User talk:Dirceu Mag

July 2023

Hello. I have temporarily blocked you from editing 2023 Ecuadorian general election due to relentless edit warring and disruptive editing. Your latest edit was a blind revert of constructive edits. I also note you are blocked on Spanish Wikipedia. If you have any issues, you are welcome to raise them on the article talk page. Number 57 16:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I have been unblocked on the English Ediction but not in thr Spanish Language Ediction.

Dirceu Mag and , also ,my I.P.adress have been banned bu Librarisn zTuy under thr request of David C. S.

He reinserted his fraudulent "Data Encuesta" dated of 7 July on the English version and mantain it , also , in the Spanish Page of Electoral Pools of the Ecuadorian 2023 Presidencial Elections [Ellecciones Presidenciales ]. Dirceu Mag (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I have been unblocked on the English Language Wiki but not on the Spanish Language one.

Dirceu Mag and, also , my I. P. address , have been banned by Librarian Ruy ,under the request of David C. S.

He reinserted his fraudulent "Data Encuesta " dated July 7 , on the English Version and maintain it present , also , on the Spanish page of Electoral Pools of the 2023 Ecuatorian Presidencial Election.

Can you help unblocked my I.P.adress and username from there too?

Thanks for your attention,

Dirceu Mag Dirceu Mag (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing the 2023 Ecuadorian general election article for one week following edit warring and disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Number 57 16:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ad Orientem (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Dear Ad Orientem  :

Please read my Talk Page Section. This is the first time I edict Wiki and I don't have much experience.

A wiki pseudoedictor called David C. S., is, actually , vandalising the Pools Section of Ecuador General Elections 2023 [ also the Spanish Language version : Ellecciones Presidenciales de Ecuador 2023 ,Encuestas / 1ª Vuelta].

I explained everything on two long and detailed postings on my Talk Section.

Each of my editions have been justified and explained , including my last two ones for each I have been banned for edicting forever.

Just screen dawn the Notes Section of of the Revisions Section.

It's all detailed.

David C. S. never give any explanations about your own edictions and suceed in banning me from Wiki Spanish, before that... Your last posting is, absolutely,outrageous: apart from the mixing up of the columns order and many others misedictings ,he blatantly posted the same "Pool" Data Encuesta.dated 22 of June quotting another different date.7 of July with all data altered and absurdelly falsified!

He called it "Stable Version" meaning that this aberration will not be deleted this time , as I have been silencied.

Just see the Reference quoted for each pool from "Data Encuesta" in the respectve Section of this Wiki Page.

He have been deleting my edictions,that are very accurately done and researched ,several times a day.

I opened another Wiki Account as a last resort to eliminate all this nonsense and restaure my work.

I can't understand how he could get away with all that,

I was trying the correct , being very specific , pointing up the wrongs and justify my edicts and was the one to be banned!

Please reinstate my Account and edicting rights to my name Dirceu Mag and I.P.,to both Wiki English and Spanish Edictions, after checking everything that happened , on historical sequence.

Thanks for your attention,

Dirceu Mag. Dirceu Mag (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I have had a look at this in a bit more detail now, and to be fair, Dirceu Mag has a point; David C. S. was indeed inserting apparently false information (adding polling data that the reference did not support) and removing valid data (which was referenced). I would be very interested to hear their take on this... Number 57 09:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Number 57 Given the circumstances, and that this is a newer user, I am going to cut some slack here regards the socking and block evasion. @Dirceu Mag you have been unblocked. Please be careful about edit warring and do not create multiple accounts without a good reason. Best regards...-Ad Orientem (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Dear @Number 51 & Ad Orientem:

Thanks for your work in the page , I think you and syaz451 ,that coloured blue a square that I left blank, was the only positive edicting : for the past few days I was alone fighting David C. S. After banning me from Wiki Spanish , he barricated hinself on there , and attacked non-stop my editing in the moust unfathomable and insane way , accusing me of doing something that he was ,actually,on my view, doing : Editorial Vandalism.

You know the way to fit the Percentage points in two squares , that's what I was trying to do , good that you are beguinning to have a closer look at thinks, the legend's say ' The Devil is in the Details', isn't true?

You can scrow dawn the Page History from the Spanish and the English Ediction on Ecuador 2023 Elections and my explanations on the talk page in English, to get a good introduction to the subject [in the Spanish Language my writings have been somewhat deleted ].

The last Ediction of my page is the correct one , you made two alterations, the first in the Percentage of votes in the most recent Comunicaliza Pool and the second the elimination of the aberrant "Data Encuesta" introduced by David C. S. ,[this was the third time that he has done it, I deleted it twice before you].

Many thinks have yet to be resolved and restaured :

• The first "Data Encuesta" Pool is, obviously, false, this suposed Poolster is a scam , by sure , it is proved and , I supose , with the aims to promote the Yaku and ,in particular,Topic, that badly needs some help , a recue from oblivion ,a boost!

This was the first Pool to be published, on 22 June , 12 days after the Proclamation of Luisa González as Oficial Candidate of 'Revolución Ciudadana'.

The history is mentioned in the Chapter ' Political Career' of the Wiki page 'Luisa González'.

There is a over 3 hours long, live video on You Tube of the R. C. General Assembly , dated 20 June that, actually, choised her , with Andrés Arauz , the former Presidencial Candidade of 2021. First, the Assembly choised Jorge Glass, former Vice-President of zEcuador, but he, immediately, resigned the nomination, because he has Judicial problems and he thought it was too risky , his postulation could be invalidated by the Electoral Autority [CNE].

Nobody knew, by sure, who would be choised the Presidencial Candidade :Rafael Correa even published a live inquest in his Twitter Account, on the same day, asking the public to give their opinion, if Jorge Glass could or not be a good choise.

