Talk:Segun Adebutu

Controversy section II
In this thread, I am going to demonstrate these five aspects:

1) There is a distortion of the content of the Premium Times "exclusive report";

2) The investigation of the EFCC has nothing to do directly with Segun Adebutu's behavior;

3) There are no reliable sources that indicate there was detention;

4) The investigation was triggered by a rival company of Segun Adebutu's father, with the intention to "dominate a section of the betting business in Nigeria"

5) Finally, since the investigation triggered by Conflict of Interest wasn't conclusive, and summarily dismissed, the section should be deleted.

The article says that per Premium Times exclusive report, Segun Adebutu was detained and questioned. This is false information, that doesn't check with the original content reported by Premium Times.

As you can see from the original quotation, Segun Adebutu answered questions by EFCC's office. But no information about neither detention, and neither that he, Segun Adebutu, was the target of the investigation.

On the other hand, we can see in the original article:

As you can see, the investigation was started against Segun Adebutu's father, not against Segun Adebutu. Also, the investigation was started by an unreliable person of interest - a politician owner of a rival company, Buruji Kashamu, which was a wanted person in the U.S. for drug trafficking. Buruji is literally the Nigerian drug kingpin that inspired Orange is the New Black.

Again, on the original report by Premium Times:

Again, there is no reliable information on whether it was an arrest or just voluntary answering of questions. This screams conflict of interest and the defamatory campaign started by a rival company. Premium Times original article corroborates with that information:

Also, as we can see in the Wikipedia article, reliable sources indicate that this investigation started with Conflict of Interest, was not conclusive, and the investigation was summarily dismissed:

Also, per Premium Times: the factual basis of Mr Kashamu’s allegations remained unclear at this time as the EFCC is yet to make its findings public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.36.179.235 (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

So, with this stated, there is no reasonable doubt that:

1) The controversy section's of this article was written in a tabloid-esque, defamatory tone, and distorted heavily the original content on Premium Times's original and "exclusive!!!" report

2) Omitted information of extreme relevance such as that Segun Adebutu was not the target of the investigation, and the investigation was started by petition of a politician and owner of a company with COI against Segun Adebutu's father;

3) It should have its content rearranged before a consensus about the exclusion of the controversy part is reached. At least to remove the distortion of sources, defamatory tone of text, and to add the information about the COI.

4) The defamatory campaign was defeated. The case was summarily closed. Wiki shouldn't reverberate such nonsense.

Reliable sources
Editors to this biography of living persons should take care to use reliable sources when adding information, especially when it could be considered derogatory. A good start in identifying a reliable source is to see if it has a Wikipedia article. This isn't a guarantee, though. But it helps to rule out low-readership blogs and such. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Controversy section
There now appear to be conflicting stories from reliable sources about this person's detention. In light of that, the WP:PUBLICFIGURE policy needs to be scrupulously followed. There needs to be multiple reliable sources confirming the negative information, as stated in that policy, not just one. Moreover, the neutral point of view policy probably also requires that the conflicting stories also be mentioned. In that light, I've removed the section until policy can be followed. Perhaps the best plan would be to just give the matter a few days to see what other sources develop. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I will be removing the controversy section per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. They're a couple of conflicting stories, my second reason is that Opelogbon and the second blocked editor on this page Waleewedemi are both new and edits to the controversy section were both edited the same day as it was added possibly with the intent to defame the subject making it impossible to know if WP:NPOV is followed or if there's actually a WP:COI with both editor not just, nevertheless the subject was questioned by EFCC and again another point is that the target of the investigation is the subject's father. My conclusion is that any edits made on this page especially to the controversy section should be discussed on the talk page before being added. I will remove its contents but will leave the section open. Lapablo (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , The controversy section was restored after WP:PUBLICFIGURE was satisfied. The reports cited are from multiple credible newspapers and the content- which were quoted verbatim -were established to be true. There is no official statement from the anti-graft agency to back the claim of Lapablo. The revision by Lapablo is the same embarked upon by - a staff of the subject - which he was blocked from. Wikipedia stands on credibility and not an avenue for image laundering. Any further edit on the section should be backed by a source citing the anti-graft agency. Having established multiple neutral and credible sources and counter narrative cited in fulfilment of WP:PUBLICFIGURE to balance the report, WP:NPOV has been established. However, Lapablo intervention should be looked into to determine if WP:COI has been fulfilled. Opelogbon (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , can you please check the edits of, that are overlooking the sources. He doesn't seem to be detained as per the news sources. Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , can you please check the suspicious edits of  who is overlooking all sources and your comments here. Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:PUBLICFIGURE was satisfied and multiple credible sources were cited and quoted verbatim. Shashanksinghvi334 has not provided any new credible sources to back up numerous editing. Kindly advise, against further editing.  was blocked indefinitely for same act of vandalism. Further level of page protection requested. Opelogbon (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've reworded the language so it better and more clearly represents, I think, the sources cited. This can, of course, be updated as new reliable sources become available. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * First is not an admin as you claim, while i have recused myself from this subject is because i had already requested that  discuss the controversy section on the talk page before making further edits and he refused instead went ahead to go into a WP:3RR with every contributor. I had earlier reported the issue and also requested a page protection pending the outcome of discussion. The fact here is that he may or may not have been detained/arrested but we can't know that for sure because they're conflicting sources saying otherwise, according to the same sources Segun's dad (Founder of the company) was the person of interest in the case but his son (Segun) was questioned instead. So there's a whole lot we are missing here. Lapablo (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

