Thread:ThePK/@comment-33437842-20150618145609/@comment-24347009-20150620142529

As someone who's seen both sides of the story, I can sympathize with both David (Not David Brown) and Ian/Coolio (IAmNothing/Coolio15). On a personal level, I am quite friendly with David, and I think he's a cool guy. I don't think his behavior (pre-sockpuppetry) warranted a ban, because while he might have posted annoying content, he was quick to apologize and try and change his ways.

However, he wasn't banned because of his "immature" behavior. If you'll notice, he was only banned after he clearly broke a site rule by multiaccounting. Do I believe that the sockpuppetry was done with malice intent? No, I believe him when he says he wanted to escape the yucky stuff associated with his name. But that's still a clear violation of wikia rules.

Emotions ran high on both sides, and you can see by the thread David linked to that I was upset at Ian/Coolio for their behavior. It was a heated personality conflict. However, the behavior itself wasn't on any level abuse; I was simply upset with it because I didn't think David would be able to handle himself in that environment, and, as I mentioned, I'm quite fond of David. But there's a difference between not being able to handle something, and being abused. David couldn't handle the environment of the survivor wiki, but he wasn't abused. I have always been in favor of making David's ban non-permanent as I didn't think the sockpuppetry was with malice intent, but the ban itself and the behavior surrounding it was never abusive. A personality conflict is not abusive, and it doesn't warrant punishment on Ian.