In despite of all this , the first "Data Encuesta", published in the Pools Section of 2023 Ecuador General Elections, according to the quotation on the Reference Section [⁴³], actually, the Facebook's page of "Diario Opinión", on 22 June / 23:59. the reserch for the Pool was made between 5 and 9 June 2023 , therefore, impossible to have been, in fact, realised!

The "Data Encuesta " Poolter proved to be, absolutely, unreliable and , accordingly, I deleted both writing a explanatory notification, but David C. S., soon, reinserted then.

To prevent being banned , I left then as they were and tried to make others corrections, positioning the colunms in order of decrecent Percentage points for each candidate [bigger > minor] according to the most recent pool , as described on the top,first horizontal column.

This technich made easy for readers to see how the proportion of votes between candidates evolved on time and, besides that, distinguish the discrepancies of "Data Encuesta " [and,also, 'Mecanalises' Poolster] on relation with the Oficial ,Registered in the CNE/Ecuador, most reliable Poolsters, were Topic had just about 2% of preference, in opposition to the 14-16% bestowed by these aforementioned dubious reserchers.

Technically, at least the first "Data Encuesta" suposed pool, definitivelly , should not be there : your credibility is , literally, one day 'below' zero.

The second "pool" , of "Data Encuesta" was dated from a period when the candidates had already been oficialised, but, due to the precedent unreability, your credibility equals zero...

I tried , also , convey the full period if research for each pool , so would be much easier for the public evaluate this uncongruency and the precision and reliability of each Pollster.

Of cource David C S. aways deleted then all , positioning only the last declared day or the day after the last day, in one case.

He also mixed up my ordenament of columns , trying to place Yaku in second, Topic in the third column [and once, briefly, in the second one] and leaving then there, perpetually, regardless of the new percentages from the most recent Pools.

The clearest order of pools in the vertical column as have been demonstrated by my several edictions,is : first column, the candidate with the biggest pool rate , second column the second candidate in Pool percentage ⅞rate according to the most recent pool and so on , dawn to the eighth last one.

The visual. the lay out is is not a triviality , is essential to the onlookers to perceive and make sense of how the Electoral Campaign evolves.

Davud C. S. ,also, choised to place the 8% petcentage point of Yaku in 'bold' tipo [in opposition to my choise of 'grand' tipo] to give the impression that he is in second place and make it easier, to serve as a pretest to locate him in the second colunm.

In the 'Negocios & Estrategias' Pool, Otto Sonnenholzner has 8/11 and Yaku Pérez has 8/10, they are not on a tie, and only the 7% that belong to Otto, should be in 'bold' tipo.

The "Negocios & Estrategias" pool was made using advanced technical methodology: first. they asked peoble in which candidates they would vote and some choised one of the 8 candidates, others, were, also, decided about what to do: they were firm belivers in the power of Null votes, others, in the Blank ones and many, said they were undecided if they would vote in someone or not, or if they would vote black or Null.

The Blank+Null+Undecided total found was 36%.

There is great discrepancies between the number of B+N+U of the Negocios & Estrategias Pool with the ones individually found in another Oficial, Registered Research, the Comunicaliza one ,that has the same margin of error, [1,7%] and number of peoble that participated .

Nevertheless, added all together, the pertencentage of electors N+ B+U were, exactly, the same in both Researches: 36.6% (!) : that shows that they are very accurately done.

The second formulation, called 'Induction to Vote', used by Negocios & Estrategias, consisted on asking the same peoble, after the precedent loose questioning : " It's fine to vote in someone or not, but the ballot is in front you, cast your vote, now!"

21% voted Null or Blank [in total,B+N], 41% in Luisa González and 38% in the others 7 candidates altogether.

This is a very different methodology than the one used by Omar Maluc, the most recent pool, that, extrangely and ilogically, aggregated the Null votes to the

the numbers of undecided electors, in a single statistical percentage of 9,77% and isolated the Blank votes, 5,93%.

He didn't specify the number of undecided votes and null votes, he mixed then up as if they had the same quality and isolated and specified the number of Blank voters as if they were not, both, simply, invalid votes, not active in the Final Account of the Electoral Autority that, actually, elegies the candidates.

The undecided electors will vote... they are not in the same level or, of the a quality similar to peoble that are decided to vote Null.

I make it clear all this in my last post [the one that banned me for 'make Edictions with the aim to deceive'] that its important to make distinctionsn: to place the percentage 9,77% in the column of 'Undecided' and leave the column of Blank votes empty, is misedicting, it is not in accordance with the original statements of the published Omar Maluc Pool.

As usual, David C. S. delated my [ Null+Und= 9,77%,] and restaured the former inaccuracies.

I quoted, also, the full Research period that is very long in relation of the others Poolsters: 20 June to 8 July, 18 days!

This pool,obviously, doesn't have the same technical quality of the Comunicaliza and Negocios & Estrategias researchers.

In Negocios & Estrategias second, definitive pool, after applying the 'Induction to Vote', the number of Undecided Electors was eliminated, just like in the real counting of the Electoral Autority ,CNE/ Ecuador.

The Pollster, nevertheless, failed to inform the public which candidate winned the Election : after all , Null & Blank votes doesn't elect or un-elect no one!

They are both invalid , they don't belong to the Final Oficial Count.

I made the exact calculation but I could not publish it , in Wikipedia is necessary to make quotations for everythink said, l can't quote myself ,isn't?

The exact numbers are as follows: Luisa 51.89% , Otto 13.92% , Yaku 12.64% . Villa 8.86% , Topić 5.06% , Hervas 3.79% , Noboa 3.79% , Bolivar 0% [ Blank + Null = 21% (discounted , Undecided = 0 % ].

