Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
Ask the Tropers is for:
- General questions about the wiki, how it works, and how to do things.
- Reports of problems with wiki articles, or requests for help with wiki articles.
- Reports of misbehavior or abuse by other tropers.
Ask the Tropers is not for:
- Help identifying a trope. See TropeFinder.
- Help identifying a work. See MediaFinder.
- Asking if a trope example is valid. See the Trope Talk forum.
- Proposing new tropes. See TropeLaunchPad.
- Making bug reports. See QueryBugs.
- Asking for new wiki features. See QueryWishlist.
- Chatting with other tropers. See our forums.
- Reporting problems with advertisements. See this forum topic.
- Reporting issues on the forums. Send a Holler instead.
Ask the Tropers:
openSingle-issue wonk over a character's butt
A rather alarming amount of edits by WateverIdk
are about Nightwing/Dick Grayson's butt or sex scenes. This character is a Mr. Fanservice whose nudity is milked by DC Comics all the time, so it's understandable that he would fit a lot of sex tropes, but the user in question still appears to be way too enthusiastic about this topic. Some of their noticeable additions include:
- Harley Quinn page
: "Of course, many scenes show off his ass in its full glory, like the photo shoot where we get close-ups to it completely bare in some nice poses, or that one time he covered himself with a towel with two giant holes that perfectly framed his buttocks."
- Gotham Knights
:
- "Both gameplay and cutscenes make it almost impossible to avoid noticing Nightwing's rather glorious ass."
- "Similarly to Barbara, it's pretty much unavoidable during his gameplay that you'll be starring at Dick's famous buttocks in Sensual Spandex. Many cutscenes play with the trope as well, an example being when he meets Harley and the perspective changes to give us quite the close-up shot of his ass. It has to be said that the developers have admitted to feel very comfortable with the size of Nightwing's backside, with some skins making his suit more noticeably skintight to showcase it in full glory."
- Mr Fanservice
: "Nightwing (2016) has issue #26, which opens up on Dick taking a shower, and issue #35, which shows him entering a cold bath; both instances going as far as showing his bare buttocks in their full glory."
Wondering how the examples in question should be modified, if necessary.
Edit: Actually, scratch that. Took another look at this troper's edit history and virtually all their edits are about men's butts, either animated or live-action. Looks like some serious one-handed troping...
Edited by TantaMontyopenIP Check Requested
A spin off of this
thread. I'd like for the mods to check into morpmorp's account. Based on details outlined in that other thread, it's suspected that Morp is actually Lily Orchard herself, ban-evading and edit warring to keep her page the way she wants it.
Even if Morp isn't Lily, they're exhibiting serious ownership issues and are attacking other people, having made two other threads specifically to call out editors they were fighting with. They're also insistent on labeling Lily's ex as abusive, when that's a controversial claim and not the neutral stance they claim to be taking.
All in all, something doesn't add up here.
openTroper with ROCEJ / possible agenda-based edits on JK Rowling pages
Troper nargleinfestation (joined in Jan 2023, three pages of edits) has rewritten Creator.JK Rowling's intro today، cutting most of the ROCEJ thread's agreed phrasing re her trans rights stance, as well as the intro's reference to some of the problematic/racist tropes identified in her work.
Previous version, as agreed on the ROCEJ thread:
New version:
The page has a ROCEJ conment, which didn't say tropers must consult the thread, but cautioned against significant unilateral edits.
The Write What You Know example on the page was also amended to remove direct mention of Rowling's views on trans rights.
This intro change has now been reverted and a notifier has been sent.
A couple of hours after the notifier they also added lengthy Common Knowledge examples to YMMV.The Ink Black Heart and YMMV.Troubled Blood which also read a little defensive about Rowling.
The view on the ROCEJ thread was that this should be flagged here, so bringing it to ATT as recommended.
Edited by Mrph1openTroper with nattering issues
This troper
frequently goes into Thread Mode, adding their personal opinions to trope entries, arguing with examples, and calling out other tropers on adding things they find disagreeable (not in the edit reasons, in the examples themselves).
- Asking if
an Ass Pull entry really is an Ass Pull, because "The movie is hardly going to give away the twist".
- Griping about Karen haters and misogynists
.
- One case of them calling out a troper directly
on the work's main page.
- Another case of contesting an example
.