That's correct that I'm not an admin and I'm just here at all as a neutral party responding to a posting at WP:EAR. Even if I was an admin, admins have no authority to determine content, but only to enforce rules about conduct. Next, it is to be noted that nothing in the Controversy section would be appropriate were this guy not a public figure, see WP:BLPCRIME. This material is, thus, just barely appropriate and must be balanced. There are what appear to be multiple reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia saying that he was detained and others saying that he was not. In light of WP:PUBLICFIGURE my judgment and experience here at Wikipedia (I've worked in various dispute resolution processes for years) suggests to me that the material can be here, provided that it's properly balanced. As for there being a whole lot that we're missing, Wikipedia reports what's stated in reliable sources and at this point what's in the article is what the reliable sources say, unless there are reliable sources that I'm unaware of that say something else. If there are, then they need to be brought forth and dealt with. If things change and new reports come out, the material can be updated. But because this guy is a public figure, Wikipedia tends in my experience to report things like this about public figures as they develop, rather than waiting until the dust has completely settled. Do I like that and think that it's the way it should be? No, my preference would be that this kind of thing be "old news" and completely sorted out before it gets included here, but that's not the way it is here. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 23:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In the last six hours, there have been fresh attempts to delete the entire column without new reliable sources. This goes against WP:PUBLICFIGURE and with the sudden interest to suppress the column, it is now obvious that the editors are not conforming with neutral point of view policy and when ever a WP:COI is established on one user, another User comes up to start the editing all over again. Kindly protect this page against the unending vandalism. Opelogbon (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is important you follow the resolution of this talk page on the controversy until there is a new reliable source to be cited. Further editing should be discussed as well before it is made. If not, it constitute vandalism. has done a lot to balance the page, it is better we keep it the way it is while we await new reliable sources. Opelogbon (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I endorse in his analysis. Repeating reliable sources, which we believe to be true, is fine. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * please stop vandalising the controversy page. A resolution on that column was agreed upon here and mediated by neutral user and . Unless there are new reliable sources that contradict the agreement reached here, further editing constitute vandalism. Opelogbon (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've restored a bit more of the deleted material (and put all the response material in its own paragraph), but I did not restore the line in the paragraph beginning "The controversy trailing" that says "(EFCC) is yet to confirm the reports that Segun was arrested and detained". The cited source for that paragraph does not mention Segun's arrest or detention at all and to infer that statement from that source's statement that "There has been no official confirmation of the probe by the EFCC so far." is a violation of the No Original Research policy which expressly prohibits analysis of a cited source. Regard, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Apologies for before but the claims are completely unsubstantiated and it's clear, as many sources including the Nation indicate, that there is some sort of vendetta against the family at the moment. I feel it's best to delete entirely at the moment as it is all hearsay and libel. Adebutu simply spoke with the EFCC, but nothing was charged or went against him. No reason to write so much against him. Dantedii (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You can feel that if you like, but Wikipedia policy says that it is appropriate. Wikipedia does not judge those things, but only reports what has been reported in reliable sources. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the controversy section due to the fact that counter argument is also verified by numerous sources. I have added sources at the time of doing changes. Kindly check those. Mudassariqbal59 (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Additionally, I am post links here for you guys to check that there are authentic sources to counter that controversy section. Here are few links: https://www.chronicle.ng/2020/01/segun-adebutu-not-detained-by-efcc-family/ https://theyesng.com/2020/01/30/segun-adebutu-not-detained-by-efcc-family/ https://themomentng.com/index.php/2020/01/30/segun-adebutu-not-detained-by-efcc-family/ https://topcelebrities.com.ng/segun-adebutu-not-detained-by-efcc-family/ https://thisislagos.ng/segun-adebutu-not-detained-by-efcc-family/ Mudassariqbal59 (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * All the sources you listed should be on the column and not here. They do not invalidate the entire column. I do not think Wikipedia policy allows for that. Except you have a reliable link citing the anti-graft agency denying the entire report officially, then it can't be pulled down., and  have made tremendous contributions to the discussion. Opelogbon (talk)
 * Restored content. We can discuss conflicting sources, but we don't just delete it. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I am going to contact admin for resolving this issue as it is already causing defamation for my client. We are going to take whatever necessary actions required to remove this section which has nothing to do with the reality. Mudassariqbal59 (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC) I have contacted the admin and they have told me to disclose my employment status for the client. I have added the details on my page regarding my employment status. I hope, this issue can be resolved now. This column is damaging the repute of my client. I have supported my case with all the references which shows that information given in column is baseless and spread to defame the client. If necessary, we can contact wikipedia for action as it has already caused alot of trouble my client. Still, if you guys want to keep this section then kindly delete this page. Thanks. Mudassariqbal59 (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and we summarize what reliable, secondary sources say about a topic. If your client feels the information is inaccurate, please contact the sources that are reporting the disputed information and have them correct as appropriate. We are simply following our policies and guidelines here, though I do believe the content in that section could definitely use some improvement to better match the sources. Also, I advise you to please be careful about making statements that imply legal threats, we have a policy against legal threats and making legal threats will lead to being blocked on Wikipedia. Best wishes to you, Waggie (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, thanks for telling me about it. I will remove that word and I think so, we can make changes in that column that my client is not detained by citing it with sources too.
 * I have reversed these edits by Mudassariqbal59 for various reasons:
 * Section title: "Controversy" is the uniform title for this kind of section throughout Wikipedia.
 * "Law-abiding citizen" introduction: The cited article does not say that. To imply it from the cited article is a violation of the no original research policy.
 * Changes to paragraph originally (and now again) entitled "The controversy trailing Segun Adebutu and Premier Lotto".
 * "Controversy" to "argument": Again, a violation of the no original research policy.
 * Rewrite and new source: The new source — famouspeople.com — is almost certainly not a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia but is instead a celebrity gossip source.
 * Finally, let me remind Mudassariqbal59 that instead of editing the article directly that he, as a disclosed paid editor, is supposed to follow the request-edit process described in the paid editing section of the conflict of interest policy and instead request that changes be made to the article by requesting them here on this talk page using the template. Regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

