vid and a marxist subreddit-" How many times do I need to say the only things I put stock in are Arch's own words? You keep saying that I only listen to outside sources when that's obviously not the case. "A subreddit full of fascists isn't making false allegations against Vaush-" They're also not doing it to Arch either. You also still don't know what a metaphor means. "But you did get a gold medal in mental gymnastics for thinking that a screenshot that disproves your allegations automatically confirms your collection of screenshots are authentic." Because it proves he said what they said he did, how does that disprove anything? -- Triacom (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The Vaush debate between him and Vegan gains was roughly 10-11 months ago. Of course you wouldn't have interest in what Vaush did but have an OCD obsession with Arch's actions, so much for not being biased. And quit lying about how you're not relying on outside sources. As you've already shown you're more than willing to ignore Arch's words when they don't confirm your views of him, and twist them to pretend that they do support said view. Sigmarxism is leading false allegations against Arch, because almost all of them can be disproven if you aren't a snowflake, can pay attention to what ACTUALLY happened, or have proper context. As an example you're stuck in this delusion of Arch being a nazi, but the full quote by Arch (that the sigmarxists conveniently manipulated to exclude context) shows that he's merely highlighting the ridiculousness of the communist thought process by switching the words with a widely hated ideology. But because you're operating off a clown world-tier thought process, lies become truth and fiction becomes reality.

"Of course you wouldn't have interest in what Vaush did but have an OCD obsession with Arch's actions-" Warhammer's my hobby, watching people complain about the government and get into online debates hours long is not. I take more interest in people who are a part of my hobby, as does every other person on the planet. "And quit lying about how you're not relying on outside source." Find proof of that happening. "As you've already shown you're more than willing to ignore Arch's words when they don't confirm your views of him-" You're one to talk, you outright ignore what he says when it makes him look bad. "Sigmarxism is leading false allegations against Arch, because almost all of them can be disproven if you aren't a snowflake-" You're the one getting triggered over it, and your only evidence was an additional sentence that made it worse. You keep saying there's all this evidence that can be used to disprove what they say, yet it's never shown up. Funny how that is. "As an example you're stuck in this delusion of Arch being a nazi, but the full quote by Arch-" And if that was the reason for the Nazi bit then you might have something, however it isn't, so that's unrelated to that accusation. "But because you're operating off a clown world-tier thought process, lies become truth and fiction becomes reality." Again, look in a mirror, Arch says a phrase so often it becomes associated with his channel and you lie to yourself that it's first a metaphor (it isn't) and that he only said it a few times, and that happened many years ago. You ignore how often somebody needs to say something for it to become associated with their channel, and you ignore how long it was used for, as well as the fact that he attempted to hide it and hoped people didn't notice. -- Triacom (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Fucking liar. From the very beginning you've used outside sources. You cite a Vaush video and trust it as if that dishonest communist prick is making an on-point analysis using nothing but his wit and the words Arch gave him. You use screenshots taken and manipulated by R/Sigmarxism to exclude the proper context, then go 'yeah Arch totally means all of this and if you don't actually think so then you're ignoring obvious racism lol'. And you'll trust that over the hours that Arch has spent bashing the ideas you accuse him of harboring. You'll argue at length about why the skeptics to these screenshots are wrong, but when a skeptic actually brings evidence the photos were doctored you'll ass-pull about how it somehow proves your point. Probably the same way you interpret a statement meant to ridicule an argument as an endorsement of a position. You can't even concede that something's a metaphor despite the very transcript fitting a definition YOU provided (and on that subject you dont even know how many times he used that metaphor even though you claim he uses it 'often'). Now that's a gut-buster. And what's this 'it's not the reason for this nazi bit so it's unrelated' bullshit? YOU were the one crazy enough to use it as an argument. You don't get to cut bait. This whole time you've thrown consistency and honesty out the window, and that's how you started this whole thing.

I've seen outside sources but I've never let them dictate my opinion as you claim here: "And quit lying about how you're not relying on outside sources-" My main opinion of him comes directly from his videos. "You cite a Vaush video and trust it as if that dishonest communist prick is making an on-point analysis using nothing but his wit and the words Arch gave him." Do you not get the issue here? You're literally saying "he's responding to what Arch said!" Yes, and the problem is that Arch said it. My opinion has also come from what Arch said, and what he said is pretty bad. "use screenshots taken and manipulated by R/Sigmarxism to exclude the proper context-" Except the context you gave made the image worse. If anything they did you a favour. "then go 'yeah Arch totally means all of this and if you don't actually think so then you're ignoring obvious racism lol'." If you think using the N-word so much it becomes associated with his channel means he's not racist, then you're denying reality. "'. And you'll trust that over the hours that Arch has spent bashing the ideas you accuse him of harboring." Could you point me to the hours he's spent bashing people who say the N-word? I can't seem to find them for some reason. "You'll argue at length about why the skeptics to these screenshots are wrong-" Wrong, I argued that there's no evidence these are Arch impersonators like you and Agiletek claimed. "but when a skeptic actually brings evidence the photos were doctored you'll ass-pull about how it somehow proves your point." Because not only does it demonstrate it wasn't an Arch impersonator who typed that, but he actually did say what they claimed he said. "You can't even concede that something's a metaphor despite the very transcript fitting a definition YOU provided-" Saying something is something else isn't a metaphor, saying something is like something else without using "like" or "as" is a metaphor. Arch didn't say something was like something else, he said something was something else. If you don't know the difference then you failed English. "what's this 'it's not the reason for this nazi bit so it's unrelated' bullshit? YOU were the one crazy enough to use it as an argument." Again you weren't paying attention, the Nazi bit doesn't come from what you cite, therefore that bit is unrelated to the Nazi bit. How much simpler do you want me to be? "This whole time you've thrown consistency and honesty out the window, and that's how you started this whole thing." Says the guy who got mad that Vaush was responding to words Arch said, and is acting like Arch never said them. You've repeatedly ignored the fact that my opinion comes straight from Arch's own words, that Arch used a word so often it became associated with his channel, that he was proud of this, and that he tried blaming other people for the actions of a mass shooter. You repeatedly insist on things that aren't true, namely in regards to my argument, and you even ignore basic facts, like what is a metaphor and what isn't. That's something that isn't up for debate, it's a fact that saying something is something else means you're not using a metaphor, and like everything else, you pretend that's not the case because it would ruin your argument. -- Triacom (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Enough with your damn lies. Vaush takes a vid where Arch explicitly condemns Brenton Tarrant and somehow comes to the conclusion Arch is defending/excusing Tarrant. You believe him. Screenshots of out of context single quotes were provided by Sigmarxists. You believe them. Even after I showed evidence the pics aren't trustworthy, you'll still defend their veracity and expect me and Agilitek to prove they're doctored, as if that's how using screenshots as evidence actually works. No reliance on outside sources my ass. Your segue into semantics is a trainwreck: making a comparison without using like or as is a metaphor. YOU said that, but now you wanna stray from a definition YOU gave. And to the surprise of no one who can see through your shit, you can't even follow your own standards either. Supposedly you claim that Arch's own words prove your point, but upon bringing up his anti-SJW rants that compare SJWs to nazis and his debate against a literal nazi you go 'NUH UH!' And this is after I gave you evidence. So all you have now is guilt by association and him making an edgy metaphor which you claim he did a ton of times, despite no evidence beyond thinking an acknowledgement of infamy for using that term and deleting vids where the term popped up is taking pride."Sorry anon, but pointing out motive is deflecting blame. Who you play as in a game is who you are IRL. And switching the terms in an argument is the same as endorsement." Miss me with your bullshit, Triacommunist.

My arguments are based around Arch's own words, not Vaush's assumptions. Everything I claimed Arch said I can cite a video for, or use a screenshot that you've helped prove wasn't made by imposters. Let me know when you're no longer pretending I'm some kind of Vaush puppet, because nothing I said to you would be any different if Vaush never made a video on him. "Even after I showed evidence the pics aren't trustworthy, you'll still defend their veracity and expect me and Agilitek to prove they're doctored, as if that's how using screenshots as evidence actually works." Because it is how it works, Agiletek claimed they were made by imposters, you helped prove that wasn't the case. "Your segue into semantics is a trainwreck: making a comparison without using like or as is a metaphor." And Arch didn't say something was like something else, he said it was something else, that's not a metaphor. If I said "You are a fucking moron" then that also wouldn't be a metaphor since I'm not using a means of comparison, instead I'd be saying you are something else instead of you are like something else. "Supposedly you claim that Arch's own words prove your point, but upon bringing up his anti-SJW rants that compare SJWs to nazis and his debate against a literal nazi you go 'NUH UH!'" You didn't cite a link for this debate you claimed to have cited, and comparing SJW's to Nazi's is supposed to mean... what exactly? "And this is after I gave you evidence." You mean like that debate you never linked or Arch calling SJW's Nazi's, which you also never linked? "So all you have now is guilt by association and him making an edgy metaphor which you claim he did a ton of times-" And the roleplaying bit you mention is pretty bad, and he still tried to blame other people for a mass shooter, and you don't get your channel associated with a phrase without saying it a lot, but since you don't know what a metaphor is I can't blame you for not figuring that out. "Miss me with your bullshit, Triacommunist." If you blame other people for somebody's motives then yes, you are blaming them at least partially for somebody else's actions. If you roleplay as Nazi's and make Nazi's sympathetic, then you can't complain when people call you a Nazi, and if you replace what somebody's endorsing with something else, you will make it look like you're endorsing it unless you take extra steps to mitigate this. None of this is hard to comprehend. -- Triacom (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Aside from showing Arch making an edgy metaphor years ago that you think he made every other day (and yes you retarded goalpost shifter, saying 'or to use a more charged term, _____' is a metaphor) and the screenshots, you've provided fuck-all. Your entire argument otherwise has hinged on Arch RP-ing nazis in a game, and what YOU think he actually meant when he speaks or makes videos. Screenshots are only usable as evidence if they're proven authentic. Seeing as you aren't doing a whole lot of thinking and haven't proven the authenticity of the screenshots, I have even less of a reason to think you aren't some communist brainlet slandering Arch on behalf of the woke mob. So go ahead, cite your 'proof'. I bet it'll be you ignoring or twisting Arch's words.

Saying "to use a more charged term" is a means of description, not a means of comparison. You don't get this, just like how you don't get your channel associated with that term by saying it rarely. The screenshots are also pretty bad, as is him spreading the blame for a mass shooter. "Your entire argument otherwise has hinged on Arch RP-ing nazis in a game-" Except for everything besides that point. "Screenshots are only usable as evidence if they're proven authentic." And you helped prove imposters didn't make them, so thank you for that. "I bet it'll be you ignoring or twisting Arch's words." I don't need to, Arch himself realized it was a terrible look which is why he changed his mind on his own term and tried to hide the fact that his channel was associated with it. -- Triacom (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm done negotiating with your retarded viewpoints on what you think Arch did, what you think counts as authentic proof, and what you claim constitutes a metaphor. Show these 'incriminating' videos.

The ones that immediately come to mind are the gnoblar and shooter videos, both linked above. Have you not watched them? -- Triacom (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

A video where Arch condemned the shooter is your evidence? You've gotta be kidding me...

Do you not get that he blamed everyone he possibly could for the shooter as well? -- Triacom (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

In others words: 'Dude, trust me'

Not at all, he blamed other people in that video which you'd know if you'd watched it. -- Triacom (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

You must not be very smart if you think I'm going to buy your explanation of the video after I spent over a week arguing against it...

So you didn't even watch it? -- Triacom (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I did. Are you gonna offer something more concrete or are you just hoping I'll give in and take you at your word?

Did you somehow miss the part where Arch starts talking about other people and how they are also at fault? -- Triacom (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Dude doesn't know what examining motive is

Unless Arch is the shooter, he wouldn't be able to accurately do that. -- Triacom (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

What the hell kind of a rebuttal was that, Tarrant's manifesto was literally online for the world to see.

And believing him is another matter entirely. -- Triacom (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

That changes nothing. Attempting to figure out the motives of someone isn't shifting blame, and you thinking otherwise isn't evidence for your claims.

He wasn't attempting to figure out motivations, he was outright blaming other people. -- Triacom (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did I stutter? A left wing talking point that only other left wingers believe isn't evidence.

You didn't stutter, you lied. Arch outright stated other people were also at fault. -- Triacom (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

No, Arch pointed out Tarrant's motives and you're pushing the idea that he's blaming others. Come back when you have something concrete.

No, Arch started blaming other people for Tarrant's motives. -- Triacom (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

According to what? Your opinion? A Vaush vid? Try again. And BTW, you claim there's tons of evidence but can only bring 2 vids.

According to Arch's own video. Have you watched it? -- Triacom (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

'Dude trust me'

So you didn't watch the video? -- Triacom (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

'Dude trust me'

You could just admit you didn't watch it. -- Triacom (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I did and none of what you said holds up outside of leftist echo-chambers. AKA 'dude trust me'

So you missed the part where he starts blaming other people, or "examining motivations" as you called it? Funny how you'll pretend you didn't get to the part you were referencing. -- Triacom (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

There would have to BE a part where he blames other people for your point to be relevant

He did, are you somehow missing the article he cites in the video? -- Triacom (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Dude stop trying to shill this idea, I watched the same vid you did and I'm literally never gonna agree with your opinion on it

If you watched it you'd see where he claimed the stuff he cited was at minimum partially responsible for making the shooter. -- Triacom (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

If you knew the difference between shifting blame and pointing out motive this wouldn't be an argument. Next?

When "pointing out motive" has you go "these people are partly responsibe" then you're shifting the blame. They are not mutually exclusive. -- Triacom (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It is mutually exclusive. If pointing out motive meant shifting blame then either the sources of motive would also face charges or they alone would face charges while the original perp went free. I shouldn't be shocked that you can't distinguish between finding motive and shifting blame tho.

