Talk:Jack Evans (Washington, D.C., politician)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

His second marriage, to Michele Seiver, ended in divorce

Lets break out the discussion of Evan's second marriage and divorce. To my mind, marriages and divorces are a standard part of any biography. Wikipedia describes Biographys as such "A biography, or simply bio, is a detailed description of a person's life. It involves more than just the basic facts like education, work, relationships, and death; it portrays a person's experience of these life events. Unlike a profile or curriculum vitae (résumé), a biography presents a subject's life story, highlighting various aspects of his or her life, including intimate details of experience, and may include an analysis of the subject's personality." A marriage and divorce falls clearly into the relationships category, in my opinion. This is, of course, no official Wikipedia guidance, but it is how we describe biographies in general.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons provides little guidance on this specifically. The only passage that i could find is WP:WELLKNOWN which states " If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.

Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."

I guess its well sourced as the Washington Post reported it explicitly, I have not watched the YouTube video that is used as a source so i cant if it does and the 'georgetowner' article does not.

If i was going to change this portion, i would reword it so it mentions when they got married and then when they divorced. Bonewah (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

What's the rationale you're giving for not including the name? What you cite suggests the inclusion of her name, not the exclusion. Actually, the Doe example the give is almost the exact situation we're facing, and it uses names. Nothing would lead us to believe the marriage, relationship, and divorce were in any way private except what we've learned on this talk page. In fact, the marriage, relationship, and divorce were fairly public. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The fact of the marriage and divorce is standard. The name of a non-notable spouse is not. JohnInDC (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

What makes you think that she is not notable? An Wiki entry is not a requirement for notablitliy. She has had a high degree of local recognition, independent of Evans including extensive coverage here, here, and here (which mentions the divorce), among others.Bangabandhu (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

A single article in the Washington Post, the related live chat, and a blog post? That makes notability? JohnInDC (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

She doesnt have to be notable. The fact that she was married to, and divorced from the subject is what warrants inclusion here by name, in my opinion. Bonewah (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd misread you above.Bangabandhu (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I don’t agree, but don’t feel that strongly in the end. My immediate objection was to the suggestion that this coverage is “extensive“ and establishes that she is notable. JohnInDC (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, Bang is making the same old tired arguments. Bang put all this trivia in originally. No Michele’s name shouldn’t be mentioned. That’s why we need fresh she’s. Where are the new editors on these topics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B015:CFD9:4447:807F:11CD:AF4C (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

John and Bone, please don’t get bullyed by Bang. John you agree Michele’s name shouldn’t be there. Stick to your guns. And Bone you started by saying that the page is full of meaningless trivia. Get rid of it. Bang will argue to keep everything since he put it all there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.69.49 (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Swarm and Red Rock, where are you on these issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.84.21 (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Red Rock hasn't edited since his last comment here, and Swarm has probably stopped following the discussion. Maybe Red will return and weigh in soon. JohnInDC (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

John, we have a concensus to remove Michele’s name. Only Bang disagrees and he should not have a veto. Same with all the other changes I suggested. Bang will always say no. It’s time to act and move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.84.22 (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I read Bone to be saying, leave it in. JohnInDC (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Leaving her name in would be my preference. Bonewah (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Articles about politicians virtually always name the spouse (or spouses). Not always children, but always spouses if the name is known. The spouse doesn't have to be notable - we are not writing an article about them. We are just documenting what reliable sources say about the subject of the article, which includes their family situation if known. --MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

With that, I think this discussion is closed - it stays. Thanks, Melanie - JohnInDC (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

revisions point by point round 2

We have made some progress on Evan's objections so i wanted to move the potentially still outstanding issues to a new section so we can close out the unwieldy discussion above. Here is what i see as still at issue:

1. no need to put in the introduction I ran for Mayor and lost twice. It is addressed in the article
2. I worked at Manat from 2015-2017. No need to say I resigned This seems to be resolved. Moved discussion to separate section below
3. there is no need for a section on my Constituent Services Fund. What’s the point. Most people have them
4. under Political Positions, the discussions on the Attorney General and the Paid Family Leave should be deleted. They are too detailed and not quite accurate.