, the issue on the title of the controversial section has been laid to rest. The title "Controversial" is the default name used by Wikipedia for issues like this. Kindly refer to the talk page before making further editing. Thanks Opelogbon (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

, It is ok that we keep the title of this section as controversy but it is the wikipedia policy to update the content with the latest information. So, I have provided the valuable resource which stated that he was never detained. As a matter of fact, it is the same news publishing agency which has earlier said that he was detained. Kindly check the citation and then do any further change. Thanks Kaimano97 (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The title of the article is wrong according to Wikipedia policy of criticism. The title of a section can only be termed as "Controversy" when when this is part of the common name of the topic of that article, and the controversy is notable in its own right (as opposed to being part of a larger topic). Kindly check Wikipedia WP:Criticism before altering the title. Thanks Kaimano97 (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Kaimano97, sorry but WP:Criticism is only an essay, not policy (see the box at the top of that page), and is only an opinion. It's not binding on anyone and may not reflect the general practices or consensus in the encyclopedia. So that argument does not work. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

U|TransporterMan, can you show me the policy of wikipedia where it states that title of such allegations should be controversy? Everyone is just making their own assumptions here.Kaimano97 (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.64.124.246 (talk) 10:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The mere fact that something is a "tabloid" in your opinion isn't enough to disqualify it as a reliable source. Please state your argument and evidence from Wikipedia policy that the cited sources are not reliable by Wikipedia's definition. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you please consider another protection on the page? So many anonymous keep deleting the column. It's hard to keep up. this section should be here but the specific term Controversy is not the right fit for this section according to Wikipedia policy as this term can only be used when it is mentioned by the said reference. People are just reverting it without giving any authentic reference.