Hold on, do you seriously think people can get charged for that? If somebody's partially responsible for somebody else's motive then they do not get charged for what that other person does, because there's no law in the world that punishes a different party based purely on the motives of somebody else. "I shouldn't be shocked that you can't distinguish between finding motive and shifting blame tho." There isn't one when 'finding motive' is 'shifting blame'. -- Triacom (talk) 09:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

No shit sherlock holmes. I'm trying to get it through your thick skill that finding out motive isn't the same as shifting blame.

When you claim other people were responsible for their motive then you've shifted the blame. -- Triacom (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

No, when you do that you're pointing out motive. This accusation is dismissed. Next?

No, when you're blaming other people, you're blaming other people. -- Triacom (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

N e x t?

I like the part where they conveniently didn't address the fact Tri mentioned Arch's own videos as proof. Don't you just love the smell of copium? --LGX-000 (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
"Agiletek claimed they were made by imposters," No, I said screenshots of text are too easily faked to be proof. I made no statements on if they were valid or not, merely that it was so easy to fake it's worthless as "proof". Your reading comprehension is terrible. --Agiletek (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I got your arguments mixed up, the anon was the one who first tried that by posting the transcript of Arch and others suggesting imposters wrote what he wrote. That's my bad. -- Triacom (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I like the part where you pretend we didn't already address Arch's videos, did you pass english class?

Not sure someone who thinks clearing the "barely above sea level" bar of condemning a mass shooter is definitive proof someone isn't a racist has any ground to lecture about comprehension, lul.
Also I say that to say you keep harping on about Vaush when 1) as stated, he basically just used Arch's own videos against him, and even without that 2) Vaush being a self-aggrandizing grifter of a "leftist" doesn't mean he can't be potentially correct in calling a shovel a shovel. Broken clocks and all. You also haven't provided anything remotely resembling "proper context" to refute the screengrabs being asserted as false - casting aspersion on a position doesn't obligate others to instantly believe the other side. --LGX-000 (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you I already did prove that the screengrabs were manipulated to exclude proper context. Arch's own words in the christchurch video prove he was condemning the shooter as a terrorist. I think in this case I can lecture you about comprehension, given that you'll ignore stuff if it suits your argument.

The screengrab you posted made his argument worse, since it makes it seem like he's talking up fascism as his favourite ideology in comparison to people talking up communism as their favoured ideology. You also can't say "I condemn this guy" while doing everything you can to blame other people for his actions. -- Triacom (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Pack it up boys, switching the terms in a stereotypical argument automatically means endorsement...

It is when your argument is "I'm going to do what they're doing to the thing I like!" -- Triacom (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Imagine not being able to distinguish when someone's switching words, and then using that to support your allegations, just lol

That's what I said happened, he switched their preferred system with his preferred system. If that wasn't his intent then he really fucked up in bringing that across. -- Triacom (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

TFW fascism isn't his preferred system

Then he would not have used it as such in that example. -- Triacom (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Sarah Jeong said this on twitter: White people are only fit to live underground like groveling goblins. They have stopped breeding and will all go extinct soon. I enjoy being cruel to old white women. Candace Owens decided to switch the word 'white' with 'black' to point out the absurdity. Does Candace Owens hate black people?

If she has a history of favouring racist ideology, then perhaps. -- Triacom (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Cool so then we're in agreement, neither Arch nor Owens are racists. Good talk.

Arch said the N-word so often it became associated with his channel, and used it in regard to servants/slaves. That's a history of racism. -- Triacom (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Your very limited and deliberate vocabulary on this subject, only able to say "associated with", suggests you are parroting a single (or very limited number of) source. --Agiletek (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I say associated with because those were the words Arch chose to use to describe the relationship between is channel and that phrase. -- Triacom (talk) 06:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

There's a reason guilt by association is a fallacy, but it's not like I'd expect you to understand that...

Except that's not guilt by association. I'm not blaming him for associating with somebody who said the phrase, he said it directly enough times for it to be associated with his channel. The only way you can claim this could be guilt by association is if you're trying to claim Arch and his channel are separate people, but anyone could call bullshit on that. -- Triacom (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you even know how many times he used the term or are you just gonna keep claiming he used it regularly?

Unfortunately I didn't think to count how many times he said it in his videos before hiding them, but like I said, you don't get your channel associated with a term without saying it a lot. -- Triacom (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
"Source: Dude, trust me." --Agiletek (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
The source is Arch proudly stating the term is associated with his channel. -- Triacom (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

What you think Arch meant when he spoke isn't a source. How often did he use the term?

Often enough that it was associated with his channel, by his own admission. -- Triacom (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
You were just asked to provide your basis to this claim and responded words to the effect of you were sure he's said it a lot, rather than actually substantiating it. --Agiletek (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Bit hard getting all the videos he's hidden, so I figured his own admission that he said it a lot was enough. -- Triacom (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
You're contradicting yourself. You said he's proud of it, but now you're saying all of it has been hidden by him? Pick one. --Agiletek (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
He was proud enough to brag about it right up until he started getting consequences for it. Hiding it because he doesn't want the backlash doesn't mean he isn't still proud of it. -- Triacom (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
"If he went 6 months after that without any racist jabs on discord, his videos or social media then I'd be happy to include that as well." --Agiletek (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
You'll remember that came after the following condition: "If Arch came out today with a video where he apologized for associating his channel with the N word-" But you do make a point, that should at least be mentioned on the main page. -- Triacom (talk) 05:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

And how many videos did Arch take down? Do you even know if Arch used the term in those videos either?

Unfortunately I didn't bother to make a playlist using my powers of precognition so I would know how many videos he's hidden when he took them down. -- Triacom (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

So you were able to find a years-old video of Arch using an edgy metaphor but you can't even tell us how many videos he hid?

Yes, because I remembered that video as being the start of when he was proud his channel had been associated with that phrase, and I do not have all of his videos in either a playlist or my watch history before he hid them. -- Triacom (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

If Arch had other videos where he used the term the sigmarxists would've gotten a hold of it. I think you're just overplaying your hand.

They didn't link the Gnoblar video in their threads either, but I'm sure they'd be happy to provide links if you ask them. -- Triacom (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Me? It sounds like you need to get that proof more than I do...

You're the one who wants it, I have all the proof I need with Arch's admission. -- Triacom (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Just like your 'proof' that Arch was trying to shift the blame for Christchurch, I assume?

The proof for that is in the video where he outright starts blaming other people for the shooter's actions. -- Triacom (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Gonna say it for the millionth time, what you think Arch said or did isn't evidence

Except I'm only commenting on what he actually said, and you acknowledge he said it above. -- Triacom (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

You claim Arch regularly used the term with no other evidence than what you think he meant when he said something. Bring something concrete or not at all.

Arch himself said he said it so often enough it was associated with his channel, you're arguing against the guy who you're trying to defend when you say he didn't say it a lot. -- Triacom (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Arch never said he regularly used it, he just acknowledged that he's infamous for using the term. You're trying to fill in the blanks with something you can't definitively prove. Why do you always insist on pushing flimsy evidence as fact?

"Arch never said he regularly used it, he just acknowledged that he's infamous for using the term." That's like saying "I never said it was raining, just that water was falling from the sky." Him admitting he got his channel associated with the term by saying it so often is not flimsy evidence. -- Triacom (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I have all pandemic, Lemming. Until your buddy Triacommunist actually brings evidence instead of his own opinions, he has absolutely nothing.

Funny how you say this, then jump back and forth on your own ideas. You'll claim that Arch doesn't blame other people for Tarrant, but then say he was "examining motivations" when I point out that he blames other people for Tarrant's actions, then you'll deny that later. -- Triacom (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Funny how you think your opinion on something is automatically fact. Get better sources.

My sources are the guy you're defending. It isn't opinion that he said what he's recorded as saying, that's a fact. -- Triacom (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Your sources are you attempting to extrapolate from Arch's words to create a narrative. Your buddies might be gullible enough to fall for it but I'm not.

My sources are stating what Arch said himself, you've been assuming that he didn't mean what he said, or that he didn't say what he recorded. -- Triacom (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Right, even though you can only guess how many times Arch used an edgy metaphor and are accusing Arch of deflecting blame even though only one group of people has made that accusation with no evidence other than - wait for it...- assumptions

It's not a metaphor, but admitting that would be like accepting Arch's admission: you'd need to realize you were wrong. Same thing goes with his shooter video, blaming other people for what happened is not "figuring out motivations". -- Triacom (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

What you said would be true if not for the fact that A: you're once again getting the definition of metaphors wrong B: Arch explicitly blamed Tarrant and pointed out stuff that motivated him according to his manifesto and C: you yourself admitted you don't know how many times Arch made the metaphor. And while you're still at it, what happened to all these other videos that you claimed were incriminating? You only have 2, which is very telling how little proof you actually have.

A metaphor is not a definition, it's a comparison and Arch never used it as a comparison, come back when you understand that. Next, the things he claimed motivated him were also other people, which he blamed. Next, not knowing the exact number is meaningless when Arch admits he said it enough to get his channel associated with the non-metaphor term. Finally, what do you mean by this? "what happened to all these other videos that you claimed were incriminating?" Where are you getting that from? I said before that Arch's own admission was enough, especially since he hid the rest of the videos where he used the term. -- Triacom (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

No one said a metaphor is a definition so congrats on being unable to read, again. Arch looking at Tarrant's manifesto and claiming those things ended up motivating him is not deflecting blame. Every single news publication that knows the motivation for a crime that makes the headlines will do this. And knowing the exact number is important since you claimed he used it every other day, even though saying it just a couple times could be enough to acknowledge you're infamous for saying something. Now don't play dumb when I ask you what happened to all the incriminating evidence you said you had. You were the one that made all sorts of accusations, but when you're trying to back them up I'm finding out you're relying on flimsy evidence and ass-pulls.

You said a metaphor is a definition because you keep saying a definition is a metaphor. "Arch looking at Tarrant's manifesto and claiming those [people] ended up motivating him is not deflecting blame." Yeah it absolutely is. He claims that the people who wrote the article he cited and everyone involved with the headlines he shows is partially to blame for what happened. "And knowing the exact number is important since you claimed he used it every other day-" Bullshit it's important, I said he used it often enough to get it associated with his channel, he said the exact same thing, and you just don't want to admit it. You don't need to know whether he said it 105 or 112 times. "Now don't play dumb when I ask you what happened to all the incriminating evidence you said you had." Could you cite what you're referencing? I suspect you had some kind of episode because I've got no clue what you're referring to. "You were the one that made all sorts of accusations, but when you're trying to back them up I'm finding out you're relying on flimsy evidence and ass-pulls." Directly quoting Arch is not an ass-pull or flimsy evidence. The only thing I've seen from you is lies and denial. -- Triacom (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

You clearly can't read if you think I said definitions are metaphors so I'm just gonna dismiss that. Inferring motives based on a manifesto absolutely isn't deflecting blame. If someone says they were motivated to do something because censorship and I find an example of what they were referring to, I'm citing that as motive. Literal smoothbrain take. And don't downplay the importance of how many times Arch used a term; YOU were the one that tried to make Arch seem like a racist because of your unbacked claim that he used it regularly. YOU were the one that claimed Arch said the Imperium was a utopia and that his videos endorsed fascism. All you have to show for it is conjecture and circular arguments. Either find something solid to back up your shit, or don't bother. But don't go around inserting your opinions and passing them off as fact. Oh and by the way, if Arch is racist for saying house n_ggers, are you and your mod team homophobes for regularly using or having the term 'fag' for certain titles?

You keep calling a definition a metaphor, how else is that supposed to read? When you're inferring other people are responsibe for somebody's motivations then you absolutely are deflecting blame. "If someone says they were motivated to do something because censorship and I find an example of what they were referring to, I'm citing that as motive." That's exactly what Arch did with the article he cited, and everything else he posted including the people behind the female doctor who. How is it you don't get that's deflecting blame, since he said they helped make people like the shooter? If you're saying that somebody isn't wholly responsible for what they did, you're also saying that other people are partially responsible for them. "And don't downplay the importance of how many times Arch used a term-" Have you read what you've fucking written? You were the only one doing that, you claimed he used it rarely, even when Arch states that's not the case. "YOU were the one that claimed Arch said the Imperium was a utopia-" Weird, I don't recall saying that and it's not shown on this page. "-and that his videos endorsed fascism." How strange, that's also not on this page. "All you have to show for it is conjecture and circular arguments." Aside from direct admission of course, but who needs that? "Oh and by the way, if Arch is racist for saying house n_ggers, are you and your mod team homophobes for regularly using or having the term 'fag' for certain titles?" Well seeing as how it's almost always the person calling themselves that, I'd say no (in the same way a black person isn't racist for calling themselves the N-word), however if that makes you feel better then I'm not going to waste time changing your mind. -- Triacom (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

You utter troglodyte, Arch rejected the article's claims that Tarrant was radicalized by online meme culture, and instead claimed that Tarrant was radicalized according to what his manifesto said: mass immigration and the censorship of those who rail against it. And what the fuck are you talking about 'reee Arch blamed female Doctor Who'? Arch mentioned those articles including the female Doctor Who one as proof that companies don't sweep 'toxic users' under the rug. It was proof to refute the pro-censorship article claiming brands do nothing against said users. Arch pointed out that constant censorship against people who weren't even toxic to begin with would turn them toxic, just like Tarrant's manifesto suggested. Arch said the shooter was counting on further censorship to bolster this feedback loop and radicalize society. That's not deflecting blame you tard. And how the hell do I need to 'read what I say', you can't even answer a simple question without giving a vague answer based on assumptions. On September 18th and 19th you literally rejected the idea Arch denounced the Imperium based on sigmarxism screenshots. Now unless you and the entire mod team are gay, you just gave me yet another non-answer.