Bonewah (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything egregiously wrong with these from either a BLP or editorial point of view. The mayoral item in the intro is entirely appropriate. I don't why we wouldn't say he "resigned" from Manatt if that's what the source says. The "constituent services fund" - eh, it's real money, and so a cut above parking tickets, and I wouldn't object to removing it, but don't mind its inclusion. The AG and Paid Family Leave Act sections have been toned down from their original, snarkier versions, and may well not capture the nuances of those episodes as Evans complains, but he didn't say what's wrong with them and if they reasonably track the sources I'd say leave them in, as is. JohnInDC (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm floored by the notion that campaigns for public office higher than that already attained isn't a lead-worthy highlight of a politician's career. I can't fathom a rationale for downplaying it. Evans' own inexplicable and botched attempt to cherry-pick, when he brought up the John McCain article, only ended up reaffirming the normality of this. Largoplazo (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that was quite a stretch. I’m sorry he saw fit to throw that in with some of the more legitimate concerns. JohnInDC (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree about #1. Im going to strike that one unless or until some reasonable objection occurs. Bonewah (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

(OD)I think Evans has a point about #3. Of the 2 sources listed, the washington post does confirm what we say here, but doesnt mention any kind of investigation or allegations of wrongdoing. The other source, www.washingtontimes.com, only mentions the constituent services thing in passing at the very end, and, as such, i dont think is an appropriate source. Im removing that one, and would like others to look at this section and the remaining source and weigh in. Bonewah (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Why would you assume that the existing sourcing represents the entirety of the issue's significance? The CSF funding is a hugely important issue. Nor is a criminal or ethics investigation a requirement for inclusion. Are you really suggesting that it should be removed because there is no "allegation of wrongdoing"? If you feel that the sourcing is inadequate, let's address that, and then we can talk about other issues. It may be worth reviewing our earlier discussion of this, to save time. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Bang, are you really suggesting that we editors should ascribe significance to this issue without sourcing it? JohnInDC (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course the sources need to support the text. But if you're rereading a carefully reviewed, longstanding para and think the sources don't match, the thing to do is to raise that issue rather than deleting the text. I've added in a source and restored the text. I was with you on the trump inauguration, which is trivia, but this is a whole different universe of significance. Not to say that the wording can't be improved, but this is critical. Evans is wrong that "most people have them [CSF]" and it is a hugely important issue in DC politics - I can cite that if you want, or just check out the latest in the Trayon White bio. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

(EC)A better question to Bang is "why do you feel this is significant?" Its technically true that he was criticized, but so what? The primary citation was from 2011, can you demonstrate that the criticisms had any lasting impact? The citation you added is from 2013 and does not cover what is in the Wikipedia article, and so i removed it. Bonewah (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

It's significant because it was the subject of an ethics investigation. The language you're removing is the result of compromise wording so that there would not be undue weight on that probe. It remains hugely important. Here's more recent coverage, and it must be updated to reflect this move, reported in 2018 "...two years ago, the Council quietly approved a dramatic increase in the amount of money politicians can spend using these accounts, but did not hold a usual public hearing before the change was enacted. The increase raised the annual expenditure limit from $40,000 to $60,000—a change so little broadcast that even this week D.C.’s Office of Campaign Finance, which is supposed to monitor the funds for proper use, said it had not publicly disclosed the higher limit. The office’s website still listed the lower $40,000 figure as of Wednesday. Ward 2 Councilmember Jack Evans requested the increase." to give you a greater sense of why this is important to Evans, see another 2018 ref "This new limit is simply window dressing to make what are essentially slush funds more palatable to the public. Either CSF’s make sense or they don’t. And the proposed cut to their size is a tacit admission that they don’t...additionally, only 5 of the 13 Councilmembers raised more than $40,000 for their Constituent Service Funds last year, and 4 of them raised between $40,000 and $50,000. Only Jack Evans, who raised $85,000, would be really effected by the new limit." Bangabandhu (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, im not in love with the sourcing, but it at least speaks to the significance of this issue. Id like to reword the passage so that its a bit more clear that this isnt just him, and im still a bit hesitant to include things which basically boil down to 'X has been the subject of criticism over Y'. Bonewah (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I reworded it. The whole council passed this. And that “quietly introduced” is nothing but thinly veiled POV criticism. Even if it’s a quote. (Which, in fact, it isn’t.) JohnInDC (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Separate but related - I agree with Bang that it’s helpful to review the earlier discussion, here. We covered a lot of ground there. JohnInDC (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for digging that up. Rereading it, its stunning to see the lengths we've gone to exclude anything that might in any way offend Evans. Nothing in BLP says that criticism or controversy can't be discussed, just that it has to be handled fairly. But we've missed the point and the result is a para that excludes key info and doesn't address the significance of the issue. Bangabandhu (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

So help me understand this. Having *barely* made it over the bar of inclusion, you are now upset that we arent saying enough about this? Despite the 5 sentences we dedicate, more than anything else in the Political career section, including his actual election to DC council? Is that correct, bang? If that is the case, why dont you lay out exactly what you would like this to say and we can go over it. Again. Bonewah (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I'm upset. Disappointed that we can't find more fitting language. It's cumbersome with all the numbers, but that's what other editors seem to think is a compromise. As we've learned recently, that detail can carry undue weight, as well as making it less readable. The reader does not leave with a sense of why constituent service funds are important.Bangabandhu (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