- Natter that causes the example to go against itself
.
Also, most of these insertions of natter aren't capitalized properly. They also added a rather red-flag-raising entry on this page
.
openTroper Report
So we've got a troper on the CM thread who's now hit strike three on a bit of a Single-Issue Wonk. Their name is Cartoon All Stars, and they seem very determined to get some CMs from Kamen Rider Saber. No problem in itself, but their way of going about it is just to keep asking the thread about it, even though they've been told multiple times to stop asking because none of the "regulars" watched it.
First they asked here
on the discussion day, only to be told that neither of the two people that reserved it ended up watching it. Then, they got aggressive about it
(the post was thumped, but it was "calling" the tropers that usually discuss the show to discuss it, even though they both said they didn't watch it). Then, they posted suggestions themselves
, at which point they were advised to check it out themselves - advice that they didn't take, because they just asked about it again
.
For what it's worth, asking the same question multiple times in spite of getting a response is not new behavior for them - they did the same with Aldrich Killian, where they asked about him
, got a response immediately
, then asked again later for no reason
. There's only so many ways we can ask someone to stop or just watch the work themselves before it becomes clear that they're not actually listening to what we say, and I don't really know what else can be done but ask for mod intervention at this point.
resolved Useful Notes - AI Boom? Web Original
Just stumbled across this new page and feel like it could use some discussion. It seems to have been quietly launched a little over a week ago, in more or less its current form.
For one thing, I see a few suspicious signs that the text might be AI-generated itself; notice the em dashes, the lists of three items, "from x to y", the vague adjectives.... plus it's pretty poorly organized.
Be that as it may, it takes a weirdly hyped tone, almost self-congratulatory, and only glancingly touches on some of the huge controversies in the creative world around AI and LLMs. Obviously it's a hot-button topic that evokes strong feelings for many, including being a central point of contention in the most recent WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes... but there I go. Point being, the page as it is seems like one person's opinion that doesn't do a good enough job at taking multiple perspectives into account. It lacks a lot of specifics about the technology and the discussions around it as it exists.
That's assuming we even want/need such a page, honestly I fear Flame Bait in its future.
What do we think should be done with it: Cutlist it, expand it, find some more contributors and entry pimps to balance it out?
Edited by Jeduthunresolved PhoenixRedux
In this review
, Phoenix Redux admitted to deleting their old account and creating a new one specifically to write an overly-long review that breaks the 3000 character limit several times over.
Considering that deleting your old account to make a new one is prohibited without permission from the moderators, and the troper in question deleted their account two years before making a new one, I have to wonder...is this allowed? Especially if they were previously suspended (which I can't investigate myself, as I have no idea what their previous handle was called)?
openStFan and Unilateral Page Changes / Enforcing Preferred Policy
This came out of a recent ATT thread
I made asking to clarify a site policy. I'm pasting and expanding on a comment I made in that thread.
St Fan has a habit of editing pages to standardize the folders + categories which in of itself isn't bad. However, they often enforce a very particular idea of grammar and categorization that isn't necessarily based on any consensus/site policy and they will unilaterally edit the relevant pages where you would check to verify such a policy, later using that unilateral edit to justify making other edits elsewhere. See:
- This query [1]
and this one [2]
where St Fan states a "site policy" that has never existed as a fact to justify their edits
- Or this query
I made after messaging them about another page reordering they did for Mysterious Purple. In our messages, after I questioned the re-ordering, St Fan essentially told me that's how it's done on the index page, ergo that's the default policy and you can see him making the same argument in that thread here [3]
. And I find this suss b/c one glance at the page history for the Manga and anime indices would show St Fan reorganizing it going back to 2014 so of course it would reflect their personal organizing preferences. and in the end, the agreed upon ordering was what was originally there before St. Fan edited the page.
- this query
about St Fan making a unilateral edit to Media Categories. This is relevant because St Fan is "correcting" other pages based on this change they themself made, despite there being no consensus in favor of (or outright against) this change
- And this query
where they ignore the consensus built in the ATT thread to continue unilaterally editing out AC formatting for folders
I'm not sure how much if any of this is actually against site policy, but I wanted to consolidate all of this in one post because I've noticed this particular troper pop up quite a bit recently with similar issues
Edited by amathieu13openQuotes page has real suicide notes on it
So, while doing a Wiki Walk, I stumbled across Quotes.Goodbye Cruel World, and immediately noticed the fact that it has real-life suicide notes on it. And this isn’t just one or two quotes, either, it’s over half the page. While I do understand that other quote pages have real-life quotes, it just feels very uncomfortable reading the suicide note of a real person who killed themself. Should the real-life quotes be removed?
