Is it just me, or is there something about Wikis in general where folks are reluctant to give anyone a perm ban for stuff that would instantly get them canned on nearly any other social media or internet message board?
I've noticed the same theme on RationalWiki, even smurf accounts created for the sole purpose of trolling almost always just get week long bans there; and to a lesser extent Wikipedia used to be like that, though lately I see them being a lot less tolerant, and just instabanning obvious trolls and vandals instead of giving them 3-4 "warnings" before hitting the banhammer.
I'll be blunt, wikis tend to attract three types of people: genuine fans of something who want to compile lore/knowledge of it in one place and realize crowdsourcing their efforts is a good idea, academics, or people with issues who find it an outlet to pour their issues into.
I say this because I'm a little of all three.
I run a TV Tropes alternative for people who want to crowdsource media and writing tropes knowledge but don't want to do it the way TVT does. I'm a bit of a scholar (though I have no formal degrees as one, though it's well known others that do love wikis for organizing what they know) and scholarly types find wikis ideal for collating data, and I'm an autistic and I admit I find editing wikis a healthy way to pass some of my time.
The problem is that these communities have created a trap for themselves in the process.
People who want to crowdsource data occasionally have to put up with volatile types, especially if those are considered their best contributors. Sounds crazy, but now you know why Ryulong is tolerated on wikis despite being a known drama magnet, he's just that willing to help the meta-goal of the wiki and some are willing to endure his more drama laden moments to make use of that.
Academics have their eccentrics like any other community, sometimes they too can be borderline pants on head insane, but from antiquity on, these guys have also proven really, really smart, and some places are willing to put up with them if they consider what they have to offer intellectually that valuable.
And people with issues like autism are drawn to these places for reasons I won't belabor, they should be manifest, but I will add, as boring as it might seem to normal people, many people who have some form of mental or emotional disturbance find peace and relaxation in getting their thoughts out, and wikis allow them to do so in a way they can share that with the world in an easily editable and accessible form, because, consciously or unconsciously, autistics crave social interaction, but since they fare poorly in many standard areas of human activity (depending on the severity of the autism they have), wikis allow them to type words behind an alias (though some will use their real names due to lack of filter or discretion) on whatever they want to show the world without having to show their face and at a remove from direct contact that allows them to avoid a total breakdown that IRL interaction would offer some of them, and some can overcome their issues and be useful, mature editors who understand there are some social norms they must adapt to, though this is sadly not as much the rule as it would be ideal in some wiki communities.
Keep in mind this is my take on things, I do not speak for everyone, and all the groups I mentioned have many reasonably well adjusted types who are wiki members, but as I've come to discover, all three groups have an innate sympathy for their less well adjusted members, and so are willing to tolerate an amazing amount of messed up interaction so long as the possibility of worthwhile edits comes out of it.
Of course, the problem with this is when the less well adjusted types of any of these three or all in combination become the majority on a wiki project, then that's how you get a wiki that is destined for nothing but drama instead of constructive effort.