What language would you prefer? Bonewah (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll get back to you on that. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

resigned from Manat

Re #2, I see nothing wrong with the current wording, "In October 2015, Evans became Counsel to the law firm of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips.[1][17] He resigned from the firm in November 2017." "He left the firm ..." would be slightly more vanilla. We could also have "Evans was Counsel to the law firm ... from October 2015 till November 2017", but to me that's six of one and half a dozen of the other. The current wording is just as reasonable a way of conveying his position with the firm at that time, and it happens to mention one detail explicitly—a completely neutral detail. It isn't as though he had been fired and that discussion were about whether to state that explicitly. Largoplazo (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Any of Largoplazo's versions would be fine with me, as would keeping it as is. Bonewah (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't care, though I suspect "resigned" may be the source's wording. Bangabandhu (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Paid Family Leave

Ok last point is the Paid Family paragraph in the Political positions section. Jack, if you are still monitoring this would you let us know here what your objection to this is? Im going to review the sources independently and see what i think of it. Bonewah (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes I’m still here. The Paid Family Leave bill was not my issue. It was led by Chairman Mendelson and Councilmembers Silverman and Grosso. Several members had alternative bills and amendments that did not pass. My objection is that it doesn’t belong in my bio because it is not something identified with me. I can think of many issues I was a leader on. I just can’t imagine how this is here and again in such detail. It is actually the longest paragraph under my political positions section. I would delete it or reduce it to a sentence.

I do have several other comments. First, I want to thank everyone for all your time and efforts.

Under the Political Career section, the paragraph describing tne Mayor’s race is way too detailed. No need to describe signatures and money raised. Your choice

On other employment, I suggested to John that you set up a separate category called legal career and list the law jobs I worked at and the dates. It would make it much better organized. They are: the SEC 1978-84, Epstein Becker and Green 1984-88, BakerHostetler 1988 - 2000, Central Benefits 2000 - 2004, Patton Boggs 2000 - 2014, Squire Patton Boggs 2014 - 2015, and Manatt 2015 - 2017. That’s the full legal career in order.

On the Constituent Service Fund section, I see you had a long discussion. Again, the detail is way dated. Those numbers are from 5 plus years ago and are essentially meaningless. Every expenditure from the fund has been revised not only by the Office of Campaign Finance but by the press. Most recently by Tom Sherwood. They are all legitimate. The fact that the Fund buys tickets is perfectly fine. So I’m not sure why it is here.

The paragraph on the election of the Attorney General is also not my issue. A majority of the Council voted not to have the election. The Court disagreed. We had the election. That was four years ago and the issue was settled. My point is it was not something for my bio. Maybe the chairman’s. Or nobody’s.

Finally, I would confirm the WMATA section to my Council bio. The way it reads now is dated. It focuses on a comment I made 3 years ago that was never acted upon. At least update it

Thanks again for you consideration. I believe these suggestions will make a better encyclopedia type bio.

Evansjack1 (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Another observation. I am best know re political positions for my legislation concerning tax policy and economic development. It is therefore surprising that there is no mention of my tax legislation going back to 1999 when I first became Chair of the Finance Committee. And all the Economic Development legislation involving TIF’s and Pilots and tax incentives that I passed. It is well documented in the newspapers.

Most of the stuff in this section of my bio was written by Bang. And in its original form I assume the goal was the reader would come away thinking Jack Evans is a shady uncaring person. After being revised, it’s just a mishmash of irrelevant stuff. That’s why I would just get rid of it. A short bio is better that what we have. Evansjack1 (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

It sould be very helpful if you were to provide links to reliable sources which document these things. We can then discuss including them. Thanks. Bonewah (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Bone, thanks. I’ll see what I can find. In the meantime, any thoughts on the other items? Evansjack1 (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

IMHO I don't think that any of the existing (sourced!) material is particularly scurrilous or insidious. It may be as you say, Jack, that the article may be missing the mark in its emphasis, or that the material is old, but - there's nothing wrong with it from a BLP perspective. Also, I don't disagree that it may be a bit of a mishmash right now, and I wouldn't object to a more disciplined & relevant rewrite, but TBH I haven't got the time or the inclination to undertake the research and writing that that would entail, and I suspect Bone doesn't either. In other words - in its current state the article may be Not Very Good, but it's not (as far as I can tell), Wrong. If you want non-COI editors to clean it up, it's going to fall to you I think to provide the raw material - that is, actual links to actual reliable third party sources that might more comprehensively, and suitably, capture the arc of your service on the Council. JohnInDC (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand, especially about any new material. But what about eliminating some of the things I mentioned like the details in the Mayor’s race, and the amounts in the Constituent Fund paragraph that are hopelessly dated. You really don’t loose anything by deleting this stuff. And again a new section on my legal career makes sense and didn’t require any research since all the articles are already cited. These changes alone would take no time and make a big difference. I cannot do them myself because I have committed to not editing my page. Thanks for taking a look. Jack. Evansjack1 (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

