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:
openCowboy Bebop At His Computer
Chris DV seems to be misunderstanding the trope Cowboy BeBop at His Computer as he's claiming that because Sophia Bush thought a plotline that was filmed but not used made it into the final version of a One Tree Hill episode that it qualifies for this trope. I explained that this trope is meant for examples of people outside a fictional work itself getting details wrong about it, not actors slightly misremembering things about it(and he claimed it was "misinformation" when it wasn't) I didn't see any examples like his on the trope page itself under Live-Action TV or anywhere else so I removed the bit on the OTH YMMV page about Sophia but kept in the bit about the show's fan-wiki being inaccurate(as i'm unsure if fan-wikis being inaccurate would be an example of this trope or not, that seems like more of a grey area but I left it in just in case).
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Trivia.OneTreeHill&page=8
openDisagreement about the Awesome/BobChipman page, don't want to risk an Edit War Web Original
Not too long ago, a troper called 309216364 (is that the ID of an already-banned troper or something?) deleted the single biggest entry on this page, about Bob's massive "Really That Bad" video series on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, which I will post here:
- During Part 1 of his Really That Bad analysis of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Bob makes a comparison between the narrative structures of The Avengers (2012) and Batman V. Superman stripped of all but their most basic elements that underlines one of the main reasons the former succeeded where the latter failed: Avengers is straightforward, easy to understand and can be enjoyed without prior knowledge of the source comics or the preceding films because it doesn't lean on them to work as a narrative with its single Sequel Hook a post-credits shot of the Greater-Scope Villain, while BvS is a disjointed, convoluted mess that doesn't follow an understandable through-line narrative, paradoxically wants to differentiate itself from the source comics yet relies heavily on them for most of its emotional weight to carry and desperately tries to set up future films through gratuitous in-universe viewings of preview trailers. And he does all of this while giving every person or object with enough plot relevance a funny nickname, with plenty of Actor Allusions and character comparisons to go around.
- The entirety of his "Batman V. Superman" Really That Bad analysis. Chipman delivers his critique in a mature respectful tone, without insulting the filmmakers personally, and goes into detail acknowledging and addressing common arguments in defense of the film.
- Two of the best things he does is to effectively and succinctly fix the movie's greatest problems.
- The first being the 'Diana/Wonder Woman watching the teaser trailer for the Justice League scene', wherein Bob proposes letting Batman, the normal human who is discovering a lot of this new information for the first time, and whose perspective the audience has been following the entire movie, be the one to discover the existence of more metahumans. This not only gives the scene greater suspense and dramatic weight and a greater impetus for Batman to fight a perceived threat like Superman, it also gives a fantastic reason why Diana never showed up for a hundred years and was breaking into Lex Luthor's drives: She was helping cover up the existence of metahumans (and her secretive race) from people like Luthor.
- The second is the entire 'conflict' of the movie being forced and contrived and way too repetitive by the time the two people in the 'V' actually get down to versus-ing each other. Bob fixes the movie without any drastic overhaul or extensive retooling with two simple words: No Batman. The plot remains the same, with all the conspiratorial machinations and the populace distrusting Superman kept intact, but transfer all of Batman's actions and motivations to Luthor, thereby making Luthor a sympathetic, justified, heroic counterpoint to the detached, reluctant, destructive Superman, which would have greater thematic resonance and streamline the plot. For an added bonus, Bob suggests keeping Ben Affleck, with all his likability and charisma and on-the-ground heroism, as Luthor, which would provide even greater metanarrative implications and make the plot more compelling.
- To make what can only be described as a near definitive 3-part, four hour critique about Dawn of Justice, all the while maintaining his normal work responsibilities, is a feat of dedication that can only really be described as impressive.
As well as forgetting to delete the next paragraph that followed on from that (an observation about Bob possibly doing a "Really That Good" series on The Lord of the Rings) and leaving it orphaned, his reason for deleting the entire segment basically came down to "I don't think it's awesome and I don't like Bob". His cited reason from the History page:
Apart from the fact that this reason for removing the entry is entirely subjective (I thought "Really That Bad" was awesome, and I'm not even the one who wrote the original entry), it's also blatantly incorrect- there are several segments in Bob's series where he goes out of his way to be fair to the film and admit the things it did well and the ways it could have worked (even though it didn't), so the troper's claim that "he is entirely biased against the film in all aspects" suggests he edited it solely because of He Panned It Now He Sucks.
