RfC: (Policy) Using bad practices from one article to justify another and possible sock puppetry; and (Politics) Acceptability of aggregated data in "Election Results" section 

Policy
While not getting into the issue of reverting edits without first reaching out to the original editor to understand their motivation (in this case, the deletion of a table),  justifies the reversion of my deletion by pointing to other articles with the same flawed table...which he created!

Examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Papineau_%28electoral_district%29&diff;=prev&oldid;=654041277 - the above article
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ottawa_South&diff;=prev&oldid;=593333525 - Ottawa South
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edmonton_Strathcona&diff;=636097681&oldid;=622403799 - Edmonton Strathcona

While we're on this topic, I found an identical table with identical formatting and citation in Toronto Centre...but added by !

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toronto_Centre&oldid;=670004225

This strikes me as possible sock puppetry.  I'm hoping a more sophisticated WP editor can either confirm or deny my hypothesis.

Earl Andrew already admitted to working as a polling firm employee in Ottawa. It seems likely the same user is responsible not only for adding the content cited, but actually generating it in meatspace.  This in itself wouldn't make the content non-NPOV, though one has to wonder why Earl Andrew guards Canadian electoral district pages so jealously (including the "Political Geography" sections which he invented, the topic of our last edit war).  Articles about Canadian electoral districts are not Earl Andrew's soapbox and should not be treated as such.

Further, in the edit history of every single article mentioned above (only a handful, but statistically, that makes the following more damning), Earl Andrew and Fungus Guy are responsible for the lion's share of edits. While I understand that topics as specialized as Canadian politics may have only a handful of active editors, this appears to be a suspicious pattern and should be treated with all due seriousness.

Politics
's "Redistributed results" tables and the identical table added by , are composed of data aggregated from Elections Canada results.  I take no issue with the data, but being aggregated, they are no longer results.  As such, they should at least be moved into a more relevant section with an explanation, if not removed altogether.  Putting the table in the "Election results" section implies they are Elections Canada tallies, quite possibly having the effect of misinforming voters.  And we're right in the middle of an election campaign!

Unsorted
I could have done a lot more editing in the past 4+ years, but instead shied away from larger and more time-consuming edits and rewrites because I felt the end result might be another "100,000 Edit Man" coming out of the woodwork to stifle me.  When more voluminous editors are allowed to browbeat others into submission because they generate a lot of "content" or have a page full of barnstars, it necessarily degrades the quality of WP by reducing the number of editors.  It's hard enough to fight the paid corporate trolls on here, dammit!

Please advise.