That you don't think information about a city council member's mayoral campaigns merits significant coverage reinforces the need for the guidelines we have on conflict-of-interest and autobiographical writing. Do you really think that running for mayor is a trivial matter? Do you think the article on John McCain (since you made the mistake of bringing it up earlier) shouldn't talk about his presidential campaigns? (If not, why in the world not?) Besides that, I'm mystified why you care so much given that the information that's there isn't very detailed, consisting mostly of superlatives, and includes nothing negative. Largoplazo (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess the reason I'm not removing any of the material is because you - Jack - are the only one who seems to have any real issues with it, and you're (by definition) not objective. Your concern isn't with "making Wikipedia better" but instead with "making the article about me more to my liking". Which is fine, I'm not complaining about that, but rather just explaining why I'm not jumping on your suggestions. Sure, some of it may be old, or some of it may overstate your role, but at this point, as best I can tell, it's all sourced; and as I said above, not "wrong". I'm all in when it comes to clearing the article of insinuations and snarkiness and trivia, but not so much when (as it now seems) we'd just be conforming the article more to your own preferences. JohnInDC (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Responding to Largo, I’m not suggesting eliminating the fact that I ran for mayor, but that the number of signatures collected and money raised in the second attempt is too much detail. These details are not mentioned in my first run.

And addressing John, yes the information is accurate but again largely irrelevant. You may remember 4 years ago all the irrelevant material that was deleted even tho it was accurate.

The issues you have chosen to highlight are really not mine and were put there by Bang and Largo for different reasons as you know quite well. Now is as good a time as any to clean up my page. That’s why I am identifying these issues. Otherwise, we are left with this mishmash of stuff. Not good or bad just not relevant. That was not the intent of Wikipedia. Anyone else out there who has any thoughts? Evansjack1 (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Digi Media redux

The Washington Post ran an article today about the issuance of shares valued at $100,000 give or take to Evans's consulting firm in October 2016. Evans says he returned the stock certificate as soon as it was received, but this information was heretofore unknown (at least to me). We had substantially pared down the Digi Media section, a decision with which I was in accord, because in the end no money or favors appear to have changed hands, there was no legislation introduced, and all the rest. This looks to be more of the same - a thing of value that made a quick round trip and resulted in no net change. It may be more "nothing" but it is at least "more" and I am noting the article to see if this changes anyone's thinking. JohnInDC (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd add that, on a quick read, the article does a pretty good job of summarizing all that has gone before and so it's a good place to start for anyone new to the discussion (or for that matter, for anyone old to it who has lost track of the details). JohnInDC (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@JohnInDC: I'm not sure why you reverted my edit. The Washington Post is listed as a reliable source at WP:RSP. If they are reporting this, the article should reflect their investigation. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that we "certainly need a better source for the 'typically' angle in a BLP". Updating the status of Evans' troubles related to Digi Media seems like a clearly justified edit that should be non-controversial to anyone not blindly partisan to Evans. No one has yet stated that they don't think the information should be added, and until someone does so, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and provide a very tight update to that paragraph sticking very closely to what the Washington Post reported; we don't need to expend time and energy discussing the change until people object to it. - Sdkb (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I reverted it because the matter has been the subject of extensive discussion here on the Talk page, by a variety of editors following an RFC at BLPN, who agreed to pare the discussion down substantially from the way it been written previously. In light of that discussion, I thought it appropriate to reopen the discussion to decide how this new information should be handled. You added the material without regard for either the prior discussion, or my entry of this morning, and I felt justified in restoring the status quo until it's been hashed out at least a little. (Which BTW was the second time today you'd done that.) As for the "law enforcement" bit - the source says - expressly - that the office of ethics didn't say why they'd put the investigation on hold, and then the author offers up the observation that "in other cases they have stepped aside in deference to law enforcement investigations". Your gloss, that it's "typical" where law enforcement becomes involved, overstates the source and implies that, in fact, law enforcement is looking into this matter. Given that this is a BLP I think you need something better than a reporter's aside to support that. JohnInDC (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I see that you've elected to ignore the prior consensus arrived at following a request for comment at BLP, and expand the discussion. I'm not going to edit war by removing it again, but I did remove the comment about law enforcement as overstating the source (as I just said); I also changed the language about "introducing failed legislation" because 1) that's not what the source says and 2) that too has been the subject of much prior discussion, which I really wish you'd read before you continue to edit here. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

There is now independent confirmation of a law enforcement investigation according to a third party source. The cited reference should be allowed to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.104.72 (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Links to the prior discussion - here and here. They're adjacent sections, so you can start with the first and read through, though there's some extra stuff in there as well. JohnInDC (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