Edited by idonomopen Troper with a pretty blatant agenda
Tropers.generalerror has been making a long list of edits that make it blatantly obvious that he has a political agenda.
- First, there's his edit on Men Act, Women Are (which I edited) which uses the old "women are inherently valuable because they can give birth" nugget.
- His edit on Technical Pacifist, in which he touts libertarianism as fitting the trope, because he claims they don't harm anyone other than in "self-defense".
- His edits to One-Drop Rule and Pass Fail, which are both aimed at Democratic Congresswoman Elizabeth Warren and her recent scandal. (Note that the edit was made two days before the elections.)
- His edit on Just Like Robin Hood in which he changed the statement that Communism "destroys the rich" to "destroys the rich (by killing them)".
- Edit on Slippery Slope Fallacy stating that raising the minimum wage leads to hyperinflation.
- On Hollywood Pudgy, he added an example saying that it was Truth in Television since people with that body type are classified as "overweight". He also removed another example which linked an article stating that people classified as overweight often had lower mortality rate.
I stopped there, but I'm sure there's more. He's been here since at least November 2013, so a massive investigation of his edits might be needed.
Edited by NubianSatyressopenEditing issues and rudeness over PM
Chasekaya03 created a few awful stubpages, such as Ride.Disney Junior Live On Stage, WesternAnimation.Scribbles And Ink, and Series.Little Big Awesome.
However, that's not all.
When I sent them a notifier about Disney Junior Live On Stage, they responded that someone should fix it. When I asked if they could, they told me to "do it myself".
It's cutlisted now, and with their attitude I doubt they're planning on learning proper editing any time soon. They're just here to make bad pages and demand other people do the hard work for them, which I find unacceptable.
openCharacter bashing
Troper youngt806 has many edits around The Walking Dead's Negan and other characters, snipping out any examples that are even remotely sympathetic and adding edits that bash him more. Regardless on how anyone feels about Negan or not, their edits are getting really complainy. This extends to other pages.
This
page has most of them, including edit reasons snarking at other tropers ("how op conveniently left out [...]"), deleting Antagonist in Mourning due to the interpretation(?) that his grief for Carl is selfish, changed Evil Counterpart for comparing Negan to Rick, has "How weird that everyone forgets that" to their edit on A Father to His Men, and finally, their latest edit reason reads "This whole rape apologist bullshit is really gross."
Here
they call Rick's decision to spare Negan "hypocritical", another unnecessary complaint, with the edit reason "dont get mad at me and send me angry messages just because you're ignoring canon evidence and things that have been confirmed by TPTB. maybe you shoukd move your opinions to a forum. don't be mad at me bc you want to ingore facts". Another null edit reason on the page reads "Unless there's a scene that i dont know about where Daryl swung Lucille at Glenn or held a gun to Negan's head and threatened to kill him ulness he killed Glenn, Negan is responsible for Glenn's death regardless of Daryl's actions. Killing Glenn was a complete overreaction to being punched especially because a) negan deserved to be punched [if negan is such a rational person as everyone claims he is he wouldve juat shrugged if off carried on with his business like he should've done] and b) Glenn wasn't the one to punch Negan . Negan made the decision to kill Glenn. The victim blaming in this fandom is unreal."
Here
, they have an edit reason reading "Maggie couldn't have seen the children where out of bed and could see what was going on. Plus, she was way too busy with what she was doing to see them. Maggie didnt stop when Michonne said stop when Michonne saw the children most likely because Maggie assumed that Michonne was (again) trying to stop her from getting justice (which is believable because Michonne did stop her from getting justice for Glenn). I think that it is interesting that you blame Maggie instead of none of the 20+ other people present at the time who could've seen the children more easily than Maggie. If Maggie wanted to let the children see she wouldn't have waited until night to do it. With her discussion with Rick she said "its time to put the children to bed".
Here
they edit an entry with the very snarky edit reason "fixed it for you."