The calculation of Valid, votes was made in a rounded up form by the Pools Information Company America Elects [ the total minus 21% ] :

Luisa González has 52% and the other 7 [altogether] have 48%.

Luisa is 38% apart frthe second candidate , Otto Sonnenholzner and 39% from the placed third, Yaku Pérez.

To win in the First Round the candidate needs 59%+1 vote or 40%+1 vote and a 10% gap apart of the second in place , calculated from the total of Valid Votes cast [Null and Blank votes are discounted].

38% apart from the second candidate , Otto Sonnenholzner and 39% gap from Yaku Pérez. The editor.... changed my Reference , deleted my ' America Ekects' , followed by my Reference YouTube video from the program _Hablando Corto with Nelson Salazar, were the original table of America Elects [ published in Facebook] is shown with explanation and comments.The distracted editor, after deleting mybostvutvin place ,again , Negocios £ Estrategias', and ,again, the same Reference , double dosis!This was unadvertised mis-ediction: Negocios & Estrategias didn't published the calculation of valid votes. [abtracted the 21%].It was America Elects that made the calculation and published it , based in the Negocios & Estrategias data , as a logicsl complement. correct it and then I was banned , but ,nevertheless , the change made was a minor mistake, because the America Elects Calculationwas based on data published by Negocios & Estrategias,anyway.Shortly after and there comes David C. S. to delete everything as he pleases , as usual , without being questioned. The column of valid votes was erased , nobody cares,the columns were permutated , etc...

The only note that David C. S

wrote was a criticism, he is complaining that I make interpretations while he just informs.

He is never specific about what he thinks he is doing right and what mistakes I have done that he's so motiveted to correct ... the whole situation appears very surreal!

Interpretations can be very subjective, but concerning hard data, down to numbes, the term used is 'evaluations', not 'interpretations'...

We can have correct evaluations if we have access to the right numbers and could became dumb and very confused if we are force-fed the wrong numbers.

Every thing on earth can be explained by arithmetic, I mean , the four operations.

The mathematician Pitagoras said : 'All is Number'.

We can and do make many subjective bad judgements about everything, but reduce it all in numbers, rational terms , and we can be absolutely sure about everything, there'll be no place for arguments.

You have got my numbers , what about David C.S. ones?

He published, again and again, until saying: ...and now ,my edition is 'stable'!(sic)

He published a supposed "Data Encuesta" , or a scam within another scam, dated 7 July 2023, pretending it was a distinct Pool ending on that day.

In fact, the Reference note he gives, conduct us to the same Pool published just below, on the table , dated 20-22, from Data Encuesta.

David C.S. is quoting a Facebook page of 'Lo del Momento Loja LDM published on 6 July 22:41, in which is mentioned only the percentages of Luisa [28.1%], Yaku [16.6%] and Topic [14.8%], without giving the date of the Research.

This page. by itself, is a redirected quote information from another Facebook page called 'Tino Electoral' that gives the complete "Pool" data that is the same of what is stated on "Data Encuesta": Made on 20-24 June, 4.200 participants, error margin of 3.4%, Luisa 28.1%, Yaku 16.6%, Otto 9.6%, Villa 9.3%, Hervas 7.3%, Topic 14.8%, Noboa 5.2%, Undecided 9.1%.

In the supposed "Pool" dated 7 July, David C. S. did the following uncongruencies, retailored and misquoted the data of the aforementioned, originaly stated, "Pool":

• From 4.200 participants to 6.800 participants.
• Margin of error:mantained , for both : 3.4%.
• Luisa González from 28.1% to 28.5%
• Yaku from 16.6% to 15.3%.
• Topic from 14.8% to 13.6%.
• Villa fom 9.3% to 8.30%.
• Noboa from 5.2% to 5.1%.
• Otto from 9.6% to 9.5%.
• Hervas from 7.3% to 6.2%.
• Bolivar 0% on both [maintained]
• Undecideded from 9.1% to 13.5%.

David C S. have been quite honorable concerning the candidate Bolivar Amijos and , of course , he was very accurate about the margin of error of margins of errors :3.4%!

The pattern of change is clear : he wants to give the impression that it is a distinct Pool and the biggest of all, to reinforce the 'Mercanalises' and the two others "Data Encuesta" .

He introduces subjective, subliminar interpretations ,highlighting Yaku and Topic and in so doing, gaslighting Wiki readers and everybody else concerned.

I have already expressed in the Talk Section of 'Ellecciones Presidenciales de Ecuador 2023', before being banned and all explanations deleted, that even the smallest detail, like the 'bold' tipo on the Yaku 8% up to more phisically obvious, but subtle in meaning, for example, the order of columns, were actually explained as a attempt to situate Yaku & Topic in a Winner's Podium beside Luisa, just one step up the ladder from Crowning!

Luisa is higher, but, nevertheless, she would have a long way to go and they, both, are stronger than her...it follows the logic of dreams, but dreams may come true.

This is the reason David C. S. don't talk about numbers, he is never specific and don't like 'interpretations' ...of dreams!

As written, there is no offence ,by itself, in having 2 Wiki accounts, provided that they are notvused to evade fair blockages put in place to protect pages from vandalism.

No one should, intentionally, spread false information, force- fed people with lies as have been done, all along, such a Great Crook and my intention have been ,all the way, to prevent it from happening and protect Wiki readers ,myself included and prospective electors from having their minds vandalised!

On my stading point, the best way forward is to create a Round Table of Concerned Librarians to take full charge of the future Edictions to this troubled Pools Section of the 2023 Banana Republic Presidential Election!

Dirceu Mag

. Dirceu Mag (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

CORRECTION! :

On my previous explanatory letter of 23:11,14 July 2023 (UCT) I have committed a mistake!

I have written the following statements :

[*Refering and commenting about the Negocios & Estrategias Pool]:

...

