There are other edits I would consider POV pushing, but here's the thing: that is NOT an excuse to institute an indefinite block. That's a reason
to
teach the user about our policies and try to get them working as a productive editor.
Except that the username makes it perfectly plain that this is a reincarnation.
Then it should be blocked as a username block, and appropriate messages sent, no?
That the blocking admin did nothing to inform the user of the fact that it was a username block the first time, makes it problematic, no?
I leave it to the admins active on that particular
article to identify who is the puppet master here, but it is more than plausible that this is a lock-evading sock of an unrepentant POV pusher.
Plausible? Perhaps. But we Assume Good Faith here, not act trigger-happy on anything we can come up with that we call "plausible."
I recently had a very calm and civil discussion with an
editor who got blocked in similar way, I asked his patience while we ran CheckUser and thanked him for it when I had enough evidence to unblock.
Nobody was civil to this user, and nobody asked his patience or anything; they just went gung-ho attacking.
The blocking admin was content to admit the mistake.
A rarity, but good to hear.
It's nice to assume good faith, but sometimes when yet another "brand new
user" pops up it can be asking a bit much.
It's policy.
Sure, we make mistakes,
but by far the most common mistake is extending too much benefit of the doubt to people who are simply not here to help build a neutral encyclopaedia.
I disagree. I think the most common mistake is the refusal to extend good faith and the refusal to be civil in all instances. Parker