Yet he goes back on that near the end of the video, also he criticized the article for taking the shooter at face value before doing exactly that. "Arch mentioned those articles including the female Doctor Who one as proof that companies don't sweep 'toxic users' under the rug." No, he did quite the opposite, he used it in his examples of companies lashing out at 'toxic users', a behaviour Arch thinks helped create the shooter. "Arch pointed out that constant censorship against people who weren't even toxic-" If they weren't toxic they wouldn't be censored. "That's not deflecting blame you tard." Sure it is, when you go "here's some examples of stuff that helped make the shooter" then you're deflecting blame. "And how the hell do I need to 'read what I say-'" Because you've been trying to downplay Arch using his definition for this entire argument, then you claimed I was the only one downplaying it. "you can't even answer a simple question without giving a vague answer based on assumptions." And admissions, but I see how that's inconvenient for you. "On September 18th and 19th you literally rejected the idea Arch denounced the Imperium based on sigmarxism screenshots." Where did I say Arch claimed the Imperium "would be a utopia"? "Now unless you and the entire mod team are gay, you just gave me yet another non-answer." We could be, we could not be, you don't know, and I don't think you care. Point is, I don't recall any editor ascribing that word to anyone but themselves, so it is not used in the same context, even without the origins of its use on this wiki. -- Triacom (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah the classic reply to accusations of hypocrisy: 'It's ok when we do it!' If being censored automatically means you were toxic, then the Pro-Hong Kong movement in Overwatch was toxic. Jesus Christ you are a bootlicker. Arch criticized the article for taking the manifesto's shitposting and memes at face value (and opinion that censoring memes was the right approach), not the entire manifesto itself. You might try and deny accusing Arch of saying we'd be better off with the Imperium, but I pointed out the exact dates that you did. It's also on his page that YOU helped make: 'He's also somebody who seems convinced that if the Imperium of Man were real, everyone would be better off.' Sound familiar? Still no proof. BTW I never accused you of downplaying how much Arch used that metaphor at any point, I asked you to give concrete proof he used it more than the 2 times we saw, without your scuffed view on what you think an admission is. You are not slick, and you're lucky your life doesn't depend on how well you can tell a lie.

That's not hypocrisy, Arch was not using that term in regards to himself, and he was using it as a definition, that isn't the case on the wiki. "If being censored automatically means you were toxic, then the Pro-Hong Kong movement in Overwatch was toxic." Except those people were not being censored for being toxic. "Arch criticized the article for taking the manifesto's shitposting and memes at face value-" Before doing that himself. The entire manifesto is a shitpost, you cannot pick and choose which parts are good and which are bad, furthermore he didn't say there were parts in the manifesto you shouldn't take a face value, he said you shouldn't take it t face value, period. "You might try and deny accusing Arch of saying we'd be better off with the Imperium, but I pointed out the exact dates that you did." Which date did I say Arch called the Imperium a utopia? "BTW I never accused you of downplaying how much Arch used that metaphor at any point-" Oh I see, you were just accusing me of downplaying the importance of how often he used the term, even though you were demanding exact numbers and ignoring Arch's own admission that he said it often enough to get his channel associated with it, got it. "I asked you to give concrete proof he used it more than the 2 times we saw-" That proof would be Arch himself who stated proudly that the term was associated with his channel. Also it's been a bit now, but I'm pretty sure he said it more than twice in the Gnoblar video alone. -- Triacom (talk) 09:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh really? Where did Arch take the memes at face value? What were the circumstances behind the users who were banned for 'toxicity'? Did you even read my response that explicitly pointed out the dates Sep 18&19 where you claimed Arch endorsed the Imperium? How about the section on Arch that YOU made? And again, where is your hard proof Arch used the metaphor more than the 2 times we saw in the Gnoblar vid? You can keep making shit up and lying but I'm not convinced.

I mispoke when I said he took the memes at face value, since he didn't, the article he cited didn't, furthermore, where did Arch say you shouldn't take the memes in the manifesto at face value? It certainly wasn't in his video. "What were the circumstances behind the users who were banned for 'toxicity'?" Pick a user and we'll discuss it. "Did you even read my response that explicitly pointed out the dates Sep 18&19 where you claimed Arch endorsed the Imperium?" Again, where did I say Arch claimed the Imperium was a utopia? That's what you claim I said, so I want to know where I said it. "And again, where is your hard proof Arch used the metaphor more than the 2 times we saw in the Gnoblar vid?" The proof is in the Gnoblar video, the first time Arch uses the definition, not a metaphor, he says it was already associated with his channel. That means he used it in the past, even without trying to find the videos he hid you can glean that. -- Triacom (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

You did more than misspeak. You either didn't pay attention or lie, which seems to be a recurring theme. Arch explicitly said in his video that it was stupid to take the manifesto's shitposting at face value. Refer to your section on Arch and your responses on Sep 18&19 if you still think you can pretend you never accused Arch of supporting the imperium. What you just presented isn't hard proof, it's assumptions. Show where Arch used the metaphor aside from the Gnoblar vid. Now again, what were the circumstances behind the ban of those users and where is your proof they were toxic? I'm not going to ask again.

What I meant is he did exactly what the article did, which is take it at face value, aka what he said you should not do. This is rich though: "You either didn't pay attention or lie-" You're one to talk, you said he was criticising the article for taking its memes at fact value when he never said that, so you either didn't pay attention or you lied, which seems to be a recurring theme. "Arch explicitly said in his video that it was stupid to take the manifesto's shitposting at face value." Except he didn't, I don't know what video you watched but it was not the one he uploaded. "Refer to your section on Arch and your responses on Sep 18&19-" Where in there did I say he called it a 'utopia'? I want to know. "Show where Arch used the metaphor aside from the Gnoblar vid." It's a definition, not a metaphor, and are you really refusing to believe Arch, the guy you're defending on this? "Now again, what were the circumstances behind the ban of those users-" Pick one and we'll discuss them. -- Triacom (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Cool so you don't have any evidence that the users were banned because they actually were toxic. You wouldn't be asking me for examples if you did. If Arch took the manifesto at face value he'd be calling Candace Owens alt-right and advocating to censor meme culture, while suggesting things that further divide and radicalize society (just like what Tarrant wanted). He also explicitly warned against taking the memes at face value at 4:56 in video. I'm not addressing any of the other retarded conclusions you try to draw from the video, since it's clear they all come from you either lying or ignoring key details. It's also clear you can't follow basic instructions. I'm telling you exactly where and when you accused Arch of endorsing the Imperium for the 4th time now. The collapsible hit-piece section you made on Arch and your Sept 18-19 responses in this section. 'Are you really refusing to believe Arch' Are you really refusing to give any hard evidence?

I asked you to pick the users so you couldn't accuse me of cherry picking the worst ones that are definitely toxic, but since you don't want to pick any, I can find a bunch who were banned for spouting out racial slurs if you want. "If Arch took the manifesto at face value he'd be calling Candace Owens alt-right and advocating to censor meme culture-" Are you Arch? You wouldn't know what he'd do unless you are him. Also this bit's just stupid: "while suggesting things that further divide and radicalize society (just like what Tarrant wanted)." He'd only be doing that if he agreed with it, and there's a big difference between taking something at face value and agreeing with it. "I'm not addressing any of the other retarded conclusions you try to draw from the video, since it's clear they all come from you either lying or ignoring key details." They all come directly from Arch, but I've noticed ignoring the guy you're defending when what he says is inconvenient is a habit for you, as is lying about what he said or did. "It's also clear you can't follow basic instructions. I'm telling you exactly where and when you accused Arch of endorsing the Imperium-" No, you said I claimed Arch called the Imperium a utopia, and I want to know where I said that, now where is it? "Are you really refusing to give any hard evidence?" Hard evidence is him owning it, how do you hear him say "Or, to use a considerably more charged term for which this channel is rightly famed" and then go on to assume he never said it before? -- Triacom (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You mean you're finally gonna back up your claims with hard proof like I asked instead of stonewalling? Great! Now can you do the same for how much Arch used that metaphor and his endorsement of the Imperium? Can you also follow basic instructions and go to the areas that I pointed out instead of continually asking 'where is it'? And one last favor: can you stop insisting that your retarded viewpoints on the Christchurch vid are supported by Arch's statements on it? Just because you lie about what he says and then use that lie to back your claims doesn't mean it's actually true. Also I'm kekking that you think I'm wrongfully assuming what Arch would do even though you've done that for months.

Even Arch is smart enough not to call a definition a metaphor dude, and as for your proof, here's companies banning toxic behavior (and the people who use it). Now if I could find his Araby, Chaos Dwarf and Hobgoblin videos he's hidden I could count up how many times he used the N-word, since I know he used that term in both when referring to the Hobgoblins, and he called Arabians "sand-ni**ers". Unfortunately unlike the Gnoblar video, I can't find anyone who has a link to those other three. That being said, you cannot pretend somebody saying their channel is "rightly famed" for using a term means they've never used that term before. "Can you also follow basic instructions and go to the areas that I pointed out instead of continually asking 'where is it'?" Point out where I said he called the Imperium a utopia and I will. That's what you claimed I said, so show me where or admit you lied. "Just because you lie about what he says and then use that lie to back your claims doesn't mean it's actually true." I'd never do that, lying about what he says, ignoring his words and misrepresenting him is your job. -- Triacom (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

As usual, Tricommunist types another response that shows he has no signs of intelligent life. I ask you for proof that most users on social media and gaming were banned because they actually were toxic. Instead, you post 5 links that just explain how companies are clamping down on racism and 'hate speech', and some of them actually have examples as to how users are being wrongfully banned or are otherwise screwed over by these policies. The whole point is that just because a company's woke policy or automated system bans you for 'hate speech' doesn't automatically mean you're guilty of it (the definition of which has its own set of problems). Now read my comment that explains where and when you accused Arch of endorsing the Imperium. Do not bring it up again until you find it where I told you and you back the accusation with sources. I'll be waiting for your hard proof that Arch regularly used the metaphor, too.

Those five links are showing why those companies are banning users, and furthermore I did what you asked. You asked for proof users were being banned for toxic behaviour, and I asked you to pick a user to discuss. You didn't, so I said I could find users being banned for racial slurs. You seemed to think that was fine so I responded with them, and now you're whining that you didn't get what you were insinuating you wanted. I suppose I shouldn't expect you to remember what you were asking for, you can't even remember the definition of 'metaphor', and you definitely don't have a clue what a communist is. "and some of them actually have examples as to how users are being wrongfully banned or are otherwise screwed over by these policies." seeing as how you don't mention any articles where this happened I'm going to say you're lying and making that up. "just because a company's woke policy or automated system bans you for 'hate speech' doesn't automatically mean you're guilty of it" The only way you can be banned for a racial slur is if you use the racial slur, the end. "Now read my comment that explains where and when you accused Arch of endorsing the Imperium." Now find my comment you claim is real where I said Arch claims the Imperium is a Utopia. Where did I ever say that? Do not bring up anything else, you said that I said this, and I want to know where. "I'll be waiting for your hard proof that Arch regularly used the metaphor, too." That's in the video where he announces his channel is 'rightly famed' for the term, not a metaphor. Maybe you can open a dictionary after you find that utopia comment. You can also look up what a communist is while you're there. -- Triacom (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I wonder what's deeper: the hole you're digging for yourself or the bottomless pit where your brain should've been. What isn't a wonder is that you can't even read your own sources. In the NYT and R6 article there were literally people complaining they were wrongfully banned and demonstrates how retarded you are to think anyone banned by that system deserves to be banned. The others just explained how their banning system works. That is not evidence that most of the people banned actually were toxic, and isn't an arbiter for proper online discourse. Now I already know what a communist and (unlike you) a metaphor is, but I'll pick up a dictionary when you can find the hard evidence for how much Arch used an edgy metaphor and can follow basic directions.

You fucking liar. Nowhere in those articles are people wrongfully banned. The games banning people for using racial slurs only banned people for using that slur, and nowhere do those articles mention people who were wrongfully banned. Come back when you've actually read the articles and know what your favourite buzzwords actually mean. -- Triacom (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You're a neurotic and illiterate sperg who literally needs information spoonfed to them. The R6 article has a clickable link of someone named Daniel complaining about a wrongful ban. On the NYT article there's literally a black dude opposed to removing the terms and uses them just for points, which is a mentality shared by others. And since you apparently have laser-guided amnesia when it comes to accusing Arch of endorsing the Imperium, you won't mind if that accusation is erased on your page. Can't blame you, not even the mighty Triacom could bullshit his way out of an argument like that.

Look at you changing the story. First it was that the story contained an example of somebody being wrongfully banned, then it had people complaining they were wrongfully banned, and now they link to a different person saying they're wrongfully banned. Well I've gone over all the links within the story, and I've gone over their comments, and I can conclude that you're a fucking liar. Did you think I wouldn't check? You even changed your Scrabble claim, going from "it has people being wrongfully banned" to "a black guy wants to use racial slurs if it means winning". While I'm glad you actually did change your story to what's on the page, fact is you still lied about it earlier and aren't admitting to it. "And since you apparently have laser-guided amnesia when it comes to accusing Arch of endorsing the Imperium-" I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying that you're a fucking liar who claimed I said Arch said the Imperium was a utopia, and that never happened. Come back when you have some form of dignity and can discuss articles without lying about them, I'm not interested in arguing with a worm. -- Triacom (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Alright now that I'm done laughing at what you thought would be a banger of a response, I'll set the record straight for you again. My story never changed. I have and will continue to say that people were screwed over by the policies of those companies who never deserved to. The links and texts in YOUR sources corroborate that. Read it and weep. But do you wanna know how I know for a fact you never bothered to check your sources? Because they never answered my original question, you proved yourself incapable of getting your facts straight on the Arch vid, and you only acknowledged the wrongful bans/censorship in those links after I mentioned them to you. Having bad reading comprehension is your schtick. I also like how you still vehemently deny accusing Arch of endorsing the Imperium, even after I told you multiple times when and where you did it. Class act.

