Talk:Abdulmumin Jibrin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page protected[edit]

I see a lot of reversions without any explanation whatsoever. If you guys are having a content dispute, work it out on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 11 November 2016[edit]


Please below are the factual texts that are supposed to be under this sub-head on the page of Abdulmumin Jibrin. The issue of budget padding is a huge controversy that involves many principal officers of the House. Not an allegation against Jibrin alone as maliciously presented by the author (Zubairudalhatu) of that part on Jibrin's Wikipedia page. And Jibrin has clearly stated that he voluntarily resigned his position as reported by national dailies with evidences here. So it is totally wrong to present it here as though Jibrin was dismissed based on the allegation when it was evidently a controversy amongst the members of the House including the Speaker of the Mr. Dogara whose Wikipedia Zubairudalhatu is consistently working on with favourable contents against the wikipedia rules. That's why am presenting the facts below for your kind inclusion on the page, and to replace the errorneous content presented by Zubairudalhatu. Many thanks

no Declined. The purpose of protecting a page is for you to create a consensus for changing it, not to demand that it be changed, and especially not by edit-warring using multiple sockpuppet accounts (all of which are now blocked). ~Anachronist (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As claimed above, the issue of budget padding is a huge controversy, but does not involved many principal officers as none of them were indicted by any court of law or a disciplinary committee. However, Jibrin was indicted by a disciplinary committee set up by a legislative chamber whose members are the representatives of all Nigerians. The committee after a thorough investigation found Jibrin guilty and letter recommended his suspension, and Jibrin has never tendered any resignation until his suspension by the legislative chamber while the suspension for the 180 legislative days was clearly reference on the article page.
  • As also claimed that I worked with Dogara, I have been a member of Wikipedia for 8 years, 9 months and 23 days, which is since before Dogara became the Speaker of the House of Representatives in June 2015. And It has never shown in my edits records that I was engaged in edit-warring or opening multiple sockpuppet accounts as I always provides reference to all my contributions. I was never hired by any one to edit his page or create article for him I have nothing to do with Dogara and also Dogara have never know me any any way.
  • Therefore, kindly stop edit-warring this page using multiple sockpuppet accounts. Be a good Wikipedian. Zubairu Dalhatu 09:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zubairudalhatu (talk • contribs)

Budget Padding Controversy[edit]

Abdulmumin Jibrin was the 8th Assembly's first Appropriation Committee Chairman appointed by the Dogara's led administration until his resignation on Wednesday July 20, 2016

House Appropriation Committee Chairman Resigns Position http://www.theparadigmng.com/2016/07/20/house-appropriation-committee-chairman-resigns-position/

2016 budget fallout: Reps Appropriation Chair, Abdulmumin resigns

http://thenationonlineng.net/2016-budget-fallout-reps-appropriation-chair-abdulmumin-resigns/

Ohone (talk) 23:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Get yourself unblocked first (from your original account, not that one you signed with), and then you can explain how to reconcile those sources with the ones already cited in the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

This page was again changed by User:Adetokunbohs base on the reason that The English usage and structure of the section is subjective, it ought to be written in a balanced and objective way. The rewritten section tries to give a fair assessment of the situation hence, the use of controversy as opposed to allegation according to him. This editor if his claims are true that the English usage and structure are subjective, then he should not remove the section which says Jibrin was dismissed. His resignation claim on his Twitter handle can not be verifiable and be used as a reference here on Wikipedia. The source for his dismissal also in that case is genuine and should not be altered with should anyone wish to reconstruct the English. Moreover, his dismissal was something passed by a legislative chamber and this has taken place before the news of his resignation came out. Please let us not make Wikipedia like a sponsored page where whoever found his article not suitable will just hire us to change it the way he want it to be. Zubairu Dalhatu 18:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zubairudalhatu (talk • contribs)

I'm just an observer here. @Zubairudalhatu: sources were offered in the section above that tell a different version from the sources cited in the article. They seem reliable. How would you reconcile them? Is it possible that a vote of the legislative chamber cannot dismiss a person from this office? ~Anachronist (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand as you said that you are an observer here. @Anachronist: but if that is the case, then you should not remove the source you saw on the article, rather you should make some suggestion instead of removing the section which says he was dismissed or suspended. Notes Abdulmumin Jibrin#cite note-15 and Abdulmumin Jibrin#cite note-17 are also reliable as both of them are globally recognized news outlets. Meaning you should not temper with that one too. Moreover, you also remove same section which the other edit warring person have been removing which caused him to be totally blocked by you. Kindly make a better edits instead of removing a genuine source. Zubairu Dalhatu 08:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
@Zubairudalhatu: I have made zero content edits to this article. None. I am here in an administrative capacity only. Kindly put aside any false accusations and address the question above. Thank you. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: sorry for misquoting your name wrongly in this conversation. My thoughts is the last edit was from you. Kindly help in protecting this page and let's help improve Wikipedia. Zubairu Dalhatu 20:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I'm here in an administrative capacity. The page is semi-protected so that new accounts and IP addresses cannot edit it. In my observation, you are having a content dispute with other editors. The controversy/allegation section in the article already cites some sources. Other sources are cited in the section above, and those sources appear to tell a different story. Those sources appear to be reliable. I ask again, in the interest of resolving the dispute, how do you reconcile them? ~Anachronist (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: @Zubairudalhatu: Hello guyz! I must admit you guyz are doing a great and wonderful job in your different capacities. However, am still of the opinion that Zubairudalhatu edit on the budget padding is subjective and not objective. What you have written under that section is one sided and can be misleading. One of the objectives behind the creation of wikipedia is to give fair, objective balanced and accurate views on subject matter. Like Anachronist advised, it is important we do the needful and reconcile all sources to give readers a better and richer understanding of the budget controversy, and also give a balanced story from both sides of the coin. Thank you.
No, that is incorrect. Wikipedia has no requirement to give equal treatment to both sides. An article should impart information in proportion to what reliable independent sources say, without giving undue weight to minority viewpoints. If reliable sources say he was sacked from his job, and only he says he resigned voluntarily, then the article needs to reflect what the independent sources say, not as much what the he says about himself. That said, there does need to be a reconciliation between disparate accounts as given in the sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Abdulmumin Jibrin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abdulmumin_Jibrin&oldid=1207363554"