 * People commenting here don't seem to understand the word "controversy". It doesn't mean that one "side" or the other is correct, and is just as neutral as "allegations". It just happens to be the section title that is usually used in wikipedia articles when there is such reliably sourced controversy, or, equivalently, are such reliably sourced allegations. Why are people edit-warring over something that doesn't make any difference whatsoever? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit request
Information to be added: According to the family source, Segun Adebutu, was neither arrested by the EFCC or any other law enforcement agency. What has been twisted out of context is the dutiful honouring of an invitation from the EFCC as a law-abiding citizen, who has nothing to hide. “The businessman merely opted to go to the EFCC on behalf of his father concerning a petition filed by Senator Buruji Kashamu, an Ogun State politician and the owner of rival lottery company, Western Lotto.” Information to be removed: In a reaction, the family stated that he only honoured the invitation of the anti-graft agency, but was not detained.[9] The Nation (Nigeria) reported that, "According to sources, Segun was never arrested nor detained contrary to rumours being peddled. He was invited and honoured the invitation by visiting the EFCC office in Lagos for few questioning and answer." Explanation of Issue: According to wikipedia policies, it is necessary to keep neutral point of view. I am attaching proper news sources which has used law-abiding citizen word in their news and I did not make something up by my own. Kindly check the sources before making any claim. Regarding that specific "Controversy" word, we cannot use it unless the claims made by a news channel are officially verified by the said agency. A controversy is a prolonged heated discussion between two parties. While in this case, it was not a controversy as it was an argument/claim made by a news channel which was denied by family and also by other channels too by showing his pictures at the time of said detention. Additionally, a person is innocent until proven guilty. So, kindly refrain the usage of specific word controversy because it was not a controversy. One more thing, Wikipedia always follows the neutral point of view and if we have a look at all the claims made by both parties that either he is detained or not, not a single party has used the specific word controversy.So, how can you guys use this specific word when there is no backup references for this specific word. I hope, I made my point clear now. References: https://daylightng.com/segun-adebutu-not-detained-by-efcc-family/ http://exclusivenews.com.ng/baba-ijebu-not-arrested/ https://www.ournigeria.news/baba-ijebu-not-arrested/ https://nationalinsightnews.com/baba-ijebu-not-arrested-by-efcc/Mudassariqbal59 (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am challenging this request for edit. All the sources listed are unknown blogs and do not conform with reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. Secondly, the entire content on sources 2-3 are the same, word for word. Except it's an Agency report, the possibility of such duplication is impossible. Opelogbon (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply 14-FEB-2020

 * To expedite your request, it would help if you could provide the following information:
 * 1) Please state each specific desired change and accompanying reference in the form of verbatim statements which can then be added to the article (if approved) by the reviewer.
 * 2) The exact location where the desired claims are to be placed should be given.
 * 3) Exact, verbatim descriptions of any text and/or references to be removed should also be given.
 * 4) Reasons should be provided for each change.
 * In the section of text below titled Sample edit request, these four items are shown as an example:

 1. Please remove the third sentence from the second paragraph of the Sun section:
 * "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 25 miles in length."

2. Please add the following claim as the third sentence of the second paragraph of the Sun section:
 * "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 864,337 miles in length."

3. Using as the reference:

4. Reason for change being made:
 * "The previously given diameter was incorrect."

Regards, Spintendo  01:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed with the missing information. Thank you!