I could have just restored the edit myself, but I'm quite certain the guy will just delete it again, triggering an edit war situation. And since the last time I got close to an edit war I nearly got myself permanently banned, I'm not even going to get close to the possibility of it happening again. So I'm hoping there's some way to get a 3rd party judgement on this?
Edited by ArcaneAzmadiopenQuestionable edit. Live Action TV
These two entries were recently posted on YMMV.Young Sheldon by user "marshenwhale".
1) Under Unintentionally Sympathetic:
- Sheldon throughout the entire show could be considered this, since he clearly is on the spectrum but the show never directly acknowledges this or delves into it, all of the times where he acts stuck up or talks down to his family for his intelligence, they treat him like a kid who is just being bratty, but since he is neurodivergent, it means his parents never handle his behavior correctly. This is probably at it's worst in "An Entrepreneurialist and a Swat on the Bottom" where Sheldon is portrayed as being completely in the wrong for calling Meemaw selfish and trying to run away to see a lecture when nobody will take him, but the fact is that Sheldon literally does not understand why what he is doing is wrong considering he doesn't read social cues properly, and is shown to not understand when he is hurting people's feelings because from his perspective, he's just stating facts. So Meemaw spanking him and him later getting grounded makes all of the adults in his life look like morons since they have clearly seen by this point that Sheldon doesn't think in a typical way and just choose to ignore it.
2)Under Unintentionally Unsympathetic:
- Going off the point above in Unintentionally Sympathetic, basically the entire family in most of their conflicts with Sheldon since they all fail to recognize that he isn't neurotypical. This doesn't apply to Georgie since he rarely fights with Sheldon, but it does make George, Mary, and Meemaw all look really dumb. You could argue that this is a result of Mary being very religious and therefore not being very educated on what the spectrum is, but considering the show takes place over multiple years you'd think at some point one of the adults in Sheldon's life would wonder if it applied to him. Worst of all, this even makes Missy look really bad, because as a child growing up in the 80s and 90s, she most definitely would have learned what someone being neurodivergent was at some point but never even brings it up, which causes all of her dislike towards Sheldon to make her look like a total jerk instead of just a child lashing out at being the The Un-Favourite, which is clearly what the writers were going for.
I have some issues with this. For one, while hinted at in both The Big Bang Theory and Young Sheldon, Sheldon has never been confirmed to be neurodivergent, not even by Word of God, who blatantly refuse to answer definitively. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to say he is, but there's no official confirmation.
Also, the post reads like the poster has a bit of a bias. Neurodivergent or not, some of the shit Sheldon pulls is uncalled for and would reasonably make most people angry. When I watched "An Entrepreneurialist and a Swat on the Bottom", I was under the impression that Sheldon knew what he was doing was wrong but did it anyway because his needs are more important to him than everyone else and he acts like that quite often in both shows.
Should this stay or not? Or should it be re-written? I'll let the tropers decide since this is YMMV and I am not the biggest Sheldon Cooper fan so I'm likely biased in My own way.
openNoYay for YMMV page for Sailor Moon Crystal
This entry is currently on Sailor Moon Crystal. I'm looking to fellow fans familiar with the manga and Crystal specifically for assistance with this, as the 90s anime is not pertinent. Detailed explanation forthcoming for people who aren't.
- No Yay: Unless you have an incest fetish, Chibi-Usa's crush on her father's younger self is creepy, especially after gaining an adult body, brainwashing him, and kissing him.
Well, yes. I agree that Black Lady (Chibi-Usa's transformed older self) is meant to be creepy. Chibi-Usa, however, has been misblamed as an incestuous creepy young girl in the fandom for years.