I asked you to name a single person that had been labelled as toxic and wasn't, you didn't. Under your logic, this means you can't. The links and texts in the stories were about people who get banned for typing in racial slurs, and it's automatic. If you don't use a racial slur, you don't get banned for them, the end. You proved to knowingly lie about the Arch vid and made assumptions about him you couldn't possibly know to be true, and you claim I said stuff I never did. When pressed you refuse to admit you lied and instead backpedal, going from "You said Arch called the Imperium a utopia!" To "You said Arch likes the Imperium!" And I've grown tired of it. I'm not interested in seeing you make up facts about the stories everyone can see aren't true, I'm not interested in getting you to admit you lied about what I said, and I'm not interested in seeing you eventually look up what a metaphor/communist is. You can keep living in ignorance, because I'm sure if you bothered to look those up you'd either make up what the definition is, just like how you made up what I said and what was in those articles, or you'd argue the dictionary is against you. -- Triacom (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, when I point out all the bullshitting you've done for a month just go 'NO U!' Excellent comeback by Triacommunist.

Is it even worth it to continue arguing with this anon? It seems to just keep going in an unending circle. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
It's definitely not worth it, but by this point it's like having a morning coffee. I'm curious how much longer this could go on for. -- Triacom (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
And we should listen to the opinions of someone who doesn't sign their posts, much less actually make a coherent argument because...? We have better things to do than deal with you. The information on Arch is absolutely correct. I dislike him, but if you bothered to look at the edit history on the page (unlikely in itself), I am willing to defend him from unfair criticism, and I am certain this wiki is too, but he isn't some angel. Now either cope with it, or go to r/Archwarhammer and whine about it, we have better things to do. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh Lemmings, if only it was that simple to send Anon away to a place where he won't bother us, but unfortunately, r/Archwarhammer is now occupied by the Sigmarxists. Apparently one of the last mods of the page got fed up with all the bs from Archie's fans and just gave control to the Sigmarxists. Now its a page dedicated, no pun intended, to Warhammer Arches/ Architecture. --Bear Eater (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
At least something good came out of it, that's hilarious. -- Triacom (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Does Triacom do anything on this wiki besides edit war bullshit? --Agiletek (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Quite a lot, most of my regular edits are on tactics, 40k battles pages and discussion pages. -- Triacom (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I can back him up on this. Mostly cause he bails me out a lot when I screw up. So yes, Triacom does offer a lot to this community. GreySeerCriak (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I always consult him on things I don't know totally about, and the guy has proven himself to have knowledge on both lore and tactics that are correct, even as far back as 5th edition Grey Knights codexes. So yes, he contributes more than Edit war nonsense. It seems more like that's all he does because he has to deal with idiots like anon all the time, more than I have to.--Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
How about for a new person for some contacts who exact did Arch's Try to say was responsible in absolve the gunman in the Christchurch shooter ? I am entirely unfamiliar with the case. RatMan 9:51 PM
To sign your post, hit the tilde key (~~~~) four times. As for absolving the shooter, Arch tries to weasel his way around that, first by saying the shooter is responsible, then by saying other people are also responsible. Here's a link. My favourite part is where Arch criticises an article for taking the manifesto at face value, before taking the manifesto at face value. He also claims the Shooter was radicalized by things like people allowing immigration in Europe, and he blames articles like the one he cites as being part of what convinced the shooter to go on his shooting spree. He also lumps in anyone who feel they need to apply any form of censorship (aka "you cannot call somebody the N-word") as being a part of radializing the shooter. He finishes this by lumping in a bunch of other people with them, including the female Doctor Who, and by claiming that this lead to the shooter feeling isolated and that is why the shooter did what he did (also he claims rejecting people for being shitty people leads to them becoming like the shooter). In other words, he starts off by trying not to absolve the shooter, then ends by absolving the shooter. -- Triacom (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, at this point I'm tempted to move this whole debate off into to its own page. Would the combatents care to comment on this suggestion? Saarlacfunkel (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It's already collapsed, so I'd vote no. Anyone curious has to click on it to see what it is, and it's not like they're without warning. -- Triacom (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protecting the page[edit]

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)

Something, anything besides that Arch idiot[edit]

Are there any good writing video people besides TWA? Most of the ones I've seen focus on linear writing structure, which are not very useful for /tg/ purposes. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Have you seen Hello Future me? I'll happily reccomend him, he breaks down how certain ideas work in certain works like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, etc. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Looks okay to me. Since I don't know him, I'm not going to write an entry for him, but he looks like a good inclusion. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 02:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Scenery creators[edit]

Rather than go back and fourth over some person I've never even watched youtube channel I thought I'd add some scenery makers to the page as I got into scenery making myself during lockdown. Rather than flood the page with dozens of links I'd start with these three;

Lukes Aps; wanders a bit in his videos but very good scratch builds and easy to follow instructions: https://www.youtube.com/lukesaps

Black Magic Craft; bit commercial but really high end detailed scratch builds that make me cry with joy; https://www.youtube.com/c/BlackMagicCraftOfficial

RP Archive; newish channel which does modular stuff for RPGs that could be used anywhere; https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0l_deKneitQOvD9dNPktMg/about

Anyone else people use that they'd recommend for starters? --Tvrfvby (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I think scenery creators would be a great addition to the page, I can't recall the name, but MiniWargaming has a creator they use for their terrain that would be worth linking. -- Triacom (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I will take a look. Not sure if they have a dedicated channel/playlist or if it is just mixed in with their other stuff. --Tvrfvby (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like a good addition to me. Go right ahead and add them. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

OK thanks peeps, I'll get on with this and try not to flood the page with dozens of recommendations. I've really got into making stuff for my boards given not being able to play with anyone this year (I now enjoy it more than the models) and the lack of material on the wiki struck me. Might it be worth having a page or category sometime? There's a few bits and pieces on individual items, mostly GW scenery things like the Realm of Battle, but it isn't even categorised --Tvrfvby (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I think he's funny.[edit]

What about Cody Bonds being added?That's a lot of hits while talking about legendary Wads for Total War Warhammer and he taught taught than amount about the historical games. With jokes can no one else is going to do what the fuff what about being overly political( Arch Warhammer)have a Link to his YouTube channel. https://www.youtube.com/user/Archangel565/videos.
    • There isn’t any rules about who gets added or not. If you think they should be included, put them on the main page.GreySeerCriak (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Plugging this boy[edit]

[1] (TableTopGuard) - Small channel. He's been making content very irregularly for a while for Ork and Necron stuff, but he's really stepped up his game around since 9th Ed has been announced and right now he's becoming a pretty good resource.

    • There isn’t any rules about who gets added or not. If you think they should be included, put them on the main page.GreySeerCriak (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Cheers

Arch, Again[edit]

So the current Arch section is crap. But it's crap that agrees with a certain segment of the fandom (the leftpol activist assholes at Sigmarxism), so editing it is apparently disallowed by the usual suspects.

Here are some concerns I have over it:

  • The Not Fully Recommended section in general -- "Not recommended by the majority of this wiki" in general rubs me the wrong way, since "the majority of this wiki" appears to mean "the usual suspects don't like these two guys." In short, the very idea of "not fully recommended" is crap and should be merged into the main topic, it serves no purpose other than to call out creators that a small subset of the fandom (and their wiki user presence) are assmad about.
  • Arch being proud of being famous for the phrase "house-niggers" is irrelevant, and IIRC clearly him being tongue in cheek. Pretending to be retarded about jokes does not in fact make the jokes serious statements. I will remind those reading this: We're on a 4chan wiki. You can say the gamer words, it's ok, no one's gonna take your tendies away from you.
  • Him running a VTM campaign where he "made nazis sympathetic" is irrelevant and ultimately the viewer's opinion.
  • The leaks of his discord have nothing to do with his video content, and are in dispute. In addition, they are literally a known spam posting from Sigmarxism that is posted every single time he's mentioned in fandom circles. Every single time he's mentioned, some idiot from Sigmarxism comes in to spam those two links. It's blatantly obvious.
  • Some of the leaks of his discord are out of context. Examples include him parodying the "real communism has never been tried before" statement by the functional retards that believe in Marx and him literally quoting a Chris Rock sketch. Context was provided which shows the Sigmarxism image macro was deceptive -- i.e., false.
  • There is evidence that Sigmarxism mods literally faked some (but not all) of the screenshots via leaks from their discord. There is as much evidence for this as there is of the supposed Arch comments.
  • (Note the above means that "the leaks are fake" and "the leaks were out of context" can both be true at the same time, please do stop pretending to be stupid.)
  • His moderator having some stupid opinion on pedophiles is irrelevant. I care exactly zero about Arch's non-warhammer opinions, I care even less than zero about his autistic Discord moderators' opinions. Half of Breadtube would be verboten if stupidass opinions on pedophilia was enough to get you purged; half of /tg/ would be nuked from orbit if DFC or Lolicon was enough to get you unpersoned.

As mentioned, the images provided are well known spam from Leftypol plebbit users from Sigmarxism. The URLs are directly copied from Sigmarxism. They get spammed every. single. time. Arch gets mentioned anywhere by Sigmarxism trolls -- and 1d4chan is no different. You can do a search for the reddit image link and get hundreds of examples, both on reddit and on known insane leftypol site ResetEra.

Similar to ResetEra, Sigmarxism is an extreme-left Marxist culture-warrior sub dedicated to trying to shove shitty lefty politics into the hobby. They hate Arch because he's a conservative, just like they hate everyone who disagrees with their shitty brain dead political takes. This is, simply put, beyond debate; 5 seconds of looking on their sub shows they're unhinged activists at best, trolls pretending to be activists at worst. Idiots or Assholes, feel free to pick which one you prefer to think of Sigmarxism users as.