PS. WP:AGF. "Blindly partisan" is a step in the wrong direction. JohnInDC (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't have the energy to fully engage in this discussion -- especially since it seems so self evident that the investigation deserves further detail in the entry. Also the whole episode is outrageous and pathetic - a lengthy explanation for its inclusion is unnecessary. To new editors who are arriving here, the consensus has been too often shaped by Evans. Bangabandhu (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bangabandhu: Amen to that. I would place myself pretty much in the "new editors who are arriving here" category and I'm already burnt out. @JohnInDC: and @Swarm: thank you for linking me to the prior discussion, but I similarly don't have the time to go through it at the moment, so I'll refrain from engaging in this discussion more until I have. Please note, though, that the Washington Post article does contain new information, which I would suspect renders most of the prior discussion obsolete. More generally, I find it rather shocking that a scandal given prominent billing in the Post, one of the most respected publications in American journalism, and picked up by numerous other outlets, hasn't been deemed suitable for inclusion in any due weight on Wikipedia. I hope that the RfC about parking will bring enough outsiders to this page to fix some of the neutrality issues (a neutrality disputed tag would also be useful). - Sdkb (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Neutrality is, of course, a two-way street. When you find time to review the Talk page archives, be sure to go back to the beginning in order to appreciate the indefensible POV tone that the article had then taken against Evans, and how much work it was for (several) NPOV editors to wrestle the thing back to a semblance of neutrality - and to keep it there. You might start here, with the 2014 entry appropriately labelled, "NPOV problems". Understanding what has gone before is, IMHO, essential to informed and useful discussion. JohnInDC (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@JohnInDC: @Nblund: @Bangabandhu: Hi folks, I just wanted to chime in to say that I find it rather disconcerting that, despite all the conversation here, it seems like there's still largely an impasse and there doesn't seem to be consensus approaching. Per WP:The deadline is now (which can apply to omissions as much as to inclusions), this sort of delay seems damaging. Is it time to bring this up at WP:DRN or something? - Sdkb (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@JohnInDC, Nblund, Bangabandhu, Bonewah, Evansjack1, Swarm, Snooganssnoogans, and Masem: I've filed a DRN here. - Sdkb (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The addition should be deleted until the BEGA is finished. It also does not include that I immediately returned the stock certificate Evansjack1 (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it says I received $100,000. It was a stock certificate that had no value, ie penny stock. If it must stay please state it correctly. Evansjack1 (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I noted that it was stock, that you say you returned it; left in the Post's valuation. JohnInDC (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The Post is incorrect about the value. The reporter says he based it on undisclosed sources. That’s not enough. The stock had no value. It is insider stock. Please correct. But after all we went through this summer and agreed to wait until BEGA is finished, why are we adding anything? That’s not really fair. It violates our understanding. Evansjack1 (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, we're here to talk about it. Let's see what Sdkb has to say after he reviews the prior discussion. Meanwhile I'll ping @Red Rock Canyon: and @Swarm:, who participated in the earlier BLP-related discussion. I probably should have done that first thing anyhow. JohnInDC (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree that this is "more of the same"; in other words, this is more "gossipy" information shamelessly intended to speculatively frame the article's subject as being, in some sense, corrupt. There's this pattern of news stories highlighting allegations of impropriety, countered by Evans denying wrongdoing. There was a clear agreement to omit these frivolous, "gossipy" details in the spirit of WP:DUE, WP:BLP, WP:NOTTABLOID, WP:NPOV. Including them is akin to editorializing in the article that he's corrupt, prior to any official determination that he did anything wrong. That's so inappropriate it's not even funny.  Swarm  {talk}  23:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

WaPo's reporting should of course be covered in this Wikipedia article. For what its worth, I was not aware of past edit-warring and talk page discussions on this subject when I added content on this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Once you'd seen that you were editing in the face of an active Talk page discussion, and contrary to the earlier, BLP-based consensus, the better thing would have been to self-revert until a new consensus is achieved. I've done that now. Please don't add this material back in until it's been hashed out here. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you link to the archived discussion where there was a consensus not to add this content? It seems extremely strange to cite a consensus that precedes this WaPo report to exclude info not known when the consensus was reached. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Have you read this section? I linked to the material once before. Now again: Talk:Jack_Evans_(D.C._politician)/Archive_2#Regarding_the_'ethics_controversy' and Talk:Jack_Evans_(D.C._politician)/Archive_2#revisions,_point_by_point. I’ll also repeat that there are other matters discussed in those sections, so you will need to sift through them a bit. As for your confusion, the prior conclusion was to omit any details of this episode - who offered what, whether it was accepted or returned or never accepted at all, whether the legislation was “introduced and withdrawn” or “never introduced” or whatever - pending resolution by the board of ethics, for BLP reasons and because laying out the back-and-forth evenhandedly and in NPOV fashion was a challenge. (This is neatly illustrated by your edit, which omitted that Evans immediately returned the certificate - or says he did anyhow.) This latest report is a new detail, so to include it requires revisiting the prior determination. JohnInDC (talk) 13:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Consensus can change, and I don't see any compelling reason to refrain from mentioning a widely reported story. It is a well-sourced statement that is clearly relevant to his bio and no one appears to be disputing its accuracy. If other editors want to add additional reliable sources that offer additional context or discuss Evans' defense, they should do so - but Wikipedia doesn't need to wait for a board of ethics report in order to say anything about a news story. Nblund ^talk 23:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