She's a Daddy's Girl with an emotionally distant mother - she loves him as a father and reveres her as an idol. Her attachment to Mamoru is simultaneously her wanting the paternal love that she suddenly is deprived of, being so far from home, and a precocious crush of the Father, I Want to Marry My Brother flavor. (She also perceives Usagi, Sailor Moon, and her mother Neo-Queen Serenity as being separate people, even though they're just the past/superhero/future self of the same person - it stands to reason that she similarly separates "Mamoru" and "Papa".)
What Wiseman did was meant to be creepy - it's a non-verbal attack on Usagi that the people she loves could be transformed against their will, their bodies twisted, their mind manipulated so they would do things that they would never, ever, in a million years even think about. Chibi-Usa was so hurt and lonely she clung to everyone who offered her kindness, and Wiseman offered her her greatest wishes: grow up, be a lady, have the kind of unconditional love and utter devotion that her father has shown her mother all their lives. Blaming her is blaming the victim.
That's a lot of text just to get to this point: How would you fix this entry? Is merely cutting the part about the fetish enough? I think it should still stay because it has a narrative point, not just there to gross out the audience (or titillate them).
Edited by annieholmesopenWeird Edit Removal Reason Western Animation
On YMMV.Dexters Laboratory Walt K removed this entry
- Self-Fanservice:
- Dexter and Mandark get a lot of this in fanart.
- Dee Dee gets her fair share of this, especially when most artists think she'll take after her mom. It doesn't help that Dexter once described Dee Dee as "her hips a bit meaty".
they removed it
with the edit reason "inappropriate" (presumably meaning "sexualizing characters from a children’s series is inappropriate")
Whether you agree with them or not, YMMV is just troping Audience Reactions, and we’ve had other Self-Fanservice entries from kids shows. Even if it is "inappropriate" we’re just troping what fans believe. Is this ok, or should I add it back?
openAbout the Elden Ring cut content
I've noticed that the Elden Ring pages make liberal use of the cut content that was data mined from the game files, there's even a section on the character page dedicated to the cut characters.
This makes some sense, as some of them help to understand the characters and mysteries of the game, and there is the possibility that they were cut out to save them for later content, such as St. Trina's questline. However, other information seems to contradict what is known, such as a cut dialogue in which Morgott refers to himself as Elden Lord, something that is impossible.
Furthermore, this information is presented as factually correct, although we do not know if this is the case. Bernahl's maiden is mentioned in his folder but is never mentioned in the base game and was apparently cut very early in development, as she was only mentioned in the Japanese version. It's commonly agreed that it was the merchants who summoned the Frenzied Flame in retaliation for being persecuted by the Golden Order, but this is only known thanks to Kalé's questline, which was cut and is not mentioned anywhere else in the game, in fact, Shabriri's Woe suggests that it was Shabriri himself who summoned the Frenzied Flame.
My point with this is not to argue whether everything I mentioned is true or not, what I want to discuss is whether it is right to use content that the creator has decided not to include in the final product and present it as valid, even if we don't know if it is still canon.
I think we should treat all information that is not in the final game as non-canon until the creator releases more content.
Edited by SoyValdo7openI think this removed example is valid
Saving Bikini Bottom: The Sandy Cheeks Movie
- Special Effect Failure: In Sue Nahmee's flashback of her as a child, they have the child's actresses' face covered by her adult actress and key frame it. It looks noticeably choppy and doesn't match the movement of the original actress. It doesn't help that The George Lopez Show did the same thing and made it look better despite a 20-year gap in editing technology.
I don't think this was an intentionally bad special effect. They do the exact same messy keyframing with her adult self's head over the robot body in the climax. I have heard a lot of debate over whether the flashback's effects were supposed to be a joke, but given the movie's low budget and Direct-to-Video nature, I think the effect was actually intended to look good.
openI have to bring up M84
He's a good guy and probably means well, but he sees so many bad things on my posts and so he's despective of me and and my posts.
