` :::::::Maybe there's a way to put this better, but the fourth edit in a 4RR is not the same as the first; it's recognizable as a fourth revert banned by policy.  Now ``civil POV pushing`` is another matter - I've seen this vaguely defined, mostly in terms of admins saying what they can't do about it.  When civil POV pushing is done by reverting and Wikilawyering, the edits are not good edits.  You have edit after edit in which the ``pusher`` is saying ``this violates policy X``, and it's a line of bull, so X changes every time.  But other people will try to claim it's ``civil POV pushing`` if, say, you edit Wikipedia to add a mention of a news story every time a Republican gets indicted for something.  I find that to be improper - it's unreasonable to expect an editor to be neutral overall in his editing style.   `