Normally I don't override another admin's decision, especially if a user has been blocked on another wiki. In this case, a one-year block may be too harsh, for two reasons:
It was a first-time offence on this wiki.
On the other wiki, there doesn't seem to have been any kind of warning given that creating pages again that had been deleted wasn't allowed and there are no policies stating this. So the block was set without a recorded justification.
This user has been repeatedly warned to stop adding false information to articles, such as this one. They keep saying that Mr. Tweedy became good at the end which is blatant rubbish. He never became good. He became neutral. Since we have no way of knowing whether he ever "did" become good, we can't add that to the page. I tried to explain this to that user but they were unable to heed what I said, as they have continued to add that information, even after I told them it was wrong.
I was hoping you'd block this user since they've been continually making nonconstructive edits on this wiki and on other wikis, inserting fanon content, false information, and speculation, despite countless warnings, not to mention they've been blocked several times in the past for the same behaviour. They also have a sock-puppet account which they've been using as a backup account, in-case their first account gets blocked for a long period of time.
Can anonymous editing please be disabled on this wiki? It's hard trying to keep the nonconstructive edits under control otherwise. Without anonymous editing, there will be less nonconstructive edits to undo, as well as less nonconstructive users to report, as well as less nonconstructive users to block. It's pretty clear that anonymous editing has become a problem on this wiki.
This user is continually adding unsourced inspiration to pages and is repeatedly removing the instructions that tell people not to add unsourced inspiration to pages. They have been warned multiple times to change their behaviour and they're showing no signs of improvement.
Thanks. Because they've been warned that they aren't allowed to add unsourced inspiration to articles, and they're even actively trying to remove the notices from the pages that tell users not to add unsourced inspiration to articles, as if they're actively trying to change the guidelines for their own benefit.