Deletion of Controversy Section
1. Information to be removed: Controversy Section 2. Explanation of Issue: False accusation made by news channel which was rejected earlier by family of Segun Adebutu and now personally by himself. According to news sources, he was detained by Economic and Financial Crimes Commission in relation with an ongoing investigation into the nation’s betting industry. On 2/18/2020, he has personally verified that he has never been detained by EFCC. According to news published on 2/18/2020, Mr Adebutu told PREMIUM TIMES in a letter that he was only interrogated but not detained as this medium reported. He said he had only gone to the EFCC to represent the managing director of Premier Lotto, who was unavailable at the time to answer EFCC summons. He also said the ongoing EFCC investigation was not about tax fraud and economic sabotage. “I was never invited to EFCC office by the EFCC operatives but voluntarily visited the office of the EFCC following a letter written to the managing director of Premier Lotto, a company in which the Adebutu family has business interest,” Mr Adebutu said in his letter. “The managing Director was not available at the period to honour the invitation.“Following my voluntary appearance at the EFCC office nonetheless, I was interviewed by the EFCC officials and was allowed to return home after the interview, contrary to your report. “I was therefore never detained as alleged in the said publication. The sources referred to in said publication obviously did not tell Premium Times the truth concerning my visit to the EFCC office. 3. References supporting change: https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/top-news/377868-why-i-was-quizzed-by-efcc-segun-adebutu.html 4. This section was just defaming the person and providing a false statement which has now been proved by the same new agency which published this news. So, kindly delete this section. Mudassariqbal59 (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * he has personally verified that he has never been detained by EFCC That's nice but we don't include personal stories that aren't published by reputable sources. Praxidicae (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also if you continue to make edit requests without addressing the issues as pointed out to you in the previous section, you're likely to lose your ability to edit this page too. Praxidicae (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For your kind information, this is not a personal story. I have included the reference to back these claims. Kindly take your time to read the reference and you will come to know that this is not a personal story.Mudassariqbal59 (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've read the source you provided. Unfortunately, it's difficult to parse out which statements need to be removed or altered (if any) because you haven't delineated which specific statements in the Wikipedia article are incorrect according to the template I laid out in the previous section. This needs to be delineated because we are limited to changing claims based on what is said and who has said it.
 * For example, let's suppose a claim statement in the Wikipedia article states that the subject went to the store on February 4th and bought a bottle of water. A reliable source is then provided which states that, according to the source's research, the subject did go to the store — but on February 6th, and not the 4th. That source then goes on to state that the subject sent a letter stating that it wasn't a bottle of water they purchased, but rather, a carton of milk. We would be able to change the claim in the article from February 4th to February 6th because that aspect was independently verified by the reporter in the news article, but we would not remove the claim that it was water purchased, or substitute it with the claim that it was milk purchased, because that information comes from the subject's own statement to the reporter, rather than the reporter independently verifying it.
 * For those reasons, its best if you state your request by addressing which particular claim made in the article needs to be changed according to which provided source. Blanket requests to remove entire sections cannot be processed without specification. Regards, Spintendo  19:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I have got your idea about the changes. first of all, we would like to change the title of this section. Instead of "Controversy", the title at least should be "Allegations" due to the fact that the claims made in this section are denied by the Segun Adebutu and proved by same news agency which published an earlier version. Secondly, The information which should be altered is as follows: Information to be altered: In an Exclusive report, one of Nigeria's leading investigative Newspaper, Premium Times, reported that Segun Adebutu was detained and questioned by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission on January 28, 2020 at the anti-graft Lagos office for economic sabotage and tax fraud of about Five Billion Naira, associated with Premier Lotto, a company he is an Executive Director of. Other newspapers such as New Telegraph, TheCable and Pulse Nigeria also substantiated this report. Information to be added instead of above mentioned sentence: In an Exclusive report, one of Nigeria's leading investigative Newspaper, Premium Times, reported that Segun Adebutu was detained and questioned by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission on January 28, 2020 at the anti-graft Lagos office for economic sabotage and tax fraud of about Five Billion Naira, associated with Premier Lotto, a company he is an Executive Director of. Later, same news paper reported that he was not detained and voluntarily visited EFCC office. According to him, “I was never invited to EFCC office by the EFCC operatives but voluntarily visited the office of the EFCC following a letter written to the managing director of Premier Lotto, a company in which the Adebutu family has business interest,” Mr Adebutu said in his letter. “The managing Director was not available at the period to honour the invitation. “Following my voluntary appearance at the EFCC office nonetheless, I was interviewed by the EFCC officials and was allowed to return home after the interview, contrary to your report. Reference: https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/top-news/377868-why-i-was-quizzed-by-efcc-segun-adebutu.html I hope, we can resolve this issue asap as this specific section is based on just allegations. Mudassariqbal59 (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)