" The Blank + Null + Undecided Votes total found was 36%.

There is great discrepancies between the number of B+N+U of Negocios y Estrategias Pool with the one found im another Oficial, Registered Pool, the Comunicaliza one , that has the same margin of error [1.7%] and the number of people that participated.

Nevertheless,added all together,the pertencentage of electors N+B+U were , exactly, the same on both Researches: 36.6%(!) . That shows that they were very accurately done."

The CORRECT data is as follows:

• In the Negocios & Estrategias Pool the total number of Blank (B] + Null [N] + Undecided electors [U] is 38%.
• The total number of B + N + U in the first Registered Oficial Pool , the 'Comunicaliza Pool' of 16-18 June is the same of the total number of B + N + B of the second Oficialy Registered Pool , the 'Estrategas Infinity', dated 18-20 June = 31.6% !
• The total number of B + N found on the 'Estrategias Infinity' Pool [19.8,%] is compatible with the total number of B + N [21%] , found under the Reserch Formulation 'Induction to Vote' on the Negocios & Estrategias Pool.

Note that I'm not a English or Spanish native speaker...!

Thanks for your attention to this matter,

Dirceu Mag Dirceu Mag (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

CORRECTION 2!

On the Explanatory letter published today, 09:19 / 15 July 2023 (UTC) was made the following mistaken statement:

" In the Negocios & Estrategias Pool the total number of Blank [B] + Null [N] + Undecided electors [U] is 38% ".

The CORRECT DATA is as follows:

Blank and Null Votes: 6% , Undecided Electors: 38%.

The total number of B + N + U = 44%

NOTES:

• Under the formulation 'Induction to Vote' , eliminated the Undecided electors , the number of Null+ Blank votes grew up from 6% to 21% a percentage compatible with the N + B total found on the Estrategas Infinity Pool [19.8%],as said.

Thanks for your attention,

Dirceu Mag Dirceu Mag (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Just a piece of advice. No-one is going to read such long complaints as you have written above. You need to be able to summarise any issue you have succinctly. For example, the first two comments you left on my talk page are fine. The third is too long.

Regarding the "blind revert" comment, in this edit you removed valid content removed by other editors, presumably because you were trying to restore a previous version of the opinion polls (not "pools") table. Blindly reverting refers to making reverts where you remove other edits than the ones you were focussing on. Cheers, Number 57 04:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not going to read what you just put on my talk page. If you cannot summarise what you want to say in 150 words or less, please do not post on my talkpage. And again, it is "polls" not "pools". If you continue to write vast amounts of text and use incorrect spellings, you are not going to be taken seriously. Number 57 10:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome Dirceu Mag!

Hello Dirceu Mag. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Ad Orientem, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:   Introduction to Wikipedia   The five pillars of Wikipedia   Editing tutorial   How to edit a page   Simplified Manual of Style   The basics of Wikicode   How to develop an article   How to create an article   Help pages   What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:   Do be bold   Do assume good faith   Do be civil   Do keep cool!   Do maintain a neutral point of view   Don't spam   Don't infringe copyright   Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest   Don't commit vandalism   Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:   Ask a question

or you can:   Get help at the Teahouse

or even:   Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{Help me}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:   Fight vandalism   Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome   Help contribute to articles   Perform maintenance tasks

Become a member of a project that interests you   Help design new templates   Subscribe and contribute to The Signpost   Translate articles from Wikipedias in other languages

To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

Please remember to:

• Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
• Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
  

The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!

• Español
• Deutsch
• Français
• Italiano
• עברית
• Русский
• 日本語
• Polski
• فارسی

Sincerely, Ad Orientem (talk) (Leave me a message) 14:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Ad Orientem (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Lourdes 20:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• [1][2][3] are not allowed here. Your blocks will only continue to increase if you continue this mode of communication. Lourdes 20:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Dear Librarian Lourdes:

  This a unfortunate misunderstanding.

  I never had intention to perform any personal attacks, I just tried to be impersonal, objective and acurate in my editing praticies.

  I, aways, fully justify each one of my edictions, in the space provided on the Page History. Please read the 11 Edit Notes I wrote July,18 , in sequence, from 8:18 up to 14:46.

  David C. S. said he was eliminating vandalism and called me a SPA, that I was inserting false data, without justifying and never being specific. I have PROVEN that it was him that was, actually, force-feeding blatantly fraudulent data on the Electoral Polls Section [English and Spanish Language].

  Please have a better look, compare our edictions, you'll confirm what l'm saying.

  Librarian Number 57, already blocked me before, but shortly afterwards, stated, on a note posted to Spanish Librarian RUY [ that also had blocked me] that it was David C.S. the real SPA ,not me, I was just trying to eliminate and prevent vandalism .

  it's a paradox, trying to prevent vandalism you, acctually, gave the vandal free opportunity todo whatever he wants, protected the "right" to tell big lies affecting wiki readers and Equatorian Electors:

  David C.S. reinserted his horrible fraudulent "edition", in full!

  Waiting for your consideration ,

  Dirceu Mag Dirceu Mag (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Lourdes @Number 57 Between their generally poor command of English and behavioral issues, I am starting to have serious WP:CIR concerns here. Thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  Dear Ad Orientem ,Lourdes and Number 57:

  My last Ediction is still in place on the Electoral Polls Section/ Spanish Language Ediction Elecciones Presidenciales de Ecuador [ now , 7:52 UCT ]

  In the English Ecuador General Elections 2023/Polls, David C. S. version is currently published. I have already justified my edictions on the Edit Page of the English Language Wiki :

  I posted, on July 18, 11 consecutive notes, justifying each edict, from 8:11 up to 14:46.

  Please read then and compare my own editing with David C. S. one's.

  I request the suspension of my blocking and, otherwise, the undefinite banning of David C. S. from editing Wiki.