edit: for perspective, the Washington Post editorial board has commented. So have other members of the council.The story has also been picked up by Deadspin.com - this isn't exactly headline news, but it's a lot more than you typically see for a city council member. Nblund ^talk 23:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I’m asking everyone to be patient. This matter will be resolved shortly. I am told that the inquiry is almost finished. Evansjack1 (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Really? According to WaPo: "In recent months, the board suspended its inquiry. Board officials declined to give a reason, but in other cases they have stepped aside in deference to law enforcement investigations." (emphasis mine). Wikipedia operates on reliable sources - the inquiry itself (if published) wouldn't have much value because it would be WP:PRIMARY. Nblund ^talk 01:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

No one's arguing that it should be omitted, and it's not, but we should also respect BLP and not assign undue weight to minor details, speculation and gossip that does not actually affect the portrayal of the big picture. We're an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and we're supposed to recognize the difference, and push back against WP:RECENTISM. WaPo is a reliable source, that doesn't mean we brainlessly parrot every article they write on a subject. No essential statements of fact are omitted from the article in a way that biases it one way or the other, but users like yourself would prefer the article include inconclusive minor details in order to paint an editorial picture, and that's completely inappropriate. That the investigation was suspended, and that this, according to WaPo, has previously indicated the existence of a law enforcement investigation, is entirely relevant and should be included. Individual implications of wrongdoing that the subject has denied and that we do not know the truth about are not on that same level.  Swarm  {talk}  02:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

First: I have no interest in any particular "editorial picture", I came here because of a noticeboard post. I don't live in DC, and I've never edited this article, so I'm not sure what you're basing that accusation on. I don't know what "implications of wrongdoing" you're referencing, but I'm discussing this. The entry currently states that Evans is being investigated for ethics violations for lobbying on behalf of Digi. Are you saying it is a "minor detail" that his consulting firm received money and stock from that same company? And that WaPo has published 2 stories and an editorial on it since the 21st? Nblund ^talk 03:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

It's well and fine to debate the importance of these occurrences, but it's meaningless if we don't describe them accurately. It's well-established in the reporting that Evans returned the checks without cashing them; and he reports that he returned the certificate immediately upon receiving it. It debases the discussion to proceed - in light of these equally well-sourced facts - as if he put these funds into his pocket. JohnInDC (talk) 04:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that we should be accurate- but all that would be required, then, is to add "Evans stated that he returned the stock certificate immediately upon receiving it", right? Nblund ^talk 05:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, yes, certainly. Thanks. In the same vein, when we mention the delay in the board's investigation, we need to be clear that the board declined to offer a reason for it, and that "criminal investigation" was the Post's take on what might have happened. Consider too how we might phrase it so as not to leave the impression that it is necessarily Evans who is under criminal investigation (which the Post kind of failed at TBH). JohnInDC (talk) 12:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

With regard to this edit mentioned above, i have a problem with the line " a month after the firm received the stocks, Evans pushed for emergency legislation to allow the digital sign company to operate.". I see that the Post is insinuating that one caused the other but we should not, at least, not in the voice of Wikipedia. If we were to rewrite it to make it clear that the Post is drawing the connection, not us, that would be ok too, depending on the wording. Bonewah (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that is implied by the in-text reference to WaPo earlier in the same sentence - but I'm open to rewording if you can suggest a non-clunky version of it. I would suggest: "In December 2018, The Washington Post reported that a consulting firm owned by Evans had received 200,000 shares of stock in a digital sign company in 2016, a month before pushing for emergency legislation to allow the digital sign company to operate. Evans later pulled support for the legislation, and stated that he returned the stock certificate immediately after it was received." Nblund ^talk 17:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe this should be included at all, but if it is I'd reword it slightly to: "In December 2018, The Washington Post reported that a consulting firm owned by Evans had received 200,000 shares of stock in a digital sign company in 2016, a month before Evans pushed for emergency legislation to allow the company to operate in the District. Evans withdrew the proposal prior to a vote. In response to Post story, Evans stated that he had returned the stock certificate immediately after it was received." JohnInDC (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Coming from blpn, regardless of anything else, to include the WaPost article about the shares and timing and not also include Evan's statement from the same article that the shares were immediately returned is a BLP violation. If these shares existed or not , it's contentious, and so including the subject's stance on the matter is required. Personally, one should wait until the January's final report is given to determine if they considered these shares important, and use that report to guide what to include. --Masem (t) 12:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I just reverted the addition of the language above, because while we may have agreement on the language, we certainly don't on whether or not it warrants addition. In fact the most recent comment immediately preceding suggests holding off until the ethics committee has decided the matter. JohnInDC (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