Here
they add in "Don't believe me? Watch the episode" into their edit. They also pull a This Troper complaining about people blaming Darryl.
resolved Troper with persistent complaining problems, possible wonk(s)
Sponge Bat 1 has been, over a long period of time, adding numerous entries to pages that contain complaining, sometimes with rude edit reasons, and also appears to have a weird wonk over Glitch Productions (which they clearly seem to despise) and Helluva Boss (ditto). Some examples:
- Here
they added complaining about Knights of Guinevere, alleging that the show was made out of spite for Disney's mistreatment of The Owl House, along with further complaining about other shows they deemed to have been treated worse by Disney.
- Here
they used a really aggressive edit reason to complain about the Helluva Boss fandom.
- Here
they added a Designated Hero entry for Helluva Boss character Stolas with similar wording to the above edit reason.
- Another rude edit reason
related to Stolas
- Here
they added a complain-y entry (granted, it's Darth, but still) alleging that Windows 11 is incapable of running games that use Unreal Engine 4. A previous ATT I started on the matter
, along with independent research, additionally could not verify the claim.
- Complaining general example
about Windows computers
- This edit
, while not very complain-y in and of itself, continues the Glitch and Helluva wonk by adding a negative Genre Turning Point example alleging both were responsible for indie animation going upmarket and shutting out lower-budget projects.
- This edit
complains about the AI opponents and difficulty in Diddy Kong Racing
- This edit
complains about the underlying message of Steven Universe, with an edit reason enforcing as such
- This edit
baselessly alleges, on the WMG page for The Amazing Digital Circus, that the series was stealth insulting the entire animation industry
And so on. Note that most of these edits were on page 1.
Now, I know Sponge Bat 1 has been an active participant in cleanup threads, and has done some good work. However, I'm concerned about the propensity with which this is happening. I have not sent any complaining notifiers, but I did send a "general example" notifier for the The Alleged Computer example that I never got a response on (along with a PM on the Unreal claims I also got no response on), so I don't think a notifier would be listened to anyway.
Edited by themayorofsimpletonopenPage ownership issues and rudeness Webcomic
PrincessPandaTrope and I are the only two people who frequently edit the page for the Sonic the Hedgehog fan comic Ghosts of the Future. I'm starting to understand why nobody else wants to edit the page. She keeps sending me PMs after I edit, saying that she's "very disappointed with" me for not phrasing things exactly the way she wanted.
One example would be my latest edit, where I removed the word "very" from a lot of edits, since it's a word that usually doesn't do any good. Saying "the house is very big" doesn't actually give you any more exact info about how big the house is than if you just say "The house is big."
She PMed me and said that I should have replaced it with a more descriptive adjective instead, without explaining why she couldn't do that herself.
She also said that I was giving the middle finger to the comic's creator, Evan Stanley, by replacing "very [adjective]" with a plain "[adjective]". She said that I was misleading people about the content of the comic this way—as if I had changed an exact measurement to one less exact or accurate.
And then there's the time when she asked people to cut down the wall of text
in one entry, and then when I did that, she asked me to explain why I deleted things
. I tried to be polite, but I wondered why she even asked for help if she expected people to follow rules she never bothered mentioning.
(Then, in an act of Edit Warring, she put back things I'd taken away.)
It feels like she's decided that my only task is to fix the grammar and spelling mistakes she keeps making again and again. It also feels like she's got this idea of how the page must be written that she assumes everybody else knows and she therefore chooses never to tell people about.
To be frank, she's acting like she's Knuckles the Echidna and the GotF page is a Chaos Emerald. ('Cause she's acting like its guardian, geddit?)
Short version: This troper is rude, keeps edit warring and has page ownership issues, and it's getting very tiring.
Edited by MichaelKatsuroopen Edit war
A pretty angry edit war is happening on the YMMV page for Blue Valentine
This is the original Misaimed Fandom entry:
- Misaimed Fandom: Young, aimless men are more likely to overidentify with Dean and characterize him as a good husband and father who is unfairly treated, instead of a pushy, needy, manipulative an immature, needy drunk who rarely takes Cindy's feelings into consideration.
Aviator Fan added this:
- In much the same vein, young, flighty women are likely to overempathize with Cindy and lionize her struggling working woman traits, instead of clocking her poor model of spousal relations- the effects of which she clearly brings into, not only her relationship with Dean, but presumably her other dalliances, her promiscuity, and her general coldness towards Dean despite his genuine attempts to reach out to her.