  Without, basicly, investigating the content of both edictions, published on English and Spanish Versions and suspension of the real SPA,David C.S. for repeatedly inserting false data and wagging Edictions War ,this vicious situation will not come to a end...

  This is a matter for the Librarians Ruy, Lourdes, Ad Orientem and Number 57 to analise together and arrive at a final conclusion, as I have already requested before.

  Thanks for your attention to this matter,

  Dirceu Mag Dirceu Mag (talk) 08:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  UNBLOCK | REASONS Dirceu Mag (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  • • @Lourdes: I would recommend an unblock here. I initially blocked this user, but on closer inspection, they are correct. David C. S. has repeatedly inserted false information to the Ecuadorian election article and needs to be blocked from editing it (which I have now done). While Dirceu Mag's conduct appears on the face of it to be problematic, they are justified in their edits. @Ad Orientem: Their poor English doesn't help, but they do appear to be right. Cheers, Number 57 12:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

It is disturbing that @Number 57: advocates so much for a SPA. Maybe he doesn't know the modus operandi of the person behind this account, his puppet account created to evade the first block, and the multiple IPs he uses. Isn't this anomalous proceeding, a clear sign of SPA? This person appeared weeks ago, with the sole purpose of manipulating that page... aren't this talk page and its history sufficient proof of that? To make matters worse, apart from defending this guy, he blocks me, unilaterally. He accuses me of posting false information, which is a lie. He says that I publish a survey (June 24), in duplicate (July 3), which is false, there are 2 different surveys, here are the tests ([4][5][6]) survey July 3 ([7]). And it is the same with the rest of the allegations used by the subject behind the SPAs and IPs involved in this conflict, he cannot or does not want to correctly interpret the data of the references (it are all in Spanish).

It is unfortunate that administrators, like @Number 57, instead of supporting the quality of the edition, and helping a user who has been here for more than 10 years, do the opposite, helping subjects like that SPA, and advocating for him before @Lourdes, the librarian who blocked him for the second time. Because it is a SPA in view of anyone: it has come here only to manipulate that data, it has no other function here. This subject even called the librarian who blocked him for the same reason on the Spanish Wikipedia an “accomplice”. What more evidence do you need to see that it is a SPA with clear interests? The fact that I have been blocked for preventing that sabotage is a supreme injustice. If you need more references about the surveys, or something similar, please, write me, I will gladly show them to you. -- David C. S. (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

UNBLOCK REQUEST 🚫

I'm still blocked from Edicting .

It's a DOUBLE BLOCK , I can't edict on Wikipedia and I can't edict on the Ecuatorian General Elections Spanish and English Languages because only expended users can do it.

My editing on both Spanish and English pages, began to be ELIMINATED or DISTORTED once again, by some editor's WRONG assumptions, or keen to acting in a way similar to the banned David C. S.

I'm unable to do anything about it as, first, I should be UNBLOCKED.

EDITION LOCK on 'Ecuador 2023 General Elections' and 'Ellecciones Presidenciales de Ecuador 2023' ,should, altogether, be openned, allowing any-one, except generally banned users, to act.

Dirceu Mag Dirceu Mag (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

There you have it once again... clearly saying that it is a SPA, (and that they allow it to be). In Spanish we have a saying: "acknowledgement from the party, make discoveries non-essential". -- David C. S. (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm still 🚫 to Edict English and Spanish Language Wiki's.

Both Ecuador General Elections 2023 and the corresponding 'Ellecciones Presidenciales de Ecuador 2023' are LOCKED, only EXTENDED users can edict.

With this kind of lock, even if unblocked, I'll be unable to edict [I have been on Wiki just for 2 weeks]!

Nevertheless, the last edictions from allowed members of the public have been unproductive: valuable , properly refered information, from trusted souces, have been erased.

The very same extended user Editor that inserted the proven fraudulent poll 5-9 June Data Encuesta, on 22 June, TDKR Chicago 101, deleted the 'Informe Confidencial' one , erased the America Elects Calculations, took off the word 'Guayas' applied on the 'Metria Poll' :

each one of these editions have been, previously, fully justified on the Page Edit History.

Dirceu Mag Dirceu Mag (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• Number 57, hi and hope you are well. The block was for personal attack, which is not correlated with whether their edits are right or not. In case they do not acknowledge their fault and continue to personally attack other editors, whoever they are, this user will be looking at an indefinite block. I would strongly advise against unblocking such users until they learn how to contribute collaboratively. Thanks, Lourdes 04:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  🚫:

  I'll need a administrator that can forward my edictions & timely corrections.

  Uncorrect edictions have been published on English and Spanish Languages Ecuador General Elections, this time by TDKR Chicago 101 and others.

  I need to be UNBLOCKED to communicate, diretly, with sympathetic Librarians.

  Even if allowed on publishing again, it would be very difficult to do any genuine edit, the Electoral Section have been relentlessly vandalised by SPAs or, inadvertently, distorted by negligence and incompetency.

  Dirceu Mag Dirceu Mag (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #76529

is closed. User needs to cease justifying the personal attacks and harassment and describe what to do instead. I believe undoing the indefinite block was an error. For the Spanish Wikipedia indefinite block, user needs to request unblocking there. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

? Dirceu Mag (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

2023 Ecuadorian general election

Can I suggest you stop editing this article. Nearly every time you do, you make a mess of the table. Blindly reverting like this, which reinserted numerous issues into the article, is really poor – especially given your edit summary claimed "Cleaned" – you were doing the opposite. If you find new polls you would like added to the table, you can mention them on the talk page and they can be added by someone familiar with table coding. Number 57 21:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Please consider this a final warning. Any further blind reverts will result in a request for you to be blocked yet again. If you have any issues, please raise them on the article talk page Number 57 22:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I have been unfairly blocked on the English Language Wiki for 29 days and undefinetively on the Spanish Language Ediction by Administrator Taichi and Ruy.