Normally I would just keep the peace, but today after he said I was importing drama after making an innocent comment about how I disagreed with a NOT NAMED faction of people and not in a bashy or complainy way and I knew I couldnt defend myself lest I be thumped so I dropped it, but then I remembered I made a thread in another place and his first post in it is to bash it "Because its bragging" and I again played nice.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=ka1p4935g3od982kf54ktkwk&page=4379
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=17276648190A73099300&page=1#7
The threads in question.
openYMMV misuse
- Designated Hero: While Mace Windu isn't without his heroic moments, he has also proven himself to be a bit callous and thoughtless of the feelings of others. In Attack of the Clones, he beheads Jango Fett instead of disarming him and his face afterwards seem to suggest he doesn't care that Jango was a person (though in his defense, he was defending himself), and in The Clone Wars he doesn't apologize or try to explain himself to Boba Fett (and by that point, he knew that Boba saw him behead Jango), instead basically telling him to get over it. Later on in the series, when dealing with Ahsoka, as he ultimately concedes to Tarkin's demands to excommunicate her and then when she proven innocent, rationalizes the whole ordeal as a great trial by the Force that was meant to happen to make her a great Jedi (which, while possible, feels as though he is trying to deflect blame). Lastly, in Revenge of the Sith (despite having treated him cordially through The Clone Wars) he is distrusting and rude to Anakin, giving him orders to spy on Palpatine, someone Anakin viewed as a close friend and mentor for many years, while at the same time openly talking down to Anakin in front of the council and telling Obi-Wan and Yoda that he doesn't trust him behind Anikin's back. For an altruist keeper of the peace, Mace's conduct towards others can feel bit unbecoming at times, making him feel more like a prick who barely cares for others unless if it benefits his cause.
YMMV cannot be downplayed or played with so misuse.
I deleted the original version as someone else removed it
from DesignatedHero.Live Action Films arguing the work treated it as Necessarily Evil rather than ignore the unheroic parts. Should it be removed?
openThis "Does This Remind You of A" Entry in Smiling Friends Western Animation
So, there is an entry in the President Jimble section of the Smiling Friends: Clients that goes like this:
- Does This Remind You of Anything?: He pretty much combines the worst qualities and accusations of presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden.
- Like Trump, Jimble is a Fat Slob in an ill-fitting suit with ego-centered problems and selfish motivations, abused the "presidential alert" system, endorses a widely-condemned foreign dictator and is widely condemned by the international community and local media.
- Like Joe Biden, Jimble is a former Vice President coasting on his predecessor's goodwill, constantly making verbal gaffes during speeches, undermined by his health issues, under fire for supporting a foreign leader who's widely condemned by the international community while, at the other end, receiving extreme support from local media.
Should this be on the page since it sounds a little too political for the general characters' page (granted, the episode that features President Jimble is political, but the episode never made this distinction).
openVandalism/gushing
Borught up here
, but I saw some bits that I'm certain are gushing on top of natter, and had to double-check if the troper's edits were natter on other pages too (the troper self-admitted in the edit reason, and they appear to be new, only having five edits).
On Characters.Sonic Boom Antagonists, in this edit
for Shadow the Hedgehog:
- Adaptational Jerkass: Shadow was never a saint, but he wasn't malicious and had several close friends. His original version was a Consummate Professional whose rivalry with Sonic was built around either seeing Sonic as a Worthy Opponent or an obstacle in the way. This version of Shadow is an arrogant (yet awesome) bastard who mocks Sonic for relying on his friends and wants nothing to do with them in the games. In the TV show, he's also a case of Vile Villain, Saccharine Show, being a villain that even intimidates Eggman, and knocks everyone else out of the way so he can fight Sonic one-on-one, and even then his motivations can be seen as petty.
- One-Man Army: He absolutely destroys Team Sonic like the scrubs they are, all by himself, just like the badass he is.
And these edits in Characters.Dragon Ball Z Abridged Movies for Broly here
- Hulk Speak: Just like the Trope Namer, he speaks like this after his homicidal personality surfaces.
Broly: Excuse Broly? (Rebel's Version: "Excuse me?")
- Mythology Gag: When Broly attempts to describe himself.