edit conflict As I mentioned: The WaPo reporting indicates that the ethics investigation has been suspended - I don't know if we're really going to see a report. The other reporting around this (the Deadspin article, the comment from the WaPO editorial board, and the responses from other counsel members) suggest that this is news. To be honest, an investigation that finds that no rules were broken can also be considered noteworthy. Can someone explain how we would mention the ethics investigation and mention that it was suspended, but decide that this development is irrelevant? If we're counting articles, it seems like this has gotten more coverage than the initial reports indicating that an investigation was happening. Nblund ^talk 19:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hm. An investigation that ultimately finds that no rules were broken means - to me anyhow - that detailing the events that presented an appearance of impropriety have no place in the article at all. I also think that to add it we need a bit more agreement from the folks here (and those arriving) to that end. Anyhow I hope you understand that I'm not trying to be dogmatic about this. This Digi Media stuff looks bad, and it doesn't get better over time. Indeed that's why I started this thread in the first place. But look what we've got. An internship (that didn't happen). Checks for $50,000 (that were returned uncashed). A stock certificate arriving (as far as we know) unsolicited, which is (as far as Evans says), returned immediately. And legislation that was drafted, then withdrawn without a vote. It's all false starts, half-events, that in the end (again, so far as we know) didn't result in either legislation or money changing hands. I agree that it's suspicious and distressing the way facts seem to dribble out; and the whole thing leaves a really bad taste in one's mouth. At best. But then too, as of right now it's just a bunch of "maybe". Thanks for continuing to talk, BTW. JohnInDC (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

If that were the case, we wouldn't have articles on Travelgate or the IRS targeting controversy. The fact is that he received stocks and money and the Washington Post reported it. As I said below: I don't believe any of this hinges on a question of whether or not the scandal is truly "scandalous" - that's a news judgement that we're not equipped to answer. If it turns out that he is incorruptible, it would still be worth noting that he was prominently accused. Nblund ^talk 00:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the ultimately unsuccessful US attorney's investigation into Vincent C. Gray figures prominently in his entry. Similarly, the FBI's failed efforts to bribe Jim Graham are in his bio.Bangabandhu (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Sdkb DRN may be sensible, although my experience is that well-publicized RfCs tend to produce better outcomes in cases like this.

71.200.104.72: as I explained in my edit summary, per WP:BLPPRIMARY, we don't cite primary sources and legal documents for BLPs. We might be able to cite the earlier Washington Post article, which notes that the investigation has been suspended and that this usually indicates that law enforcement investigation is ongoing, but we would need consensus for that. If and when the criminal investigation gets picked up by a news source, we can cite that. JohnInDC, and Bonewah, would you be alright with mentioning that the investigation is suspended and that this is usually done when there is a criminal investigation? Nblund ^talk 00:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Of whom? JohnInDC (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll try to be less coy. Since we mention the investigation, I think it's fair to mention that it is stayed, even with the primary source. However. There is nothing in any source to indicate that it's Evans who's being investigated. It could, for instance, easily be Digi's principal, MacCord, who was indicted on securities violations in December 2017. Link. It doesn't matter who in the Digi mix DOJ may be looking at - and they'll ask OIG to stand down all the same - if e.g. OIG is hoping to interview the same witnesses, and look into the same general issues as DOJ wants or needs to in order to build DOJ's criminal case. I'm open to suggestions for how to report the stay of the investigation, if we can do it in a way that doesn't let the reader draw an unsupported inference. Or for that matter sound like we're being over scrupulous, the way TV anchors call the guy caught with a gun at the scene as the "alleged" assailant - JohnInDC (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm generally with JohnInDC in erring on the side of caution and restraint, but this is seems like a stretch. The investigation is suspended, and it was directly confirmed by the Director of the Office of Open Government in a public statement that the reason for that was due to a law enforcement investigation. This makes it an uncontentious, factual update. I have a hard time believing blocking this sort of uncontentious update is the intent of BLPPRIMARY. Will bring this up at BLPN.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  21:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Swarm, you are more cautious on BLP issues than me, and if you're okay with the comment then I can be too. I just know what would come first to someone's mind when reading that an investigation of Evans was stayed because of a law enforcement inquiry. It's - into Evans, of course. JohnInDC (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