The explanations about my last edictions published on the Polls Section of Ecuador 2023 General Elections are stated on 2 talk page notes dated September 6-7 2023.

Thanks for your consideration,

Dirceu Mag Dirceu Mag (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest that you put an unblock request as described below to have your request considered. Ymblanter (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I have been unable to post the most resent, interesting Poll, by UNE, published by YouTube program Hablando Corto con Nelson Salazar : Noboa Empieza a caer en las Encuestas , Luisa se recupera de a poco ', of 7 September 2023.

This is the second research about the Run Off period of Ecuador 2023 General Elections, the first Poll was made by Comunicaliza.

This Poll about Daniel Noboa and Luisa González ongoing contest is important information, because points up to a crucial reversal of electoral tendencies.

Can you take charge of it?

Dirceu Mag Dirceu Mag (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not making edits on behalf of blocked users. Ymblanter (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

On the Polls Section [ Second Round ] of Spanish Language ' Ellecciones Presidenciales de Ecuador' it is stated :

Daniel Noboa 54.47% Luisa González 45.13% , Blanks + Nulls excluded, Undecided 12.9%.

This calculation , as stated is obviously wrong and should be erased from the table.

The other percentage rates stated on the first horizontal column is correct: Luisa González: 35.4% , Daniel 43.1% , Blank + Nulls 8.6% , Undecided 12.9%.

I have been banned 'infinitely' from Edicting Spanish Language Wiki by Administrator Taichi!

I have been edicting the Portuguese and French Languages Wiki on the same subject [Ecuador Electoral Pools] without any interference from peoble interested on feeding the Section with false or biased data.

Dirceu Mag Dirceu Mag (talk) 09:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Number 57 :

When I said that the Second Round Polls Section of Ecuador General Elections 2023 have been eliminated by David C.S. I was referring to the corresponding PORTUGUESE Language Page : 'Eleições Gerais no Equador em 2023' .

You didn't played much attention.

It was not actually David C.S. that have done it , the deleting was made by a Administrator called Érico at 4:13 September, 09, 2023

In the same minute [4:13] Érico, also, parcially locked the page .

Nevertheless this Parcial Lock, was directed against me, in particular, it worked as a actual, unofficial, banning on Edicting the Portuguese Language Wikipedia for my user name [Dirceu Mag] and I.P. adress.

Anybody , except me, even a non-extented user, can edict, it was not a full block , were only people with more than a month membership and 40 edicts, can have access .

David C. S. was around and visited the page just once, without making any edict , at 6 September 16:20.

I was, by then, making edicts, alone, on the page : I made 21 Edicts, in sequence and David C.S sudently appeared in the midle of my edicts and desapeared like a rat.

I found it very strange, he didn't anything, didn't vandalised everything as usual, didn't wagged Ediction War, this time.

The explanation of his passivity came after, when this administrator eliminated all my edicts, the entire Second Round Section, that was perfectly written, objective and accurate.

The administrator "justified" it saying that there was ' no References and it was against wiki politics [his]'.

Quite strange words.

I gave all the References on the corresponding Section and my Edictions were impartial and matter of fact, they had anything to do with politics or policies.

I strongly believe David C.S. had something do do with this blatant vandalism , delection of valuable data , correctly stated.

I found evidence that he did the same, that he, simply, asked the Administrator called Ruy , on the Spanish Language Wiki , to ban me from edicting, and, in spite of not giving any explanation and reasons, his request was promply satisfied.

Furthermore, another administrator, called Taichi, after a brief unblocking spell, banned me 'for ever'.

I stiil can edict on the French Language Wiki, but I suspect'll not be for long.

I request you to investigate the matter in deph : I need to be UNBLOCKED on the Spanish, English and Portuguese Edictions.

It's all completely infair , It is not me that actually is doing blind reverts, eliminating valuable data, being dishonest and incompetent.

These are the list of actions of this crooks crowd , people that never knew anybody honest on their lives, beguinning with themselves and don't have any idea what truthfulness really consists, what it is all about.

Dirceu Mag Dirceu Mag (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Your block will expire here after a month. I am not looking forward to your edits and suspect that after a few bad edits you would get blocked indef, because you clearly lack competence to edit Wikipedia. I suspect the situation is similar on other Wikipedias. Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

This is yet another misunderstanding.

I never did actual Blind Reverts.

I don't erase others people edictions at random and aways justify each individual ediction on the Page History notes.

I can't master the ediction thechicalities.

Nevertheless, the information, is essencially, correct understandable, impartial, well thought and can, easily, be formalised by more experiencied people.

Unfortunatelly, my Edictions are, by one or two very unaccurate editors, gratuitously erased without a single word of ESPECIFIC justification.

My last Edictions are as follows

1. I was the first edictor to acknowlege the Comunicaliza's Second Round Poll.

I understood that the Pollster' so called "estimate" of the percentages of candidates was biased and unjustified .

I reproduced the published percentages for both candidates, Luisa and Noboa, plus Undecided and Blank+ Nulls.

Above the column, I published my calculation of Noboa and Luisa's actual valid vote [excluding 8.6% Blank +Nulls] and mantainning the undecided [12.9%]..

My Edition was totally erased and a calculation [called "estimate" by the Pollster @AlvaroMarchante] that mixed up the blank + nulls votes and the number of undecided electors, was published.

I erased it and mantained only the basic calculation, stating, separatelly, the Noboa, Luisa, Blanks, Nulls and Undecided percentages.

This time, my ediction was NOT eliminated, it is still in there, as I wrote, to date

.

