Talk:Dapo Abiodun

Contentious allegation
Hi, I have undone your |your recent contributions. WP:PUBLICFIGURE requires that multiple sources be provided to support allegations such as the one you have restored. For example, the cable source you restored to support the allegation that he forged a certificate is a fake source and not verifiable. The People Gazette article did not confirm the allegations either. Restoring these contents is a WP:BLP violation. I have taken the liberty to remove them. Please do not restore without consensus. Dfertileplain (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Firstly, this is absolutely not how this works, you cannot delete an entire section without discussion then come here and demand that others achieve wider consensus before they edit — you made the change to the status quo, you have to defend it not the other way around. On to the section itself, these are three known and reported allegations against Abiodun — I emphasize three because you only mention two. [1] The Pandora Papers story, which you failed to mention but also deleted, had two reliable sources and comment from the governor's camp so it will be returned to the page unless there's some other issue. [2] On the certificate forgery scandal, The Cable article is obviously not a "fake source" instead it's a dead source with an easily findable archived capture. Additionally, there are many other articles on this subject as it was a major scandal during the 2019 campaign. This part will also be returned to the page with edits to update sourcing to the archived page and another article. [3] The 1980s arrest scandal also has fairly minor sourcing issues but was reported on by several outlets and is plenty notable as it has been a substantial scandal. Other articles on the subject, from places like Premium Times and Peoples Gazette, elaborate on the scandal; I guess a criticism of the current section is that there isn't a noted response from Abiodun which I will add when I return it to the page. Finally, it is important to note WP:HERE and the implications of mass deletion edits: when the controversies section of a politician’s page is blanked without clear or logical reasoning, the first assumption may be that the editor is not here to build an encyclopedia — I've seen your edits before so I think that is not applicable to your account but there is no way of knowing that when just seeing a large section blanking. Without meaning to sound patronizing, I would suggest changing your approach to issues like this: maybe instead of deleting the entire section, flag the issues in the talk page or with tags. That way someone could address the problems at a later time without removing the information from the page. Best, Watercheetah99 (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)