In short: There shouldn't BE a "Not Fully Recommended" section. If one needs to be left in to placate certain people, the Arch Warhammer section needs to be cleaned up. I have done some basic work reframing and rephrasing things, but of course, this resulted in one of the usual suspects initiating an Edit War. KiTA (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I feel I should bring up a few things too before diving into this. First of all I try to avoid Reddit when possible, if there isn't a link somewhere else going to a specific thread then I'm not going there at all. I've got no clue what they're saying about him on Sigmarxism (quite frankly I couldn't care less about what they have to say about him in general, this isn't a Reddit wiki and I only care if somebody posts proof), however I have seen what they've said about him in other circles, and most importantly (to this wiki) /tg/.
That all being said I haven't seen anyone claim the main issue with Arch is that he's a conservative, and you don't post proof of that here either. You seem to be basing your opinion of the people who don't like him from Sigmarxism alone, and pretending as if that means the lore videos he gets completely wrong, the shooter commentary where he starts trying to shift blame off a literal mass shooter, the N-word used to describe slaves treated terribly (even in the full video it's not used as a joke, he uses it as a descriptor across the video) and allowing mods of his to openly talk about child porn, are all irrelevant somehow.
The links being posted often doesn't mean they're fake, I can post a pic from Ian Miles Chong (as a quick example) where he says he should be allowed to perv out over minors without being judged/called out for it, but that doesn't make the image fake (especially since Google's cache saved the tweet even after he deleted it, so I can prove it). You say it's blatantly obvious they keep posting the links, yet you miss the fact that their frequency is irrelevant. It does not matter how often they post the links, what matters is what he's said, both there and in many videos. If you want to add that Sigmarxism specifically doesn't like him because he's a conservative, then go ahead, just don't pretend anyone else cares about that.
"Some of the leaks of his discord are out of context." You might want to think about this one, because he said that if they're going to keep using the No True Scotsman fallacy with their preferred system, that he'd do the same with his. Not exactly proof that it's out of context, though I'd prefer if that image macro included the extra bits too, before and after so people could get a general idea of why he said that. Furthermore something being deceptive doesn't mean it's outright false, or this would be enough to prove Arch guilty on all accounts since he says they faked the image.
"There is evidence that Sigmarxism mods literally faked some (but not all) of the screenshots via leaks from their discord." Please post it then, I'd love to see it.
"Note the above means that "the leaks are fake" and "the leaks were out of context" can both be true at the same time-" They're one or the other, saying this is like saying something doesn't exist except it does.
"His moderator having some stupid opinion on pedophiles is irrelevant." No it isn't, it's his community and these are the people he's allowing to be mods. "Half of Breadtube would be verboten if stupidass opinions on pedophilia was enough to get you purged;" First of all, saying child porn should be allowed, as well as lowering the age of consent is not a stupid ass opinion. Secondly, do you really think it would be a bad thing if the YouTube pedophiles were purged from the site? Also if a mod cares, posting lolis on /tg/ will get you banned, and they even came down hard on other stuff like the movie Cuties.
Finally I am changing my opinion on the page on one issue, because I've thought about it a fair bit since the last time this has come up, but I agree with you that a "not fully recommended" section shouldn't be on there, that everyone should either be able to be recommended or they should be removed. Even Arch could be included in the recommended section so long as it doesn't lie about him, like claim the main issue is he's a conservative, or edit out issues people have (such as the phrase he associated his channel with). -- Triacom (talk) 05:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
> if that means the lore videos he gets completely wrong, the shooter commentary where he starts trying to shift blame off a literal mass shooter, the N-word used to describe slaves treated terribly (even in the full video it's not used as a joke, he uses it as a descriptor across the video) and allowing mods of his to openly talk about child porn, are all irrelevant somehow.
Well, no, I didn't say to remove the thing about his lore mistakes, that's perfectly valid criticism. As for the rest, frankly, they are irrelevant. I don't care if he has a nuanced or even bad take on some political thing, even if you really really hate the thing. I certainly don't give a shit about his moderators being idiots. The fact that they're all the bullet points from Sigmarxism's troll replies on Arch that they post everywhere about him is surely a coincidence and not part of a semi-organized harassment campaign. Surely.
> The links being posted often doesn't mean they're fake
Correct, nor did I say it did. It does, however, suggest that they're being intentionally spammed out in response to any mention of Arch. I feel that this is undeniably true. However, the fact that they had context removed (as proven), means they're deceptively edited. They're lies by omission. That makes them fake. The ultimate question becomes: If Arch is so damned bad then why do people have to lie so damned much about him?
> I can post a pic from Ian Miles Chong (as a quick example) where he says he should be allowed to perv out over minors without being judged/called out for it, but that doesn't make the image fake (especially since Google's cache saved the tweet even after he deleted it, so I can prove it).
And yes, you can do this. You know where it becomes silly? When every single time someone posts an IMC news article or blog post you see 3 or 4 people with Tankie tattoos and bad hair dye swarming in posting said image. Over and over and over again, completely derailing any discussion of IMC and what he's discussing, and then using that as an excuse to purge mention of IMC. Which is what's going on with Arch. For a similar situation, look at MundaneMatt and how every time he posts anything he gets harassed by trolls from the IBS clique.
> If you want to add that Sigmarxism specifically doesn't like him because he's a conservative, then go ahead, just don't pretend anyone else cares about that.
Then don't pretend that anyone else cares that Sigmarxism calls him a Nazi -- or racist. It's 2020. Drinking milk makes you a Nazi nowadays. Nazi just means "bad" or "disagrees with the radical left." Who cares?
> Please post it then, I'd love to see it.
Did you even look at my edit before undoing it? Here's the picture. I can't attest to it's authenticity, but it's at least as confirmed as some of the Arch leaks. I.e., not at all.
> They're one or the other, saying this is like saying something doesn't exist except it does.
Let me try again. There were several leaked chats in the image. Some were edited to remove context -- this is confirmed. Others were apparently fake. Both can true at the same time, because they cover different aspects of the leaked chats.
> "His moderator having some stupid opinion on pedophiles is irrelevant." No it isn't, it's his community and these are the people he's allowing to be mods.
Beyond the creepy conversation a European could have on that (there being as many ages of consent in the EU as there are member states)... This has anything to do with his videos... how?
> First of all, saying child porn should be allowed, as well as lowering the age of consent is not a stupid ass opinion. Secondly, do you really think it would be a bad thing if the YouTube pedophiles were purged from the site? Also if a mod cares, posting lolis on /tg/ will get you banned, and they even came down hard on other stuff like the movie Cuties.
I think it's a very stupid opinion, but you do you, I'm certainly not going to cancel you for it. As for the rest -- we've slid from "his Autistic mod had a stupid opinion" to "somehow this means Arch is also a pedo and thus should lose his channel." Um, ok? The lolis on /tg/ thing is irrelevant. Wake me when Arch is calling for legalizing child porn or seriously posting lolicon in his videos.
> Finally I am changing my opinion on the page on one issue, because I've thought about it a fair bit since the last time this has come up, but I agree with you that a "not fully recommended" section shouldn't be on there, that everyone should either be able to be recommended or they should be removed. Even Arch could be included in the recommended section so long as it doesn't lie about him, like claim the main issue is he's a conservative, or edit out issues people have (such as the phrase he associated his channel with).
Consensus, at least to a point! The best way I think we can handle this is to be generic. KiTA (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
How is any of that other stuff irrelevant when it's also why people don't like him? This page isn't just about a person's videos, it's about them in general. Furthermore, even if there was a harrassment campaign against him (which there isn't) how does that make what he said irrelevant? As far as the links go, people remember what people say, you ever see people post "this you?" On Twitter in response to what other people say, where they call them out either for being a shithead or hypocrite? It's what people do, even outside the internet you'll see it all the time in the news and regular television where people will remind each other what certain people have said.
"They're lies by omission. That makes them fake." Then Arch lied by omission when he tried claiming he didn't say what was in the macro images, which makes him wrong.
"The ultimate question becomes: If Arch is so damned bad then why do people have to lie so damned much about him?" Because people will always make people they dislike look worse, always. This isn't hard to figure out or even see examples of, just look at all the crazy lies that came out during (and especially after) the most recent US election.
For the IMC thing, that doesn't make it silly, you'll always find people reminding him that he's bitching about US politics despite living in Malaysia and never visiting the US, however that doesn't mean there's a targeted campaign based around it. Furthermore I can go to an Arch video right now and I can guarantee I'll need to dig really fucking hard to find people bashing him just for the sake of bashing him.
"Then don't pretend that anyone else cares that Sigmarxism calls him a Nazi -- or racist." I didn't pretend, because I've seen them call him both outside Reddit. Hell, I've seen them call him those on /tg/, and not without reason, using the N-word so much it becomes associated with your channel is pretty racist, this isn't some incidental flag in the background or some unfortunate symbolism an idiot would go after him for, it's something he was actively doing and was proud of.
"Did you even look at my edit before undoing it?" Holy fuck, if you're going to delete what I was replying to and pretend I was replying to something else (you said you had pics from the Sigmarxism server, not Arch's server) then we can take this to Root or AssistantWikifag right now. I'm going to assume you made a mistake and somehow didn't know what I was replying to, so I'll ask again: "There is evidence that Sigmarxism mods literally faked some (but not all) of the screenshots via leaks from their discord." So where is the evidence from the Sigmarxism discord? Posting a scrap from Arch's discord is not evidence since A) He isn't denying it there, he isn't even making any direct accusations, and B) That doesn't show any proof. I could be faking your reply to me right now, that doesn't mean there's proof that I am.
"Others were apparently fake." Weird how Arch and his mods don't seem to know that, and will say they're all faked or all out of context then. How strange, I wonder why they don't argue this point?
"Beyond the creepy conversation a European could have on that (there being as many ages of consent in the EU as there are member states)..." I imagine a European would talk about teenagers, whereas Arch's mods were talking about children in general. I think that both camps there would be bad, but the one that discusses filming fucking kids is a lot worse.
"This has anything to do with his videos... how?" His videos come with a community, and they influence what he makes. Additionally, if we cannot recommend a creator's community then we should specify this in their summary since nobody we're recommending is really on their own.
"we've slid from "his Autistic mod had a stupid opinion" to "somehow this means Arch is also a pedo and thus should lose his channel."" Where the hell did I say that? I think you're reaching pretty far here. I'm not calling Arch a pedophile, I'm calling his mod(s) a pedophile, and I'm saying that even after they were shown to be a pedophile he left them alone. "The lolis on /tg/ thing is irrelevant." You just used it in an example: "half of /tg/ would be nuked from orbit if DFC or Lolicon was enough to get you unpersoned." As soon as you realize you're wrong suddenly you claim your own example is irrelevant.
"Consensus, at least to a point! The best way I think we can handle this is to be generic." Generic does not mean forgiving, and your edit plays some hard defence for him, especially in terms of limiting the scope of people who don't like him to one Reddit group most people on the wiki (I'd wager) haven't even heard of. You also deleted several gripes about him, as if they never happened despite predating Sigmarxism. -- Triacom (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
> Generic does not mean forgiving, and your edit plays some hard defence for him, especially in terms of limiting the scope of people who don't like him to one Reddit group most people on the wiki (I'd wager) haven't even heard of.
And your edit plays hard offense against him, especially in terms of tossing in irrelevant and disputed stuff from the harassment campaign targeting him. So don't be surprised if people edit it away from that.
> "Did you even look at my edit before undoing it?" Holy fuck, if you're going to delete what I was replying to and pretend I was replying to something else (you said you had pics from the Sigmarxism server, not Arch's server) then we can take this to Root or AssistantWikifag right now. I'm going to assume you made a mistake and somehow didn't know what I was replying to, so I'll ask again: "There is evidence that Sigmarxism mods literally faked some (but not all) of the screenshots via leaks from their discord." So where is the evidence from the Sigmarxism discord? Posting a scrap from Arch's discord is not evidence since A) He isn't denying it there, he isn't even making any direct accusations, and B) That doesn't show any proof. I could be faking your reply to me right now, that doesn't mean there's proof that I am.
So you don't get it. This picture isn't from Arch's discord, it's from the Sigmarxism discord. Those are Sigmarxism moderators in the screenshot + someone having renamed themselves Arch. That's the point. They supposedly, according to that leak from the Sigmarxism discord posted to 4chan, faked screenshots of Arch being racist to puff up the image macro. This was seemingly confirmed (although anything can be deleted so it's not "real" confirmation) by people not being able to find certain conversations in the image in Arch's discord before he shut it down. KiTA (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
'""And your edit plays hard offense against him, especially in terms of tossing in irrelevant-" I've asked a few times, but you haven't said why any of that is irrelevant. Furthermore I've only brought up what he's done or there's evidence of him doing, and there wasn't a targeted harrassment campaign since, as far as I'm aware, Arch does not visit Sigmarxism and they don't attack his videos en masse.
"This picture isn't from Arch's discord, it's from the Sigmarxism discord. Those are Sigmarxism moderators in the screenshot + someone having renamed themselves Arch." I see now, though I'm going to need to see some proof on that since earlier in the year an anon (who was a hardcore Arch defender) was contending that was from Arch's discord. "They supposedly, according to that leak from the Sigmarxism discord posted to 4chan, faked screenshots of Arch being racist to puff up the image macro." Again, I'm going to need to see evidence. Saying something could've happened is very different to proving it did happen, and this is sounding far too similar to what the MAGA idiots in the US have been saying in regards to their recent election.
One more thing, even if everything in the image macros is faked, him bullshitting the lore, and everything he said in regards to the other topics (the shooter and racism as an example) is definitely not, and you still haven't stated why it's irrelevant, or how the main issue people have with him is that he's a conservative and not the things he's said. -- Triacom (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're both wrong. Given how contentious he is, something like "Not Recommended" or deletion are the only viable options. I don't care which, but the man is too damn skubby to leave in the main list. If we put him in the main list, we'll be getting more edit wars about him every week, rather than the every couple of months we have at present. I don't care about the guy, one way or the other, but I do find endless edit wars annoying. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 07:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Deleting his section will only make his fans and new people confused about why we don’t talk about him, which will likely cause more edits/flame wars. A Non-Recommended section sounds more feasible.GreySeerCriak (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
We could fix that by having people post suggestions on the talk page first, some people already do that and it would also get people to realize why he's not recommended. I'd be much happier talking about him than editwaring over him. Furthermore I'm also more open to removing him from the main page if it means we don't have an editwar every month. -- Triacom (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
As a long time fan of Arch, and a conservative/right leaning person (but I don't think Biden stole the election, for it's worth) I'll note that while he occasionally said dumb stuff in the past, for the past several years he's improved considerably both in general content quality, keeping his politics separate from his lore content, and in what he says politically (you could, I assume, argue that merely because he guards his tongue better, but people do also change thier opinions). I would also remind people that arch is not american and not a native english speaker, and it shouldn't be assumed that he's as aware of what connotations a given term has in the US (IIRC, the Polish dev team behind the game bulletstorm had a similar problem). It seems less that fair to judge him based off what he said in a years old, long since deleted video rather that as he is now. Which seems to be largely ok? I rewatched his video on the response to the christchurch shooting and and nothing jumped out as me being wildly out of line or inapproproaite?
As a last point regarding his political comments, on a quick skim of the other people listed on the page, several of them appear to have said some fairly offensive things as well, just from the other side of the aisle (the side that, you know, doesn't have a whole subreddit full of communists bent on driving anyone that offends them off of the public square). I'm sure there's even more I don't know about, because no one's bothered to dig it up and spam it out across the internet.
Regarding his actual lore work, he's made mistakes, but I don't think I'd call it "Bullshitting the lore" as it was put above. But he is hardly alone in doing that, every creator doing this kind of thing screws up from time to time, and Arch doesn't seem to go wrong more often than the norm. He's also done some really amazing work, like his seige of vraks video series and his newly launched video series on Badab that looks to be shaping up even better. If Lutien09 or 40kthoeries work is good enough to merit recommendation, arch certainly clears that bar. Battlegrinder (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
A few things, starting off I'm not going to believe he was ignorant of what "house-ni**ers" meant, especially when he used it long enough to proclaim his channel was associated with the term. If he really was ignorant of what it meant he wouldn't use it to consistently characterize an ugly slave caste. Secondly the page already included how he unlisted the videos in question (you just need to find a link) and the video on the Christchurch shooter has a bit where he tries claiming that the shooter was pushed too far by outside forces, which is why I've said he attempted to shift blame away from the shooter. Thirdly the page did not include his political leaning previously, because nobody cares what that is. If other creators have said equally offensive shit or tried to shift blame away from a shooter then feel free to add it to them as well. Finally people say he bullshits the lore because several videos just have him reading Lexicanum/Warhammer 40k wiki verbatim (which leads to him getting stuff wrong because those two wikis often try to reconcile retcons and playing a game of mix-and-match instead of addressing that retcons happened), while pretending to be an expert and he's done collabs with people in the past who actually know what they're talking about while being ignorant on the subject himself, but he pretends as if he's just as knowledgeable (see Loremaster of Sotek for this one, he also talked about Arch briefly in his community video). This also gives him the Dunning-Kruger effect, where he's so convinced he knows what he's talking about that he doesn't stop to check if there's prior precedent, or whether or not he's wrong. For a good example of this, see the videos where he's talked about the Primaris Space Marines, especially after they were just introduced. -- Triacom (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm aware arch delisted the gnobler video. You generally don't delist things that you're proud of, and for that matter I don't recall him actually saying he's proud of that particular phrase or video (I've seen lots of people claiming he did, but I've seen plenty of outright lies about what he has and hasn't said in the past as well).
As for the shooter, yes, he says outside forces helped push the shooter into doing what he did. That's how radicalization works, the only differance between what Arch said and what the article he was discussing said was which outside forces they said did it. Arch said it happened as a reaction to what the shooter thought was happening in Europe, the article said it was because of a reaction to internet memes.
The only relevant point is him getting stuff wrong because he usese wikis, and the semi-related issue of him being arrogant and thinking he knows everything, or letting his opinions about an element of 40k color the video. In which case, yes, he's guilty as charged. So is everyone else. Luetin09's write up on this very page notes the he tends to interpret the lore in a way that many people disagree with, and the page goes even farther and recommends TTS, which is, in addition to being hilarious, infamously prone to picking and choosing bits of lore to reference and I've seen a number of people complaining that people who get into 40k via TTS don't understand the actual setting, just the distorted meme version, and that even people who should know better fall victim to TTS distortions. Tex Talks Battletech has repeatedly pretended the post fedcom civil war eras doesn't exist (such as conspicuously not mentioning the Dark Age era Mad Cat Mk IV when discusssing the Mad Cat, even though he brought up the Mk II, Mk III, and even the Rakshasa).
Yes, he's salty about primaris space marines and doesn't like them. So are lots of people, and as the main page notes, even Valrak was constantly whining about primaris transports for months and months and months, so it's not like having a massive gripe with GW is a dealbreaker. Nor is having ill-informed gripes with the direction GW is going, I've heard a number of people complaining about Mark Sparks having a "Old super grimdark 40k is best 40k, my vidoes are made for fans of the real 40k and not this new crap" or the like. For that matter, this very wiki quite regularly takes a negative, highly opinionated tone about certain topics, the AoS topic was ridiciously hostile to the idea for years.
The standards for what does and doesn't qualify as good enough for getting recommended seem to be constantly shifting around in order to exclude Arch, regardless of what it would mean if those standards were applied elsewhere. Battlegrinder (talk) Battlegrinder (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I've already discussed this with the anon above, just because you hide something doesn't mean you're now ashamed of it, you could hide it for a number of reasons, such as people getting pissed that you kept saying "house-ni**ers" as an example. As for the shooter Arch was attributing events as contributing factors based on nothing. At the time there was nothing backing up his claim aside from the writings of the shooter, which just earlier Arch said you should not take at face value. So he's against it when the article does it, but then does it himself for something else.
Like Kita you seem to think the only thing relevant is the content of his videos, except we're not recommending videos, we're recommending channels, and channels are more than just the videos they upload. This is important, and it's why we talk a bit about the people behind them in the entries.
Luetin09's write up- Doesn't matter, we can talk about him after Arch, same with anyone else who gets stuff wrong based on personal opinion. Furthermore you should not base your standards for a lore channel based on parodies like TTS, people give them a pass strictly because they're intentionally trying to get stuff wrong for comedic effect. Arch isn't, which is why Arch gets judged so harshly for reading wikis and not knowing how retcons have affected the events he's talking about, or just outright getting stuff wrong.
Yes, he's salty about primaris space marines and doesn't like them. So are lots of people- Except those people don't pretend to be experts, they don't pretend their opinion is fact, and they don't lie about them, which Arch did outright several times, especially after they'd just came out.
For that matter, this very wiki quite regularly takes a negative, highly opinionated tone about certain topics, the AoS topic was ridiciously hostile to the idea for years. Because the wiki is a collaboration of fans without any standards of professionalism. It also took years for AoS to stop sucking, since it first had a terrible launch then went an entire year without any form of matched play. After that, it took another year to really start balancing it and release PDF's for Legends armies without joke rules (which was also about as long as it took for people to get over the removal of characters and factions such as Bretonnia and Tomb Kings).
The standards for what does and doesn't qualify as good enough for getting recommended seem to be constantly shifting around in order to exclude Arch, regardless of what it would mean if those standards were applied elsewhere. Right now there aren't any standards besides "I think X should be included" and then waiting to see what other people say. We probably should in some actual standards, and then we can talk about other users and if they meet them instead of using whataboutism to defend Arch. -- Triacom (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
W've already discussed this with the anon above, just because you hide something doesn't mean you're now ashamed of it, you could hide it for a number of reasons, such as people getting pissed that you kept saying "house-ni**ers" as an example. Ok, and? The end result's the same thing, he's stopped doing the thing you find objectionable. This is whole problem with this woke mindset (you cited breadtubers before, don't even pretend to deny it). You criticize for doing something, they do something to placate you, and then you keep attacking them anyway because apparently forgiveness is a foreign concept to you. If you want to discourage the sort of behavior arch used to do, then you have to actually back off when he stops doing it.
As for the shooter Arch was attributing events as contributing factors based on nothing. At the time there was nothing backing up his claim aside from the writings of the shooter, which just earlier Arch said you should not take at face value. So he's against it when the article does it, but then does it himself for something else. Arch said to take the shooter's words with a grain of salt, yes. That is not the same as "willfully disregard what he said entirely and invent your own motive" which is what the article did, and Arch noted that in this one case, he felt that the shooter's claims were more plausible than the article's effort to read what they wanted to see into the matter. Was that a dumb take? Probably. Did a bunch of other people on this page have an equally dumb take on the matter? Almost certainly.
Like Kita you seem to think the only thing relevant is the content of his videos, except we're not recommending videos, we're recommending channels, and channels are more than just the videos they upload. This is important, and it's why we talk a bit about the people behind them in the entries. Not the only thing, but it's like....90% of the thing, since it's what people are going to be exposed to more than any other thing about a creator. And if you want to extend that out farther into some weird holistic view of everything a creator has ever said or done, you're just setting yourself up for failure because you can dig up dirt on anyone if you try hard enough.
Doesn't matter Yes it does. You said "We can't recommend Arch because he does X", I pointed out that a bunch of people here also do that, but are accepted. You later say that their aren't any real standards (save, of course, for the clear unofficial standard of "no arch") besides if people want him added, which they clearly do, so the fact that you don't like him because he gets things wrong is irrelverent.
Except those people don't pretend to be experts, they don't pretend their opinion is fact, and they don't lie about them, which Arch did outright several times, especially after they'd just came out. First off, cite these things he's supposedly lied about. Secondly, saying he pretends to be an expert is an absurd criticism. Being an expert about this sort of thing is something everyone pretends to do, because there's no such thing as a real warhammer expert. Fans claiming expertise based on their knowledge of a setting is a universal thing through every fandom on earth, and the only actual qualification is if the person they're talking to buys it. I think he's knowledgeable enough to make a fair claim for the title, you don't, but neither of us has any authority to say more than that.
Because the wiki is a collaboration of fans without any standards of professionalism So is every single person on this page, save for the official warhammer account, the only claim to professionalism Arch or Luiten or Tex or Varack have is they get paid for doing what they do.
Right now there aren't any standards besides "I think X should be included" and then waiting to see what other people say. Ok, sure. Here's the problem "People" aren't complaining about Arch, you are complaining about Arch, the vast majority of the anti-arch pushback has been coming from you personally, both on the main page and on this talk page. And given that you've cited breadtube as reason why he's bad, claimed his VtM game made nazis sympathetic (this being the same game that from the very start had the party take part in an explicitly stated surprise attack against the unsuspected russians that arch explicitly stated had been ordered not to attack or provoke the nazis, and also had the nazis give the party the explicitly illegal commissar order in the very first session.....sympathetic is not the term I would use)......I don't think you're being objective when it comes to your assessment of him. Everyone else has been supportive, or just wants the problem resolved so the edit wars will stop....so when will you accept the majority-supported position that recommending arch is fine and just focus on what exactly what we should say about him?
We probably should in some actual standards, and then we can talk about other users and if they meet them instead of using whataboutism to defend Arch. You do realize that there are circumstances, including this one, where point out hypocritical behavior is an acceptable response? Whataboutism is a tactic used as distraction from one's own conduct, which is not what's happening here. What's happening here is accusing you of holding a double standard, which is exactly correct.