2. I added the full name of the candidates, to avoid confusion.

Álvaro Noboa, the father of candidate Daniel Noboa, have been several times, presidential candidate, I think 5 or 6 times.

He is well known, as much as Lasso and Rafael Correa.

Daniel Noboa have been litlle known throughout the Campaign and, even now, some 20% of electors still don't regonise Luisa González.

I can't undertand the reasons behind this vicious practise of erasing the full names of the candidates.

3. I added the word "Candidate" to the name of the assassinated Fernando Villavicencio and, after, explained that Christian Zurita was his substitute from 13 August.

Villavicencio was not the only one politician assassinated during the campaign, many others had and the murder of Mayor of Manta had ,also, a great impact on the relative popularity of the eight candidates.

The word "Candidate " means that the effect was greater than any other, previously.

The public not aways read everything that's written on the page, they can't figure out the sequence of events, even between Ecuadorian Citizens, let alone foreigners, English Ediction readers : many just want to have a quick look on the Polls Section.

My ediction has a meaning of clarify, never to confuse the reader and are, as said, aways, essencially, correct and right to the point.

Please have a better look on my Historical Notes for the last two months, everything is explained in detail, it not me that is, actually, doing gratuitous and unjustified Blind Reverts!

Thanks for your consideration,

Dirceu Mag Dirceu Mag (talk) 23:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

P.S.to the anterior [23:31] note:

4. I can also add to the list of my recent edicts to the page Ecuador General Elections 2023, that have been erased, the actual percentage of valid votes to the top two candidates that passed to the second round:

Luisa: 36.84% and Noboa: 25.66%.

Luisa almost winned on the First Round [40% + 10% of distance, from the second most voted].

The oficial CNE works only with valid votes , blank and null votes are descarted on the Final Count.

As a example of insertion of of false data that I tried to eliminate, I draw your attention to the first poll published, on the botton of the list, from " Data Encuesta" Pollster: It uncludes the the name of candidate Luisa González, but the stated Poll Reserch date [5-9 June] preceeds the date on which she was proclaimed by Revolución Ciudadana as oficial candidate: 10 June 2023 [it couldn't be know beforehand].

The two edictors that were wagging a Ediction War on me, reinserted the false poll again and again and even suceed in blocking me as a SPA and for doing Blind Reverts of their "valuable" contributions.

The obvious fraud is still very much in there to this day .

The same people also, succeed to have me banned 'for life' in edicting the Spanish Wikipedia [made by Administrators Ruy and Tauchi].

They are the main purveyors of Junk Polls and distortions on Electoral Polls Sections throughout Wikipedia.

As another example, on Spanish Language Ecuador Presidencial Elections 2023 , Polls:

In one column they state that Daniel Noboa has 43.1%, Luisa González 35.4 , Nulls + Blanks = 8.6% and Undecided Electors = 12.6%.

In the colunm above, they give another "calculation" :

The null and blank votes [Total: 8.6%] are excluded, the undecided are mantained, a square containing the percentage 12.9% is valid for both horizontal columns, only the void votes are excluded from the calculation.

They give the percentages: Noboa 54.87% , Luisa: 45.13%.

The correct calculation is: Noboa: 47.1% , Luisa: 38.7%.

Dirceu Mag Dirceu Mag (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

umblock|reason

Dirceu Mag Dirceu Mag (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Unblock Request| reasons

appeal request for unblocking was not read, it is not too long ['wall of text'], I wrote only the essencial information.

I wrote 4 notes on 6 and 7 September , my blocking was not properlly explained by people that had requested it , nothing specific was mentioned.

I aways justify each of my edictions on the Page History.

I have been edicting the Electoral Polls of Ecuador 2023 General Elections on Spanish and English Languages.

Please read at least one of my 4 notes posted on my Talk page to get a idea of what it it's all about.

I 'm requesting unblocking on the English and Spanish Languages Wiki.

Thanks for your consideration

Dirceu M Dirceu Mag (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

unblock | reason

See notes poted on my talk page September, Wed 06 Thu 07, 2023

Dirceu Mag Dirceu Mag (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

My edictions on Portuguese Language version of Ecuador General Elections 2023 have been vandalised once again by David C. S.

The entire Second Round Section have been eliminated without a single word of justificación on the Page History. Dirceu Mag (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dirceu Mag (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

See last 4 notes on my Talk Page published on 6 ad 7 September 2023. All my edictions are justified in detail. --Dirceu Mag Dirceu Mag (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

WP:WALLOFTEXT. Yamla (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

While I originally supported your case when you were dealing with the problematic edits by David C.S., I think it's got to the point that your presence here is untenable. Aside from the fact that you dishonestly stated "I never did actual Blind Reverts." despite clearly doing so and falsely accused others of vandalism, you simply do not seem to be competent enough to edit Wikipedia (WP:CIR). The fact that you cannot even add a simple unblock template to your userpage is symptomatic of this issue. Number 57 11:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

2024 Pakistani general eleftion

I have added the results of the Republic Policy survey in a new table under “Opinion polls” created solely for surveys in the Islamabad Capital Territory. Any new survey results should be added to one of the tables, and NOT as a paragraph at the beginning of the section. Muzzzmuzzmuzzz (talk) 06:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear Muzzzmuzzuzzz:

Your initial assessment about my post concerned about the unreliability of the poll , it hadn't a stated margin of error and number of people interviewed.

As explained in my notes, this is not the case , much to the contrary.

The argument to eliminate the citations is , now , about the placement... it would be better situated on the new, specific, section about Islamabad polls .

I maintain my assumption that it is posted on the right place , it can be also be quoted in your new section , one think don't need exclude the other.

I explained that this Academic Study is not like another Gallup poll , situated on the same level (or even bellow that level , as you initially thought).

Please read my notes with attention.

I'm concerned about what I perceive as distortions and unreality of most commercial pollsters.

