However, there are many users on our forum who have a near-singular interest in a specific verse, or a small grouping of verses. This isn't to say that these users never post in other CRTs or involve themselves in other discussions, but the amount at which they do so is extremely small. I have personally seen several such users become almost completely inactive when receiving topic bans. I have a reputation for being heavily involved in DC, so I know all of the users who are involved in those discussions. Many of them exclusively discuss DC on this forum, with few to no posts in any other verse. Many of them are completely inactive until a significant DC discussion comes up. If such users received a DC topic ban, it is a guarantee that they would just stop posting until it was over. If we froze DC for a year, they would either leave the wiki or wait it out.
For these users with a hyperfixation on Tokyo Revengers, while they may indeed migrate to an extent to other verses and discussions and be similarly unreasonable/obstinate, they will lack the passion and connection they have with the characters, they won't be as informed about the verse or its state on the wiki. Most importantly, unless they rally up their friends to all focus on the same verse again, they will be on their own.
I would argue these circumstances with DC are not so translatable to Tokyo Revengers. DC is one of the largest, most noteworthy verses on the site, and the label of DC encapsulates so many distinct stories and fictions within itself that two people involved with DC can (hypothetically) never touch any part of DC that another DC user does, let alone expand to other verses. There is always something new with DC, always something worth learning or discussing, and few members are involved in the totality of it. Comparatively, Tokyo Revengers is a relatively small, self-contained verse where all avenues for discussion converge in a tight loop. Members exclusively being on the wiki for their DC interests is plausible, and I'd even say potentially common, but I can't say the same for Tokyo Revengers.
In fact, our discussion already has established that to be true. You've pointed out how many people who discuss DC on the forum have no posts in other verse - this can't be said at all for the recent members involved with TR, who have already consistently engaged with other verses whenever there wasn't something to discuss with TR. I don't believe the anecdotes you've provided regarding DC users holds up to this situation as TR users, not least because the analogy itself suggests they don't engage with the wiki in the same way. Even if you are correct that the particular users you have in mind would stop interacting with the wiki if DC was frozen, my problem is that doesn't mean the TR supporters would do the same, and I believe we've already seen firsthand why they wouldn't.
The issue we have with Tokyo Revengers is that there appears to be almost a cadre of unreasonable users who almost exclusively focus on it, and by their own admissions (though this may simply have been an attempt to deflect sockpuppet accusations) they are literally in a Discord server where they talk about TR, and have recruited new users to the wiki for the explicit purpose of discussing TR. We know these users are wise to our methods of detection, we've seen them use VPNs (MysticCarnage was initially cleared of suspicion of being Vapourrrr due to a VPN, but later forgot to use it and was caught), we've seen them make sockpuppet Discord accounts to accompany their profiles here, we've seen them recruit additional people to pretend to be their sockpuppets on voice calls, et cetera. We will catch them eventually, but for any 3-6 month period they will likely cause headaches unabated until the similarities between them and the original banned user becomes too great to ignore.
This, I think, further strengthens the reason for considering First Witch's approach. All three approaches that have been suggested (deleting, freezing, and gatekeeping, to give them simple terms to reiterate) could hypothetically solve this problem here. Now, I don't know whether this Discord server exists, whether it's really used for 'recruiting' people to make accounts on here, whether they facilitate sockpuppets, or whatever else - all I'll say, and all I think is important and relevant here, is that new people are joining the wiki who want to engage with TR and end up causing problems. All three approaches solve
this problem by preventing these people from engaging with TR, and there are two clear benefits I can see to gatekeeping over deleting and freezing.
1: The verse can continue to be indexed and improved upon. While I can't say I have any personal stake in it, the fact of the matter remains that Tokyo Revengers is a fairly noteworthy verse - to not have TR profiles, or to not have
good TR profiles, is a poor state for an indexing wiki like ours. Deleting means not having TR profiles, and freezing means not having
good TR profiles. Gatekeeping produces the same benefit of preventing new people from joining the site and causing problems in TR threads, while simultaneously allowing the verse to continue being indexed and improved upon. I believe, in the long term, this will produce the best possible state for the verse and its discussions.
2: While this is theoretical, there is a case to be made that gatekeeping would show less of a displacement effect than the alternatives. There is a good chance that many of these users will continue using the wiki even if it is deleted or frozen, and of the ones that do, they have no incentive to address their poor conduct. They can continue to act as they have, potentially get banned for it, make a sockpuppet, and repeat the cycle. But if the verse merely has a gateway requirement, one in which users are granted access to the verse they want to discuss if they can show good conduct over an extended period of time, that creates a positive reinforcement mechanism for good conduct. I won't go full Pavlov and regale this discussion with research into behavioural training techniques, but I will say this - positive reinforcement as a means of behaviour change
does work. Long-term positive behaviour change can occur when people know that extended periods of good conduct will be rewarded. And if nothing else, it is a more plausible avenue for better quality discussions (both across the wiki and for TR itself) than the alternatives.
I really don't believe the other options hold up to gatekeeping the verse if we're looking to address the elephant in the room without tarnishing the walls. It's simply a solution that keeps the quality of the wiki and its discussions as high as possible - an uncontroversial end to achieve.