With the reason "Elaboration, fullness of analysis, alternate perspective."
H Barnill deleted it without a reason.
Aviator Fan then deleted the original MF entry with "Coolness. Dishonesty in not reflecting the whole truth of the fact that both genders are likely to experience the film differently. Counter to the deletion of the entry of the inverse misaimed fandom"
kyeo re-added the original saying "yeah we don't actually need to both-sides this"
Aviator Fan deleted it again. "Well we actually kind of do need to both sides it. You see the film doesn't present either side as right or wrong. It presents it as two people, because of what they are individually bringing into it that's detrimental to the relationship, are not good together. Despite that they may love each other. I could see if this were a movie in which there was, say, a rape. Where totally. We don't need to really both sides it or even give the man's feelings beforehand because it can be seen as an attempt to justify his actions. It's however pretty strange and, in keeping with the site's general unofficial policy, pretty uncool to suggest that women can't be subject to getting hit with misaimed fandom in this case as well. Ignoring the problems of the Michelle William's character. To that end, if that's what we're going to suggest, it's eminently more appropriate for no one to be accused of being a victim of the misaimed fandom trope. As, again, to suggest that it's only men who are, is clearly a simplified partisan take that doesn't do the even-handed, nuanced film's presentation of itself accurate justice."
kyeo re-added it. "nope."
Aviator Fan deleted it. "Political opinion."
kyeo re-added it. "you're literally only deleting this because your mra screed got deleted."
Aviator Fan re-added his edit to the original. "You're a real piece of work, but considering how accurate, non argumentative, and in the spirit of the site my edit is, we can play these games til the cows come home lol"
kyeo deleted it. "Lol bye"
Re-add. "Taking this Very personally. It's weird. Love it lmao"
Deleted. "imagine hating women this much"
Re-add. "Imagine not knowing how YMM Vs work. Imagine thinking you have some authority. Imagine projecting so much. Amazing."
Deleted. "Lol incels"
resolved Page attracting drama importation
Due to recent allegations of rape against the content creator in question, the YMMV page for animation reviewer Saberspark has been attracting drama importation and edit disputes between multiple users. The edit history
has the details, but here's a quick summary:
- Jibanyan 641 added the following under Harsher in Hindsight:
- The Jayman 49 rewrote it to this:
- Corporal Pig 22 then added "(falsely)" before "accused" in the previous sentence.
- Blue Blazes then removed "(falsely)" and added "(though he denies the allegations), along with the fact Saber has come under scrutiny for his continued association with Black Gryph0n despite Gabriel currently having several allegations of grooming and child predation against him." after "2025".
- Rise from Your Grave then appended "and says in a response video that he is looking into legal avenues to deal with the situation" after "allegations".
Given all the drama, should this page be temporarily locked? Or is there another path that can be taken?
Edited by themayorofsimpletonresolved Report Troper
Okay, I've kept this kinda on the backburner for a while now, but after finally having enough, I'd like to report Psyga 315 for his conduct in the RWBY Discussion Thread.
Basically, he's become infamous there for his flagrantly bad faith conduct. Just about all of his posts do one of a few things:
- Complain about the show's fans with vague accusations of things they "claim"
- Complain about the writing
- Complain about the decisions behind the writing
- Generally take the most cynical interpretation possible (to the point of disregarding the actual show's writing and taking "vindictation" - his terms - when some of his headcanons were suggested to be on the right track)
- Blatantly lying about things to make the characters and writing look worse
- Defending James Ironwood at all costs and making everyone who opposes him into the true villains of the show (again, often to the point of just straight up lying)
- Demanding evidence from other people whenever he gets into debates but then shifting the goalposts when it's provided
- Getting defensive about works that are generally unanimously considered to be Hate Fics
- Deflecting the blame onto other users when called out on his bad faith conduct
Multiple users have either called them out or downright begged him to just stop over the past year or so and he simply never has. Don't believe me? Here's proof:
- 1
- claims that fans like that we were "robbed" of certain moments between characters.