Battlegrinder (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Except I included it in the page that he stopped doing it and hid videos where he did it, but you seem to have missed that. You also seem to have missed the part where I asked if it would be that bad if breadtubers were kicked off YouTube if they supported pedophilia, with the implication that it would be a good thing. You also missed the part where I said I'd be perfectly fine with including Arch on the list without mention of his phrases being associated with his channel if he apologized for his phrases, then went a few years without saying them to show he meant it. As for the shooter, you've seen the video, so you know as well as I do that Arch did in fact willfully disregard what he said entirely and invent your own motive. The article took what the shooter wrote at face value, it didn't disregard what he said and that was part of the reason Arch criticised them. Also what other people said doesn't matter right now, we can talk about them after Arch, stay on topic.
I'm glad you agree that a channel is more than the videos attached to it, so I'll just go over this: And if you want to extend that out farther into some weird holistic view of everything a creator has ever said or done- I'm not. The reason what he said stands out so much is because you don't get to say something like "Richard Spencer is 98% a good guy" and then leave out the 2% that people object to. To use a different comparison, it would be like those idiots complaining about the recent US election, because the candidate that won had ~16% of the land mass that voted. A lot of good can be buried under a very short clip of something very bad and vice-versa, depending on your opinion (just look at how people view J.K. Rowling now, to use her as an example of the former) so saying somebody is mostly fine isn't entirely honest.
Yes it does. You said "We can't recommend Arch because he does X", I pointed out that a bunch of people here also do that, but are accepted. Doesn't matter, they're not who we're talking about. If you want to discuss them then make a new topic about them and we'll discuss them there. so the fact that you don't like him because he gets things wrong is irrelverent. Did you miss the part where I said somebody is suggested and then people wait on feedback?
First off, cite these things he's supposedly lied about. Sure, he made a video (I believe it was his first Primaris video) about how the Primaris are bullshit because the Emperor supposedly tried to make better Space Marines and failed, and that if 'even' the Emperor couldn't do it then some tech priest definitely couldn't. There's a lot to go over there, to start off he claimed the Emperor was the one who made the Space Marines, even though he was mainly the head of the team developing them (which has always been a thing, it's why the Larraman's Organ is named after one of his scientists who was working on the project). Secondly Cawl wasn't just some tech priest (even at the time he was supposedly the developer of the Black Carapace, something Arch also thought was bullshit because he didn't know the Emperor had a team), thirdly the Emperor never failed at making superior Space Marines, he'd found several ways they could be improved and Corvus Corax later used these as a way to create the Raptors, and finally when the Cursed Founding was getting White Dwarf articles, the Imperium found Mechanicus working on what would now be a proto-primaris, a larger, stronger Marine with new organs. The head of the operation was never found, and the Mechanicus successfully left with the proto-primaris Marines they'd created. Being an expert about this sort of thing is something everyone pretends to do, because there's no such thing as a real warhammer expert. Sure there is, it's judged on the same grounds as an actual expert: comprehensive knowledge of the subject. If you think that's absurd, consider that there are experts in real life history, even though those experts never lived through the periods they're an expert in. You can even be an expert on another country despite never having been there (which is especially true about countries which no longer exist). Fans claiming expertise based on their knowledge of a setting is a universal thing through every fandom on earth- And they too can be judged for it if/when they get stuff wrong, so I don't see your point. I think he's knowledgeable enough to make a fair claim for the title, you don't, but neither of us has any authority to say more than that. I would think him frequently getting stuff wrong would do that.
So is every single person on this page, save for the official warhammer account- And? I don't recall any of us making claims about the setting that are demonstrably false and pretending to be an expert because we read a fractured wiki page.
Here's the problem "People" aren't complaining about Arch, you are complaining about Arch, the vast majority of the anti-arch pushback has been coming from you personally, both on the main page and on this talk page. I am not everywhere, I am just here, the people who made videos about him on YouTube are not me (neither are the people who talk about him in YouTube's comments sections), the people mocking him on Twitter are not me, the people tearing him apart on Reddit threads are not me, and the people ripping him a new one on /tg/ are not me. Yes I'm the one who talks about him the most here, but there's three things you got wrong about me: A) I said several times earlier that I think his entry should be included on the main page (the only time I thought about removing it was whether or not that would stop editwars, which weren't against just myself), so this: Everyone else has been supportive, or just wants the problem resolved so the edit wars will stop....so when will you accept the majority-supported position that recommending arch is fine and just focus on what exactly what we should say about him? Is very ignorant, hell, I wasn't even the person who made and put him in that "not fully recommended" section. B) The parts of him people, including me, take issue with come straight from him, not anyone else. This bit right here: And given that you've cited breadtube as reason why he's bad- is false, because you do not need to see any videos aside from Arch's videos to see/hear what I'm talking about, and what I'm referencing. C) I participate in more discussion pages than anyone else on the wiki, if somebody wants to talk about something on any of the pages I'm watching I'm probably going to be there, and I've discussed enough on certain pages the entirety of the discussion is longer than some novels. How much I've discussed Arch is secondary to that point, I'll discuss pretty much everything I'm interested in.
You do realize that there are circumstances, including this one, where point out hypocritical behavior is an acceptable response? I do, and do you realize I didn't add any of those other entries, and that the topic we're talking under isn't about them? You're wrong when you say whataboutism is a distraction, because it's more often used to shift the topic to something else, and I'm not going to let that happen. We can judge Arch first based on what he's said and the videos he's put out, then we can do the same to everyone else you want in their own topics and with the same level of scrutiny. We can even do that right now, just make a topic about them, don't cry "double-standard" while not checking to see if there is one. -- Triacom (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Except I included it in the page that he stopped doing it and hid videos where he did it, but you seem to have missed that. Yes, I'm aware you said that he hid them, though your phrasing implied more that you meant "he concealed the evidence" rather than "he removed the video", so I'm not giving you much credit for saying it. As for an apology, that's not going to happen, but he has stopped talking like that the past few years.
As for the shooter, you've seen the video, so you know as well as I do that Arch did in fact willfully disregard what he said entirely and invent your own motive. The article took what the shooter wrote at face value, it didn't disregard what he said and that was part of the reason Arch criticised them. Again, not it didn't. I've read what the shooter wrote, and it wasn't "the memes made me do it" as the article claims, arch's reading of it was entirely in line with what it actually said.
Also what other people said doesn't matter right now, we can talk about them after Arch, stay on topic. The topic is "you're a hypocrite trying to enforce a double standard out of personal animosity, what other people said matters a great deal because that proves that the accusation I'm making here is accurate.
I'm not. The reason what he said stands out so much is because you don't get to say something like "Richard Spencer is 98% a good guy" and then leave out the 2% that people object to. To use a different comparison, it would be like those idiots complaining about the recent US election, because the candidate that won had ~16% of the land mass that voted. A lot of good can be buried under a very short clip of something very bad and vice-versa, depending on your opinion (just look at how people view J.K. Rowling now, to use her as an example of the former) so saying somebody is mostly fine isn't entirely honest. That's a disingenuous comparison, because the 2% that's objectionable about Spencer is incredibly predominate and something he will agree with if you ask him, whereas with arch most of what you're bring up is years old, from a deleted video or his discord that most people aren't aware of (I would say Rowling is closer to being accurate, in that it's a bunch of out-of-context and misinterpeted statements being spread around by a small, loud minority to try and create the impression of wider support).
Doesn't matter, they're not who we're talking about. If you want to discuss them then make a new topic about them and we'll discuss them there. No. You're being a hypocrite, you don't get to just handwave away all the evidence of it and pretend it doesn't exist. As for feedback, you've recieved a massive amount of feedback that people do not agree with your edits to the page or your view of arch, so that sounds like issue solved to me.
Sure, he made a video that.... None of those things are lies. You disagree with his intepretation of 40k history and how he chooses to phrase it, but, newsflash, people can disagree with you honestly. Most of those points are basically just nitpicks, like how Arch said the emperor created the space when well ackshully he just lead the team that created them, and merely because arch was wrong does not mean he knowingly lied.
Sure there is, it's judged on the same grounds as an actual expert: comprehensive knowledge of the subject. If you think that's absurd, consider that there are experts in real life history, even though those experts never lived through the periods they're an expert in. You can even be an expert on another country despite never having been there (which is especially true about countries which no longer exist). That's correct, which is why your objection here is wrong. Real experts are judged and certified by actual, formal bodies of other experts based on objective assessement of their knowledge, skill, and training. No such body exists for fandoms, one person can accept someone as an expert while another refuses to do so, and no one has the authority to say otherwise.
And they too can be judged for it if/when they get stuff wrong, so I don't see your point. The point is, to paraphrase Sara Bareilles, who died and made you king of judging warhammer experts?
I would think him frequently getting stuff wrong would do that. So far, you've yet to prove that, in fact you've already gotten things wrong yourself. Per the 8th edition admech codex, Cawl did not invent the black carapace as you claimed, he was instead creditted as assisting the greatest geneticist that Mankind has ever known, the Emperor, in the development of the black carapace membrane implanted into Space Marines." Nor did arch lie about that, because his video on the primaris marines came out in may 2017, whereas the admech codex that contained that information didn't come out until september of that year...and arch obviously doesn't get advance copies from GW.
And? I don't recall any of us making claims about the setting that are demonstrably false and pretending to be an expert because we read a fractured wiki page. I recall one of us doing that: Secondly Cawl wasn't just some tech priest (even at the time he was supposedly the developer of the Black Carapace- Triacom.
I am not everywhere, I am just here, the people who made videos about him on YouTube are not me (neither are the people who talk about him in YouTube's comments sections), the people mocking him on Twitter are not me, the people tearing him apart on Reddit threads are not me, and the people ripping him a new one on /tg/ are not me. Yes I'm the one who talks about him the most here, Well, to quote the appearnt king of wikis regarding the relevence of what other people have said Also what other people said doesn't matter right now,. So, per your own logic the fact that other people, on other websites, have said other things that are crtical of arch is not relevent. What's relevent is that here, you are the person most consistently edit warring against Arch.
I said several times earlier that I think his entry should be included on the main page (the only time I thought about removing it was whether or not that would stop editwars, which weren't against just myself) Perhaps you've said that, but that's not the full story. You think it should be on the main page, written in what you deem to be a sufficently hostile tone as dictated by you, since you edit war constantly when someone tries to make it sound even slightly less neutral.
B) The parts of him people, including me, take issue with come straight from him, not anyone else. Yes, that's not in dispute. What people keep objecting to is how you insist on phrasing your objection to those things, or who you bring in to back up your point that those things are objectionably to the degree you insist they are.
C) I participate in more discussion pages than anyone else on the wiki, if somebody wants to talk about something on any of the pages I'm watching I'm probably going to be there, and I've discussed enough on certain pages the entirety of the discussion is longer than some novels. How much I've discussed Arch is secondary to that point, I'll discuss pretty much everything I'm interested in. That's not really relveant, I haven't said that you're only involved in this one thing, just that in this topic, you keep edit warring over it.
I do, and do you realize I didn't add any of those other entries, and that the topic we're talking under isn't about them? You're wrong when you say whataboutism is a distraction, because it's more often used to shift the topic to something else, and I'm not going to let that happen. We can judge Arch first based on what he's said and the videos he's put out, then we can do the same to everyone else you want in their own topics and with the same level of scrutiny. We can even do that right now, just make a topic about them, don't cry "double-standard" while not checking to see if there is one. I have checked, here, let me check again.....yeap, no other topics on the talk page where you apply the critism you have with arch to anyone else, you only bring it up as an issue in discussion of him, double standard confirmed. You yourself talked up how much you're active on this wiki, clearly if your objections to arch were just because he's wrong sometimes or has some biases and so on, you have the time to bring it up for other creators. And yet didn't, the only one where that applied was Arch. Battlegrinder (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
My phrasing was like that because he did hide the evidence and he did not remove the video, anyone with links can still view them, but you seem to have missed that. As for an apology, I fail to see why that's not going to happen, he doesn't even have to quote what it is he said, just that he's sorry for using stuff like racial slurs and he won't do it in the future.
arch's reading of it was entirely in line with what it actually said. Including the part where he said you couldn't take it at face value, ie you had to read into it and couldn't just go off what it actually said? Come on.
The topic is "you're a hypocrite trying to enforce a double standard out of personal animosity- Wrong, the topic is Arch, and I'm staying on that topic. The topic is not whoever you want to point to with a whataboutism. What they said can be discussed later, especially if you want to use what was talked about here as precedent.
That's a disingenuous comparison, because the 2% that's objectionable about Spencer is incredibly predominate- Exactly my point, even if Arch didn't get a lot of his lore videos off wiki pages, the fact is people remember him announcing how his channel was associated with the phrase "house-ni**ers", they remember his pedophile mods, and they remember his general discord chat that would've been right at home cozying up to Spencer. All of that is sticks out pretty hard, just like J.K. Rowling claiming that trans people wanted to "erase the concept of sex" because she misunderstood (or never knew) the difference between sex and gender.
No. You're being a hypocrite, you don't get to just handwave away all the evidence of it and pretend it doesn't exist. I'm not doing that, I'm 100% serious when I say you should make a topic for them and we'll discuss them with the same level of scrutiny. As for feedback, you've recieved a massive amount of feedback that people do not agree with your edits to the page or your view of arch, so that sounds like issue solved to me. Nearly all of that feedback was from one anon, the other would be Kita, who seems to think only a Reddit group dislikes him, then there's you. Hardly a "massive amount of feedback" and you act as if I was alone in making his section, or moving it around.
None of those things are lies. All of those are lies. "The Emperor tried making better Space Marines and failed." That's a lie. The Emperor apparently being the sole developer of gene-seed (implied if not stated) is a lie since even 2nd edition. Cawl being just some tech priest who could not make better Marines because the Emperor couldn't is a lie since better Space Marines the Emperor's didn't make have existed since 3rd edition. It's not an interpretation that the Emperor worked with a team of scientists, or that better Space Marines were created without him, both of those actually did happen and were a part of the setting well over a decade before Arch made his video. It is not disagreeing with somebody's interpretation to point out these things aren't true. and merely because arch was wrong does not mean he knowingly lied. And saying something that literally never happened (that the Emperor failed at making better Marines) is knowingly telling a lie.
No such body exists for fandoms, one person can accept someone as an expert while another refuses to do so, and no one has the authority to say otherwise. Except for the company that owns the IP, in fact it's how GW used to pick its editors. The point is, to paraphrase Sara Bareilles, who died and made you king of judging warhammer experts? Nobody, you don't need to be an expert to criticize somebody getting something demonstrably wrong, just like how film critics don't need to be good directors.
So far, you've yet to prove that, in fact you've already gotten things wrong yourself. Per the 8th edition admech codex- You misread what I wrote. I said very clearly "even at the time"; The reason I said that was because there was no 8th edition AdMech Codex at that time, so there was no printed info on Cawl aside from the Gathering Storm. There was however a Warhammer Community post about Cawl before Arch's video where it introduced him as the maker of the black carapace. I didn't include Cawl's retconned backstory because it would be unfair to criticize Arch for not knowing a Codex that wasn't out. Perhaps you should read what I write more carefully before trying to go "Gotcha!" Although I'll accept you might be unaware of Warhammer Community's posts, I'm not giving Arch the same pass since he should be doing actual research before making his videos.
Well, to quote the appearnt king of wikis regarding the relevence of what other people have said- So are you no longer going to be arguing in good faith? Because you said I seemed to be the majority of the dislike against him, and then when I point out he's disliked in a lot of places you try to back out of that by pointing to my argument that we're talking about Arch, not the faults of other creators. You claim that Arch was taken out of context then do the exact same to me.
Perhaps you've said that, but that's not the full story. The full story is that writing stuff like "he's disliked because he's a conservative" is bullshit, and there's easier ways to explain why people don't don't like him. Furthermore you say the tone is hostile, yet the edit only talked about things he actually did and why people took issue with it. An actual hostile article would be one that attacks him directly, which is the case on this wiki with several Black Library authors who wrote trash. Furthermore, how would you write "he once had his channel associated with the phrase 'house-ni**ers'" in a neutral way? Yes, that's not in dispute. You literally just said I cited a breadtuber as the reason he's bad, now you're saying that's not in dispute? Fine, I'll take it, I guess that's progress. That's not really relveant- you were literally just talking about how I'm the one who discussed most of it, so I pointed out that I'm the one who discusses most things on the wiki in general.
I have checked, here, let me check again.....yeap, no other topics on the talk page where you apply the critism you have with arch to anyone else- First, I don't have unlimited time and I'm not familiar with them all, we also don't have a vetting process. Those other creators might be far worse than Arch, I genuinely don't know, that's why I said you should give them their own topics. You do that, I'll watch their videos, and we'll go over them with this same level of scrutiny. clearly if your objections to arch were just because he's wrong sometimes or has some biases and so on, you have the time to bring it up for other creators. When we're finished with Arch then yes, I will have time (I'll even put some wiki back burner projects on hold for it). -- Triacom (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I'm just going to apologize here. Triacom, this isn't worth having a giant argument about, and I was pushing a bit too hard on this and probably was a bit insulting, so I'm sorry. I've got other stuff to work on tonight, but maybe tomarrow I can write a proposed version of what Arch's entry can say and we can tinker with things from there? Battlegrinder (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Apology accepted, go ahead, I'm interested in what you write. -- Triacom (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