This pool should be highlighted as a text added before the statistical poll sections as a warning or 'food for thought', as a devised way of enlightening this very obscure and confusing matter : 2023 General Election in Pakistan...

In my understanding ,this Academic Research clarity the reality and essence of this particular event : The most popular political leader, Imran Khan and political party, PTI , of the History of Pakistan under severe restrictions to exercise their constitutional right to vote and be elected as no one knows, for sure , the outcome of the present crises...

Readers should be conscious of the paradox , the contradictions and inconsistencies of the Electoral Polls and not take then as a guide of interpretation of the real mood of the nation , the tendency of public sympaties and actual choices on which candidate to vote .

The purpose of my post was to draw attention ,to rescue into focus from the midst of the mental fog , the crucial statistical data , genuinely and clearly stated , bringing about a more balanced and impartial point of view in opposition to the excessive weight of big polling firms like Gallup and others.

I hope you get a close look and a better understanding of my point of view.

Thanks for your consideration,

Dirceu Mag 92.40.212.221 (talk) 07:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Number 57 I’ve been trying to explain to @Dirceu Mag that on the 2024 Pakistani general election page, new polls are added to the pre-defined tables for each province. However, they are adamant on including a new poll they found as a paragraph at the beginning of the “Opinion polling” section. I’ve added the voting intention results of their poll in the “Islamabad Capital Territory” table, but they still insist on having it as a paragraph.

Could you give your thoughts on this situation? Muzzzmuzzmuzzz (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ymblanter @Number 57 I’ve been trying to explain to @Dirceu Mag here that he is including irrelevant edits in the “Opinion polling” section of this article, yet he is adamant on keeping those edits.

If that was not enough, he decided to remove the (recognized by the Election Commission) leader of the PML(N) in the electionbox and change it with a person who he thinks is the official leader.

I have tried my best to give him opportunities to stop his irrelevant and incorrect edits, but he has persisted. I am now requesting that @Dirceu Mag be blocked from editing this page for at least a month (the same way he was blocked from editing the 2023 Ecuadorian general election page). Please let me know both of your views on this matter.

If you want more information, you can look at the edit history and both of our talk pages. Muzzzmuzzmuzzz (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear Muzzzmuzzuzzz: I just added a topic to Ymblater talk page about your request for blocking me.

Dirceu Mag Dirceu Mag (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Reply posted on my talk page an Ymblater talk page Dirceu Mag (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

{{unblock | reason= Muzzzmuzzuzzz requested Ymblater and Bbb23 to block me after my edits on the correct name of the PML-N Political Party leader (Nawaz Sharif) in substitution vto the stated Shahbaz Sharif , claiming that it was wrong.

After my blocking , he left my correct edit , after having erased it and returning the previous truly wonderful edit claiming that Shahbaz Sharif was the Party leader.

I wrote severap notes in the 2023 Pakistan General Elections Page History and posted a explanation on his talk page , Ymblater and my own but he ignored them all.

It is Muzzzmuzzuzzz that should be suspended for dishonest claims . }} Dirceu Mag (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocking

I have explained extensively . Dirceu Mag (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Request to blocking me

Muzzzmuzzmuzzz requested my blocking but it is him , instead, the one that SHOULD BE BLOCKED !

He point out two reasons :

1) Falsely and insistently talking off the edit stating that Shahbaz Sharif was the Lider of PML-N and putting what he declared as being the wrong person in his place : Nawaz Sharif.

2) He deleted 2 paragraphs of texts that , according to him were irrelevant , without giving a explanation and I had reinserted then .

I have reinserted these 2 paragraphs but giving explanation about the relevance and accuracy of my edits on my and his talk page and in several notes posted in the 2023 Pakistan Page History each time I made a edit.

He refused to argue his point and acted unilaterally and arrogantly.

After my blocking he deleted my paragraphs , this time , without being challenged (he anteriorly said that he would not do it anymore , that he strongly advise me in talking then out by my own sake!) but , curiously , left the edict stating that NAWAZ SHARIF was the leader of PML-N , something that he insisted he was not and was the main reason for his blatantly successful request for blocking me!

I reformed the table of nationwide poll in successive edits made from 29 October , as described in the page history , with the insertion of useful noteworthy events and media references that made it clearer and more interesting.

I justified everything and even posted a note addressed to Muzzzmuzzuzzz drawing his attention to to the fact that the letter 'N' of PML-N Party stands for ' NAWAZ' ( ! ) , to no avail , he simply proceeded with his request for blocking me.

Dirceu Mag

.

Dirceu Mag (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The case was already explained without drawing any attention on the page history of 2024 Pakistan General Elections.

Dirceu Mag Dirceu Mag (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• TPA revoked because of a combination of persistent rants and incompetence.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

UTRS

UTRS appeal #80722 is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #83244 has been declined. JBW (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #83300 has been declined and user is prohibited from making another UTRS request for six months. --Yamla (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that since their account was blocked, Dirceu Mag has continued to attempt to edit as an IP, resulting in several pages having to be semi-protected and multiple IPs being blocked. I'm wondering whether this persistant block evasion should be upgraded to a ban rather than just a block? Number 57 11:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Flagging up that block evasion via a range of IPs is continuing at 2024 Punjab provincial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) amongst others. Number 57 21:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Number 57, your fears have been confirmed. @Bolt Kjerag was just uncovered as a Sock after flooding 2024 Pakistani general election and Electoral fraud in Pakistan with non-reputable sources as part of what appeared to be partisan WP:SOAPBOXING, WP:WALLOFTEXT editing on talk pages and basic WP:CIR edits. Borgenland (talk) 06:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

They have also been using IPs to insert more shoddy misinformation in Electoral fraud in Pakistan. Borgenland (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)