- 2
- complains that the show has too many characters and "fetishizes" the number 4 somehow
- 3
- lies that something was retconned as being magic when the first two paragraphs here
make it clear this isn't true
- 4
- reposts one of the show's creators talking about something in the show not landing and just leaves it at that
- 5
- complains about the way the show introduced other characters besides the four leads
- 6
- somehow thinks it's disturbing that the heroes want to kill the Big Bad (who is effectively the emodiment of destruction who wants to destroy the planet)
- 7
- has an entire rant about one of the fight scenes where he literally posts a video of someone screaming
- 8
- implies that a creator called Volume 9 of the show "filler" when that's not what the creator was saying at all. After several people have to explain what filler is
and all the ways it's not filler
, he moves the goalposts
to keep complaining about it.
- 9
- makes another lie about the writing (specifically how the concept of "Ascension" works) and gets corrected
.
- 10
- lies about the way that discussions on certain characters began, gets corrected
, then doubles down
.
- 11
- goes out of his way to complain about fans supposedly "misattributing" a Kingdom's destruction to a guy who was pretty damn responsible for it.
- 12
- Posts three "unbiased" videos that are just complaining about the way a character was handled.
- 13
- when someone posts a critique about said character, he reflects that critique onto a different character in a completely different situation and again complains about how it was handled
- 14
- he again deflects a point in a sarcastic manner rather than actually address it (as the post below it points out)
- 15
- he complains about a Deus ex Machina which isn't a Deus ex Machina (it was a plot device that had been set up years prior). I finally had enough and asked him to not post in such bad faith
and another user
also called out his bad faith conduct.
- 16
- again complaining about the thought process behind a writing decision
- 17
- taking the most negative possible interpretation of the ending of an arc to turn it completely negative when that's just not true (as the two posts underneath it point out)
- 18
- implying that things will get worse when a certain secret in the show gets out, even though everyone who knows the truth of the situation has no reason to reveal it
.
- 19
- continues to complain about a choice the main characters make when the alternative is letting a continent full of people die
.
- 20
- apparently he even wrote a fanfic that's particularly cynical about the show's circumstances.
- 21
- downplays a major reveal in the show to complain about it
- 22
- again blames the protagonists for opposing a character he likes and accuses them of self-righteousness
- 23
- again misframes a situation to make the protagonists look bad (as detailed two posts below)
- 24
- straight up lies about a character he doesn't like to make her look bad even when it makes no sense
- 25
- refers to a situation as said character trying to "murder" two people when that's simply not what happens
- 26
- when confronted on the lies, he just pivots to something he thinks someone else made up
- 27
- again completely misrepresentating a situation, to the point that he was outright called a troll below
- 28
- he doubles down when called out, leading to several callout posts below
- 29
- cynically stating a simple solution that transparently wouldn't work
- 30
- diminishes an entire volume of a show as "pointless exposition" and complains about a character disappearing from the show after that volume
. At this point people were outright begging him to just stop already
.
- 31
- again shilling a character he likes and complaining about the writing of him
- 32
- calls all of the season finales of the show "rushed"
- 33
- implicitly calls the entire show badly written. Even someone who agrees with him
thinks he "bends over backwards" to hate it all.
- 34
- was extremely vindicated when it was later revealed that the world is indeed worse off than we expected. He's again accused of purely bad takes
and only responds with another jab towards the show
that disregards the hopeful aspects of the revelations. A later post
from someone who tends to agree with Psyga also agreed that he was interpreting it incorrectly.
- 35
- I don't remember what was said here but I do remember that I got thumped for getting sick and tired of it and finally asking why he bothers to post there.
- 36
- claims that a video example of someone complaining about the show contains tropes that can have a video example attached when someone details
why that's not accurate
- 37
- out of complete nowhere, assuming that the ending's going to be bad
- 38
- this one's from me in response to several times that he engaged in bad faith discussion in a row, disregarding opposing opinions because they disagreed with his yet demanding that people supply more evidence for their point of view anyway.
- 39
- claims that a character acts like a "Saturday morning cartoon villain", which is complete nonsense
- 40
- generally accusing "people" (presumably fans) of throwing out accusations of misoginy for disagreeing with them.
- 41
- again makes vague accusations about people calling him a "fascist" for supporting a character and begins the post with an outright lie about what certain people have said in the past (as I point out here
)
- 42
- again accuses a protagonist of being an idiot by misreading the situation. He then proceeds to only focus on one part of the argument
when supposedly refuting it.
