However, resubmission would PROBABLY have your submission going through the same editor that delisted you, since editing is category based.
This logic is flawed, for several reasons.
First, even though editing is category-based, in practice the vast majority of all editing is done by editors who AREN'T listed on the category (they have higher-level category permissions).
Second, since the vast majority of all editing is done by very-active editors, single editing activities are unlikely to make a significant impact on one's memory. "I saw this site before, and I punched it out then because I fancied a dislike for someone I've never seen in my life" ... is just not a plausible theory of motivation.
But ... the new review would be made by some editor (a different editor, or the same editor with no specific memories) who's editing by the same guidelines. If the site was properly removed according to the guidelines, the next editor, whoever it is, will probably not add it back.
If the editor removing the site didn't give a plausible reason, or gave a reason that doesn't seem appropriate at the current time, then the "new" reviewer would be more likely to review "from the start" -- but it STILL could be rejected, if the reviewer found no valid reason to list it.
But, however the probabilities work out: fact is, without additional information the probabilities are that ANY site WON'T be listed. And yet, millions of sites ARE listed--despite the probability.
What matters more than probability is reality. How does a site stand out from all the non-unique-information plagiaries in its subject area?