Okay a few things I want to point out a Arch YouTube videos. first off I do watch his actual Warhammer 40K videos I especially love the in-depth videos about war campaigns Wars for Armageddon,Siege of Vraks ,Badab War. On /co/ - Comics & Cartoons I have been increasingly and white about any time you mention the Ben 10 franchise someone goes on and on about the Green Lantern.I have heard him say extremely questionable and borderline racist behavior like this one dude doing charity means we should keep a statue of him even though he got it for owning slaves and being a slave trader. And arguing gets taken away statues in central real history no matter what they got the statue on account of.Joe Biden won the U.S. Election Direction and an amount of money that you donate to Trump to get him to stay president goes towards paying lawsuits against him and basically any conservatives in the fight with Professional Standards like judges have 90% of the time said there is no case. Also has talked about cultural Wars and maybe conservative in the same sense serpent Society in Marvel comic books with call conserve by Fox when they was trying to execute people for a legal immigration. I have also seen videos about him talking about the far left and cultural Wars. I have Asperger's and learning difficulties so please be polite.I probably made a number of mistakes making this statement. 8:46 p.m. EST 3 December 2020

Side note[edit]

While Battlegrinder did bring up an almost valid point I had to remove from the section below (if we re-include Arch in the list as alphabetized, he'd have something of a pride of place), I'd like to note that, again, he's not getting out of our skub containment unit section. I'm open to renaming and altering the general wording of the section ("Hyper-skub containment zone"), but I'm not allowing Arch back on the main list; such a move would invite yet more edit wars. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure you would, looking at the page history it looks like the vast, vast majority of the edit-warring over Arch has been entirely because Triacom doesn't like him, basically all of the edit warring since last july has been over people trying to get rid of Triacom's anti-arch writing and triacom putting it back in over and over again. The problem isn't Arch himself, it's triacom's dislike of him. That said, I suppose there's nothing necessarily wrong with keeping him in the zone either.Battlegrinder (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The vast majority of editwaring has been happening because an anon did not like how his personal hero was portrayed, and the rest were Arch fanboys who were pissed GW put a trademark claim against him and were so far up /pol/ it was hard to believe they were real people. The only exception do far has been Kita, who seems to think Arch is mainly disliked on Reddit which is why they changed the page to include (and blame) stuff like Arch's political leaning, which is irrelevant to the things he said and the videos he makes. At one point it was bad enough that Arch was given his own page (not by me, and the point was to explain the issues in detail), but unfortunately that one showed up separately in search engines and was constantly bombarded by trolls, so he was moved back here. -- Triacom (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
It takes two sides to have an edit war, Triacom. Yes, a lot of the edit warring has been because someone didn't like how the article portrayed Arch, but the other half of the fight has been you coming in to undo thier edit and put the more accusatory elements of his write up back in. Battlegrinder (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
When somebody tries to edit out something and pretend it didn't happen then yes, I tend to undo those edits. -- Triacom (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure it was just "editing out something and pretending it didn't happen." I mean, I generally didn't remove things, I tried to edit the section down so it was less wordy and more succinct like the rest of the entries while pushing it towards a more neutral point of view. And you didn't change my edits to meet me halfway, you simply reverted them away completely, over and over and over again, while being a bit pushy in the edit comments and demanding I come into the talk page while leaving the vague impression I needed to beg permission to make a change to the page. That's... not great. KiTA (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I was referring more to the anon and troll edits than yours, though when you say the main issue with him is he's a conservative and not the things he says you need to have some pretty hard evidence, and you didn't present any. You also didn't meet me halfway or even back up your claim that the main issue was his political leaning, so you're the pot calling the kettle black. -- Triacom (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm concerned with the "not allowing" part of your comment Saarlacfunkel. There is no justification to segregate Arch from the rest of the list if we're getting rid of the "not fully recommended" list -- which we should, because it currently just exists to exclude Arch, with a casual mention of Spoony to justify it. No, you (or anyone, really) disliking him isn't a valid reason.
Lets just toss a boring, neutral, generic description of his channel, maybe a one or two sentence description of the controversy, and move on with our lives. "Arch (formerly Arch Warhammer) is a blah blah blah blah... He is the subject of some amount of controversy due to former political statements and accusations of association with far-right politics; Some people really, really do not like him, while others really, really do." Bam. Easy as pie. None of the other entries have full biographical essays on their channels, why should Arch's? Frankly put, he's not that special. KiTA (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