- 43
- again accuses "fans" of something vague like lumping in some random Fan Animation with the infamous Hate Fic Fixing RWBY.
- 44
- again accuses the protagonists of messing up the situation even more than the Big Bad
- 45
- again complaining about the writing and the "fans" who supposedly defend it
- 46
- again complaining about the writing
- 47
- again just accusing the show of character bloat.
Like, the people in the thread who like the show are open to criticism, but that's not what Psyga's doing. Even if you only believe half of the things i've linked are valid examples of what I'm trying to say, that's still around 23 times he's complained about damn near everything in the show over the past year. I genuinely don't know why he bothers to keep going back to a thread meant to be about discussing a show people like when he has a well-documented history of hating the show, the writers, the writing process, the protagonists, the setting, and the fans of it. It's all he posts and I and several other users are so beyond tired of it.
I'm damn near begging for mods to do something at this point, please.
openUnsolicited DM regarding Complete Monster
So, I got a DM from someone(Finding Prosperity) I've never spoken to before regarding my activity in the Complete Monster thread.
They noted that I had upvoted Derek Danforth a few months ago, and used that as a segue to request I go out of my way to watch a musical to propose the villain from there on their behalf. They wouldn't even be forthcoming with the work's title or who the villain was, saying I'd need to figure it out for myself.
They have a whooping two edits in their account history and a single forum post from back in April. They provided no adequate reason they couldn't propose the villain themselves, which makes the whole thing even more suspicious. I know there's been past issues with ban evaders/suspendees D Ming users involved in the thread for various reasons, so I thought this merited reporting on the grounds of standing a good chance to be the same situation. At the very, they're trying to use me as a meat puppet
Edited by BozzyopenPossible Fandom Agenda-Based Edits? Live Action TV
I've been monitoring the Supernatural page for a while now to cut down on agenda-based editing in wake of the show's controversial ending. I know enough about it from osmosis to understand what the different fandom camps are, which generally fall into three camps: Destiel fans (Dean/Castiel shippers, the largest group), Wincest fans (Sam/Dean shippers, second most common group), and Bibros (platonic Sam+Dean, the audience to whom the show has officially markets itself, though the show's LGBT Fanbase and Yaoi Fangirls have famously disputed this), and how acrimonious things are that keeping an eye on that page is necessary.
Destiel and Wincest fans notoriously do not get along, and I've had to clean up vandalism related to that war in the past. Bibros, though they officially prefer the brothers' relationship platonic, often take the side of Wincest fans against Destiel fans because they share more in common. Bibros are characterized as not liking non-Sam or Dean characters in general, but their dislike for Castiel is less because of Die for Our Ship and more because they consider him a Spotlight-Stealing Squad who took attention away from Sam and made the show more about an expanded cast. Many saw this as a good thing (Castiel was meant to appear in only a few episodes, but the very positive reception from audiences and critics led to him becoming an Ascended Extra and eventually a Breakout Character, especially since the earlier seasons developed a Broken Base where one half of fans believed that the show's exclusive focus on the brothers resulted in a great deal of They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character or Plot), but Bibros see him as the harbinger of They Changed It, Now It Sucks!.
Many of Lapistier's
edits on the Supernatural YMMV page and others are fine enough and stay nonpartisan, but other times it comes off as a Bibro Righting Great Wrongs or stealth complaining about fans who feel differently. I am not the only one who feels this way, am I?

~stemy is a troper who joined around May this year, and in the TRS just posted an improperly-formatted thread
for All Gays Are Pedophiles whose entire point of concern is not just something that can be sorted out in a Trope Description repair thread, but is also pretty eyebrow-raising, because it takes umbrage with the "Nowadays this is a Discredited Trope" part:
Out of curiosity, I went to check on their edit history, and while there's a decent amount of impartial, non-problematic edits, there were a few that definitely blinked as being a bit agenda-y:
Normally I'd just brush these off as incidental, but their TRS thread really propped up a red flag in them trying to push "people don't care about LGBTQ people anymore, conservatives are still queerphobic; I fixed your description". Did they ever receive notifiers of their previous and now-removed political edits? I feel like they should be aware at this point that regardless of where they put it, moralizing of this sort is discouraged and should be discussed beforehand.
Edited by number9robotic