Broly: Monster? Broly's not a monster. Broly is a... huh...\ (Rebel's Version: Monster, you say?! I'm not a monster! I am... hmm...)Gohan: A genuine demon? note What Broly refers to himself as in the AB Groupe "Big Green" dub
—>Goku: A true freak? note What Broly refers to himself as in the Funimation dub
—>Broly: The Devil. note How Broly refers to himself in the original Japanese version and the Speedy dub
—>Vegeta: OH MY GOD, HE'S SO GODDAMN COOL! - Pre-Mortem One-Liner: Arguably, it's ambiguous whether he knew it would kill him or he simply didn't know his own strength. However, what is the last thing he says to his dad before crushing his pod (and him)? "HUG!" (Rebel's Version: "DEATH WAITS FOR NO ONE!")
- Pokémon Speak: As LSSJ, he devolves into Hulk Speak and then into saying only "Kakarot!" And also "hug"...while crushing his dad to death. Rebel's Version defies this with a huge passion.
- His general impatience even in casual conversation, especially in his Legendary form, also mirrors that of the aforementioned fans when they kept asking for Broly's movie to get the Abridged treatment.
Broly: BROLY DOES NOT LIKE TO WAIT! (Rebel's Version: "TIME'S UP, MOTHERFUCKER!")- Played straight after becoming the Legendary Super Saiyan: his interest in Trunks has increased to the point he thinks Trunks is his property.
Vegeta: You've been ignoring someone this entire time.
Broly: Broly's wife?\ (Rebel's Version Are you referring...to Trunks?
Trunks: Well, technically, I was the one who killed Freeza.
Broly: That's hot.
This is all grounds for vandalism and I can remove without issue, correct? I should also send both a natter and gushing notifiers too?
openDetermining whether certain content is "official" enough to trope
I'm looking to have a conversation on whether certain content can be official enough to be included as part of a work's (character) page, and kinda found myself stumped on finding a specific forum threat to ask this in due to the specific nature of the work in question, so I'm just gonna try here and see if anyone can help me out.
Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition has 12 character classes that developers Wizards of the Coast consider "official" canonnote Artificer was a late addition which was not in the game's SRD, but that's an issue for another time, and those classes are documented appropriately on Dungeons & Dragons Classes: Fifth Edition Classes. However, I'm wondering if there's enough room to document the additional "unofficial, yet WotC-endorsed" classes of Blood Hunter and Illrigger, both of which are technically homebrew content created by third-party developers, but are available as selectable character options on D&D Beyond, what has become WotC's official toolset/digital platform for maintaining games of D&D.
Something that may give this precedent is that back in Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition (especially 3.5E), there used to be PrestigeClasses — extra character classes beyond the central "core" lineup exclusive to certain sourcebooks. Due to not being core classes, they aren't referenced as part of the game's official, vanilla lineup and "canon" means of play, but they were options that WotC considered official enough to publish, and they're evidently enough to warrant a character page specifically to document them. Blood Hunter and Illrigger fall into a similar grey area for 5E, but I'd like a second, well-informed opinion of anyone who can piece together whether this makes sense, and whether or not we can trope those content as part of Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition (with an understanding that it is only kinda-sorta-official).
Edited by number9roboticopenAmerican / British Spelling
If a user creates a work page and uses British conventions (dd-mm-yyyy date format and British spellings) on a first come, first served basis (as noted here
), why some users try to fix it to American conventions (mm-dd-yyyy and American spellings)?
The date format topic itself was already mentioned here in this thread: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16448794840A29114500&page=1
openreport this user
I know I have probably talked about this before, but I want to report this user, Camilla, for the very nasty and unflattering things she's writing about the Pokemon Journeys character, Goh. You might know her as the author of Infinity Train Blossoming Trail.
She originally wrote the fic as a way to vent frustration at Chloe Cerise not getting enough focus in the series, and due to her belief that she and Goh aren't friends despite evidence in the show that they are. It wasn't a problem then at first, but now it's been almost six years since Journeys began and over a year and a half since it ended. And it's gotten to the point where she's now just using TV Tropes as an excuse to bash the character for how he was written.