To be clear: I'm open to renaming the "Not Fully Recommended" to "Skub containment zone" or something similar, not removing it. Again, these two were and (if to a lesser degree on Spoony's part) still are skubby as all hell. On that note, feel free to suggest a new wording in the section I'm making below.Saarlacfunkel (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm good with that. -- Triacom (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed New Wording[edit]

To keep things simple, have a proposal that starts with a "*", and then comments below. Please don't edit other editor's proposals to keep things somewhat sane. I'll start:

  • Take an already skubby edgelord Warhammer40k fan, and add in a large dose of Real World political disagreement, and you get hyper-skub, which is why this guy is here.
Essentially, the TLDR we have currently.Saarlacfunkel (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I actually like this one, although it's almost too succinct. Maybe add a sentence about what his channel is and wordsmith the rest a tiny bit. "Arch does videos on Warhammer 40k and 30k lore, as well as videos covering Warhammer vidya. However, he's (quite) a bit of an edgelord; adding in a large dose of Real World political disagreement and you get hyper-skub."KiTA (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Arch (formerly known as Arch Warhammer, until a legal threat from GW forced him to change it), makes 40k lore videos, of sometimes dubious accuracy due to either his own mistakes or his own opinion leaking into the script (most obviously whenever the primaris marines come up), or sometimes of much better quality than similar vidoes, such as his extremely long and detailed discussion series on the Siege of Vraks or Badab War. This is not, however, why he's so skubby, that trait is because in addition to his 40k content, he's also ventured into political commentary from time to time, with exactly the reaction you would expect. Add in the usage of racial slurs in a since-delisted video and a similar habit of doing so to a lesser degree on discord, both of which poured fuel onto the fire even after the behavior in question stopped. When interviewed on the subject, Arch has denied being racist and said that holding such beliefs is absurd, claiming his own comments were intended as jokes. More than any other element, the fact that people have extremely strong views as to if those denials are credible or not is why Arch is in this section of the page and not the normal one.
So, basically my thought was to summarize both sides and touch on their stronger claims, without going into too much detail at any one point. The one point of agreement I've seen between pro and anti arch people is that just watching the man is more than enough evidence for their side, and so that's the tack I'm trying to take here. Battlegrinder (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with that, so long as you remove "since-deleted" since the video in question isn't deleted, it's just unlisted, and he was using racial slurs before that point (since that was when he announced his channel was known for the phrase house-ni**ers). You can add that he's since stopped using racial slurs and that he unlisted videos where he used them later if you like.
Alright, edits made for the most part. Given that I don't recall him using slurs outside the one video and that video is the one that gets the most flak, I feel like mentioning that is sufficient to convey the reason for people's dislike, and I had a hard time figuring out how to phrase the other objection without it coming off as coming as being too hostile or too forgiving. Battlegrinder (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd be happy with that edit, I don't have any problems with it. -- Triacom (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Arch (formerly Arch Warhammer) makes Warhammer 40k and Horus Heresy lore videos, both in general format ("Who are the Mortifactors" "What is a Titan?") and longer, multi-video works ("What was the Badab War?" "What was the The Siege of Vraks?"). Also covers video games, especially Warhammer video games, as well as occasionally dipping into edgelord politics, controversy, and drama. Is generally considered the living avatar of Skub due to multiple controversies not detailed here; if you wish to know more, don't worry, someone will probably tell you.
Basing this on the following other entries. "Makes detailed 40K lore videos narrated from an in-universe point of view as an Imperial scholar. Topics range from histories and tactics of Space Marine Chapters and Titan Legions to individual incidents in Imperial history. Also dabbles in Age of Sigmar lore and actually managed to make it interesting." and "Purely 40K gameplay, specializing mostly in longform and technical batreps. Great for learning how to play a faction in a fun but competitive way." Short. Succinct. Fairly neutral. KiTA (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I put forth a vote for KiTA's version so long as we get him back on the darned page. He's a Warhammer creator that even though he belongs in the skub section, he deserves acknowledgement --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Alternative idea: Instead of "in the skub section" lets just put him in the main section with the skubby box under his name. Anyone feel like making a very-skubby box? Or maybe the flamewar box? KiTA (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I have no fondness for Arch but this description is likely the best way we can go about this. (My only note is as far as I know, he’s done nothing to try any make AoS “better”) You have my vote.GreySeerCriak (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I feel like Battlegrinder's explanation does a better job of explaining the dislike people have towards him, whereas Kita's version seems open to somebody else (either an anon or another troll later on) expanding on it. Kita's version still acts as if the reason people don't like him is because of his political leaning, rather than what he's said and Kita still hasn't shown that, I've never seen anyone say "Fuck Arch, he's a conservative" instead of "Fuck Arch, he's the guy who said X, Y, Z." -- Triacom (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The only way to keep people from either side from trying to "correct" the entry is to make it neutral and milquetoast as possible. Won't stop 100%, but should stop most. A brief mention of his dipping into "edgelord politics, controversy and drama" is all that's really needed as it covers the content he sometimes does that's not appropriate to /tg/.
As mentioned, none of the other entries are huge multi-paragraph biographies of their creators, most are just a sentence or two -- that is to say, who cares exactly why people like or dislike Arch? As a similar (but far less polarizing) example, we don't put reasons exactly why people like watching Kirioth, nor do we have a paragraph on the scandal Kirioth got into based on some joke on Twitter or whatever happened with him a few months back. KiTA (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Again, what he said isn't covered under "edgelord politics, controversy and drama" and what you wrote still paints his political leaning as the main reason people dislike him, which isn't the case. Furthermore what we don't or don't do for other people is irrelevant right now, we can talk about them after we finish talking about Arch and apply the same standards to them. -- Triacom (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No, I don't think we should create a separate standard for Arch and then try and retrofit it to the others. The others do not have bios or even discussion about scandals, so Arch's shouldn't. As for "paints his political leaning as the reason," my intent with the phrase "edgelord politics" is to cover the stupid crap like "house-niggers" or mocking retarded commies via the "real fascism hasn't been tried before" joke in as short and succinct a manner as possible. In the end that crap is effectively 4chan bants. You'd see a whole lot worse on /tg/ threads. KiTA (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
It isn't a separate standard, right now there is no standard at all, so making one now then applying it equally would be fair. You act as if the entries were all added by the same person or there was some sort of template/standard to meet in making the entries, and this is not the case. Also racial slurs aren't "edgelord politics", they're just racial slurs. -- Triacom (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Racial slurs are 100% edgelord bullshit. Can't believe that's even up for debate. We are on a 4chan wiki, yeah? KiTA (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Edgelord? Yes, edgelord politics? No. Edgelord politics right now is crying about how Trump didn't lose the 2020 election and QAnon bullshit, both of which Arch has had no involvement in (to my knowledge anyway). -- Triacom (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
97% of the GOP and 30% of the DNC are edgelords? Ich bin ein edgelord, apparently. I guess what I'm saying is your sensor or scale or what have you might be incorrectly tuned. Some European saying the American gamer words is edgelord bullshit. Him dipping into political content at the same time makes it edgelord politics. Add a comma or a quantifier there if you need to. "An edgelord that dips into politics, controversy and drama." KiTA (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No, the vast majority of people agree Biden won fairly, and QAnons are a fringe group. He didn't dip into political content at the same time as his racial slurs, that was way later so even by your own standards it's not edgelord politics. -- Triacom (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Maybe "Edgelording, fedora-tipping atheism, /pol/itics, controversy, and drama"? It covers all the relevant points, I think. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
It's wordy, but I guess it covers all of those points. Personally I still prefer Battlegrinder's version but I'll settle for this. -- Triacom (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd also prefer my version (for obvious reasons), but KiTA's works as interim measure. If the edit warring stops/dies down, good, problem solved. If not, maybe we swap in my write-up and see if that fixes it. Battlegrinder (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd be more than happy to see a middle ground between the three versions presented. They all have their good points and bad points. Frankly, if we could somehow get it down to 2, maybe 3 sentences it'd be ideal. KiTA (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


What kind of order for items?[edit]

Should we alphabetize the items so people don't add redundant stuff? Saarlacfunkel (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. -- Triacom (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
On second read, I'd make an exception for Official Channels, like Warhammer's. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I've alphabetized the Warhammer section.Saarlacfunkel (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Jesus Omnissiah of Dune[edit]

Set up a discord for this shit people. Thirty seven thousand characters of edit. --Piroko (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The "Skub Containment Zone" Section[edit]

Is it clear enough that these are "Love it or Hate it" types, and that we caution that a new viewer may very well hate them? Because that was the intent of the new write-up.Saarlacfunkel (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems clear enough to me. -- Triacom (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Overly Sarcastic Productions[edit]

Can we get an article on these guys. Probably under history good for general overviews of history but their channel in general is great for TTRPG inspiration.

Go ahead and feel free to add it in anon. Unlike wikipedia, you don't need a mountain of fake credentials in order to edit stuff in. If you feel you can do them justice than go ahead. You probably know

better than us --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

He can't. I just remembered: The page is semi-protected. To the anon above: We need a description in order to add it. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Drachnifel[edit]

Posting to recommend Drachinifel for the history section (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4mftUX7apmV1vsVXZh7RTw) as the boat guy. Potential wording below: "Drachinifel is a British amateur historian Youtuber with a keen interest in naval history focussing on Age of Sail to the end of WW2. Known for his Five Minute Guides (which are almost always over 5 minutes), Sunday Drydocks answering Youtube and Patreon questions which range from one hour to 4 hours(!) and Rum Ration specials on naval topics. Also has an extremely good memory. His most popular videos as of 15 December 2020 are on Operation Rheinubung, USS Texas and the Battle of Samar."

Ps: Also should Military History Visualised be included? From my point of view he has way better content with sourcing than Lindybeige or Shadiversity? --86.21.218.54 02:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

containment zone addition[edit]

We should add The Outer Circle to the skub containment zone. -- ZeonPonyWolf (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised The Outer Circle isn't on the page already, but why in the world would it belong in the containment zone? Did Sigmarxism start a thread complaining about TOC, too? KiTA (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Who or what are they? I'm not a Warhammer fan, so I don't know this "Outer Circle" from Adam; and I only know they are WH related because that's what a quick google search returns to confirm they exist. What makes them so skubby? Saarlacfunkel (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
The only controversy I know of with him is he is very, very, VERY critical of Games Workshop, especially Forge World. And his Discord Moderators apparently got into some slap fight with some other content creator a few months back. KiTA (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Ask Traicom about the Outer Circle. -- ZeonPonyWolf (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Not sure why you're asking me, I think he's a bit naive and has to much of a tendency to take things at face value, but that's pretty much it. If there is some controversy around him then I'm not aware of it. -- Triacom (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Wasn't it on your talk page that you mentioned that either him or Leakycheese lied about ads and how they work or some crap? --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
That's right! I forgot about that, thanks for the reminder. Yeah Outer Circle loads his videos with ads then lies about it afterwards (and I have the receipts for that claim) in his comment sections. That's not a real grave sin though, nothing to be considered skubworthy since I doubt anyone's going to argue for a while over it. -- Triacom (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
TOC is friends with Arch. That alone warrants containment. He also defends recasting, which is against the law. All in all, he's a bad person. Leakycheese is what would happen if TOC had a moral compass. -- ZeonPonyWolf (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
"TOC is friends with Arch. That alone warrants containment." And now you all should see why a containment zone is a bad idea. KiTA (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
He also defends recasting, which is against the law....you don't spend much time on /tg/, do you? --58.162.223.230 11:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

As the originator of the containment zone, and given the above case: DENIED, due to lack of "his content sucks". Spoony and Arch both have direct haters of their videos, TOC just has people who hate him personally, not his content. This page is here to document and recommend, not brigade or politic. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty of people who hate his content. Triacom talked about how TOC constantly jumps on the hate bandwagon. -- ZeonPonyWolf (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Kings and Generals[edit]

First off, sorry I didn't see the page about needing to open a discussion before adding a new link. I figured this guys would be perfect to add on to here.

It's there more to help head off us needing to zap zero effort entries. (Seriously, to people who want to add an entry: There are always people who don't know who you're talking about from Adam. I'm probably one of them. Give us some description.) Since your K&G is not that, it's okay in my books, at least (but others may disagree). Saarlacfunkel (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


Dawnstir?[edit]

Seems alright, all things considered. Little weird, though. --2607:FB90:AE89:7A5A:C4E3:D6D7:E333:E730 18:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Why not? Some on this wiki might prefer him in the Skub Zone, but that's up to you at the moment to decide.

--Bear Eater 20:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)