hoshisabi -- I've noticed that at several points in this discussion you've asked philosophical questions about the list. I didn't create the list and I don't know the criteria that were used, but I think there is a coherent philosophical justification for the decisions that explains some of the edge cases like Tenkar.
Start with the strategy of tit-for-tat tolerance: "I will tolerate those of differing opinion provided they tolerate me." You could also consider this the "non-aggression principle of free speech". Tit-for-tat is a widely studied strategy within game theory because it has been proven to be the most successful strategy for Repeated Iteration Prisoner's Dilemmas. It means you start off cooperating, but stop cooperating with people who defect.
Tit-for-tat tolerance is not explicitly partisan. It's just a game theoretic strategy. It is not per se a Left-Wing or Right-Wing principle. Historically, there have been many Right-Wing groups that did not deploy tit-for-tat tolerance. For instance, in the middle ages, a witch tolerated Christians, but Christians did not tolerate witches. And historically for much of the Enlightenment, the champions of tit-for-tat tolerance were Left-wing.
That is no longer the case. Today, contemporary Left-Wing "woke" culture is descended from the New Left of the 1960s, which in turn is descended from the theories espoused by intellectuals such as Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse's essay "Repressive Tolerance" is the theoretical underpinning of deplatforming and cancel culture. "Repressive Tolerance" argues that:
1. Tolerance is only to be extended to truth.
2. Leftism is objectively true, and anything other than leftism is not.
3. Therefore tolerance is only to be extended to leftism.
4. Anyone who disagrees with this has been indoctrinated. To the extent that the majority of people disagree, that means the majority of people are indoctrinated.
5. Since most people are indoctrinated, leftists must break the indoctrination so that they can grasp the truth of leftism.
6. To break the indoctrination, leftists must promote left-wing thought and suppress right-wing thought.
7. Promoting left-wing thought is accomplished by changing “established universes of meaning” and actively presenting “information slanted in the opposite direction,” e.g. by political correctness and propaganda.
8. Suppressing right-wing thought is accomplished by withdrawing the freedom of speech, press, and assembly for anyone who disagrees with leftists on race, gender, religion, armament, public services, social security, or healthcare, e.g. deplatforming us entirely.
Anyone who agrees with Marcuse -- and that is almost everyone who participates in cancel culture -- disagrees with tit-for-tat tolerance. They believe in repressive tolerance, not tit-for-tat tolerance. Tit-for-tat tolerance says "do you tolerate those who have tolerated you? if so I will tolerate you." Repressive tolerance says "do you agree with me? if so I will tolerate you."
Let us now apply the above the list...
Anyone who agrees with Marcuse, and puts his practices into place, goes on the Red list.
Anyone who agrees with Marcuse in principal, but hasn't yet put his practices into place in their RPG business, goes on the Yellow list. Maybe they just aren't committed to repressive intolerance, maybe they don't want to hurt their pocket book, who knows. Since most people are not educated enough to be self-aware of the sources of their own ideology, most people aren't tagging #Marcuse in their posts. So we have to abductively infer their beliefs from other signs, such as partisan affiliations, signals of support for cancel culture, and so on. There is room for error here.
Anyone who agrees with the axiom of tit-for-tat tolerance goes into the Green group. But within the Green group, there are two factions:
"Light Green" believes in the axiom of tit-for-tat tolerance but it is still tolerating those who don't tolerate it.
"Dark Green" believes in the axiom of tit-for-tat tolerance and is no longer tolerating those who don't tolerate it.
This is an important distinction. The strategy of tit-for-tat tolerance is not pacifism; it's not "turning the other cheek." It simply means not being the first to initiate aggression, deplatforming, defection, etc. "do you tolerate those who have tolerated you? If so I will tolerate you. But if not, I WON'T."
So, to say "Right Wing Person X tried to get Person Y deplatformed" does not mean that Person X shouldn't be Green. It depends on whether or not Person Y had previously been tolerant of the tolerant, or Person Y was intolerant of the tolerant. This explains why someone like Tenkar might be situated as Green even though he has been intolerant, IF the people to whom he has been intolerant were those who already had been intolerant to him. E.g. He did not initiate the intolerance, he did so in tit-for-tat.