TL;DR. My point is, this has been going for a while (too long) and several other users, including myself, have tried asking Camilla to either stop or at least try to tone things down, but she does not listen. I understand this is often a tricky subject, and that when it comes to fanfiction writing, everybody is entitled to their own option. However, there is a fine line between expressing one's opinion of a fictional character, and just needlessly punishing them for something that isn't even their fault.
openSelf-Demonstrating page interaction entry removed without reason
About a couple days ago, WELLBEBACK7653 removed
this interaction entry from Self-Demonstrating.Alastor without citing an edit reason.
- SOMEBODY GET THIS DERANGED EMBODIMENT OF LUST AWAY FROM ME BECAUSE I CAN'T EVEN MAKE THE MOVE TO TEAR HER TO PIECEEEEES!!!!! note Angel: Let me think... no. Actually, you two should kiss. Alastor: ANGELLLLLL!!!
Personally, I see nothing wrong with this entry, so could it be added back without problem?
I've already notified WELLBEBACK about this query.
openCreator's Pet misuse/complaining? Print Comic
I was looking at the CreatorsPet.Marvel Universe page, and I noticed a lengthy entry regarding multiple characters from Avengers Arena and Avengers Undercover — namely the Braddock Academy kids (mostly Apex and Anachronism), Cammi, and Arcade. Judging by a previous example removal on the page, I'm not sure if the examples qualify for the trope, and indeed at least some of it seems like complaining; on the other hand, bias on my part (let's just say I loathed Arena and Undercover in part because of some of the reasons listed in the example) is making me second-guess removing it. So I figured it'd probably better if I got a more neutral party to clarify whether or not it qualifies as misuse/complaining, because I don't think I can trust myself to make that decision.
openProblem troper
Urania 1204 re-added ZC Es without actually adding context to the entry itself on at least two separate occasions (here)
and here
. They've also misused tropes
, and added aversions as an example here
. I've sent notifiers and reverted edits where someone else hasn't already done so, but given that and their prior conduct (including in a previous ATT query thread
), what should be done next?
openLarge removal of 'Unintentionally Sympathetic/Unsympathetic from YMMV/ShatteredSkiesTheMorningLights
Flare up from a bit ago that seems like a problematic edit.
By user Rbookchild
, it basically nuked the unintentionally sympathetic and unsympathetic sections because they disagreed with them. Which I am certainly aware does happen, but its also 'Your Mileage May Vary' and I've seen sentiments of that nature shared about the fic both in how many people edited or added to those sections here or commented elsewhere on the matter, so there are people with this opinion out there. Seems like a pretty clear case, and honestly I wouldn't hesitate to put it back myself and send a PM to Rbook on the matter, and I did send a PM a month ago that never got responded to, but I had previously edited the section twice. I neither created it or was the last one to edit it, and one of the edits was a general clean-up on the page that was previously unalphabetized, but I don't know if that would count as an edit war or not due to those edits, hence bringing it up here to avoid any issues.
openAudience Alienating Premise Literature cleanup
Under Audience-Alienating Premise, I noticed much under the Literature folder lacks the required objective proof of audiences alienation. It's going to be a big enough removal I'm getting feedback here first.
Literature can self publish and doesn't have the sales criteria that are normal proof of audience alienation. So I ask if it is possible to judge if literature applies?
Many of them use as proof they haven't been adapted, that seems like tedious proof (many even well received work don't get adapted), does that count?

On March 3rd, {{Tropers/2HeadedMoonOctopus}} added an entry for the game Jujutsu Kaisen: Cursed Clash to Video Game Generations: Seventh Onwards, and since then, particularly earlier today, has been serial tweaking the entry to add more and more negativity to it. Given the Horrible namespace, this by itself isn't overly unusual, but I recognized the name, because in December, the same user made a handful of edits to VideoGame.Star Wars Jar Jars Journey Adventure Book which were also negative in nature, including creating a YMMV page that is almost nothing but negativity.
This could just be me overreacting, but if this is a pattern, it might be worth addressing before it goes any further. From a cursory glance at their recent edit history, they seem to have spread some negativity regarding Cursed Clash to some other JJK related pages, and I also found a handful of negative edits to other controversial works like YMMV.Lady Ballers and YMMV.Willys Chocolate Experience.
Edited by JankyKong