We should not editorialize anything that would suggest that Evans is the target of the law enforcement investigation, because that's not what the source says—there I agree with you. However, this appears to be an uncontentious update to the status of the ethics investigation. BLPPRIMARY does seem to very strongly discourage the use of public records, and I'm not sure what exactly that means. I have inquired at BLPN about this. Happy to wait for some feedback there, hopefully it will clear up the confusion.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  22:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Post article already reports that the investigation was suspended, so I went ahead and added that. My reading was that WP:BLPPRIMARY was as much about protecting privacy and avoiding disputes over the veracity of public records as much as anything else. I agree that this is probably an edge case, but I imagine some other entity is going to report that at some point. Nblund ^talk 00:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I've already gotten some helpful clarification from BLPN, the intent here seem to basically be to protect subjects from having dirt dug up on them via public records that isn't covered by secondary sources. So, assuming there was no coverage about this whole saga in secondary sources, it would be inappropriate to include it purely based on public records. It is however well covered in sources, and this is just a relevant update. I've added the government confirmation. It seems silly to include a journalist's speculation and not mention the fact that it was confirmed to be true. Feel free to modify wording or whatever.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  02:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense to me. Nblund ^talk 02:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I thought we had all agreed to wait until the inquiry was finished before updating. Evansjack1 (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

It is now the longest paragraph in that section and many of us agreed the paragraph should not even be in the bio. This is a violation of what we agreed to this summer. Please revert back to the original paragraph. Evansjack1 (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and trimmed the statement back a little. It doesn't sound like the inquiry is going to finish any time soon, and I really can't think of any good reason to mention the inquiry but fail to mention that the inquiry has been suspended. Nblund ^talk 17:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The additional sentence is not supported by either footnote 23 or 24. It is the conjecture of Nblund. It does not appear in print anywhere. This needs to be deleted. Evansjack1 (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

No where are the words “to avoid interference with an ongoing law enforcement investigation” used. Please revert to the agreed upon language. ThanksEvansjack1 (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It's a paraphrase - I think the previous version may have been a little bit more precise, but I was trying to address your concerns about the length of the paragraph. The statement from the meeting minutes is: "the investigation had been stayed because of an ongoing law enforcement investigation." The statement from WaPo is that the board has previously "stepped aside in deference to law enforcement investigations." I'm not seeing a huge difference there. Like I said: I don't see a good policy-based reason for excising it entirely, but I'm open to another wording if you want to suggest something. Nblund ^talk 05:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Jack, you are allowed to voice your opinion on your article, but it has been confirmed by DC government that the investigation was suspended due to a law enforcement investigation. That makes it an uncontentious factual update of information already in the article. It is completely inappropriate for you to be suggesting that the information is made up, and that it should be deleted from the article. The level of detail is already heavily restricted in comparison to media reporting, but pushing to suppress such a straightforwardly factual update is unacceptable. This article is not here to promote you or to portray you positively, it is here to reflect factual information as neutrally as possible. If you cannot accept that, we will reinstate your block.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  07:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC

Quick check "but it has been confirmed by DC government that the investigation was suspended due to a law enforcement investigation" I don't actually see that in the source given... have I missed a source? Closet I find is "In recent months, the board suspended its inquiry. Board officials declined to give a reason, but in other cases they have stepped aside in deference to law enforcement investigations.", which isn't the same thing. ("Read the previous n pages of the talk page would be a totally valid answer because I have not") Joe (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It's in that second source (footnote 24) Nblund ^talk 15:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, I remain mystified, but I'll take your word for it. Can't see it myself, but it's nine pages of committee-speak so anything could be in thereJoe (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Joereddington: The page number, along with the relevant quote itself, are directly provided in the footnote.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  23:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you just directly quote the statement from the meeting. It does not include “to avoid interference “. Evansjack1 (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I changed the wording to "because of an ongoing law enforcement investigation" - someone else could feel free to revert me here if that wording loses something important. Nblund ^talk 15:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the change but remember even what you wrote is not in the minutes or the Post. It was an answer to a question. My frustration is that the paragraph is wrong. The exact wording of BEGA is that they “are conducting an inquiry of Councilmember Evans whether he violated Council code of conduct by lobbying on behalf of a client for a law firm at which he was employed.” No mention is made of Digi. And Digi was never a client of my law firm. But whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evansjack1 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

If a fact is reported in secondary reliable sources, it's immaterial that you pointed to a primary source where that fact isn't mentioned. That's hardly evidence that the secondary sources are wrong. If you believe the secondary sources are factually incorrect, your argument is properly with them; making this your primary forum for arbitration of the facts with them is somewhat like asking the tail to wag the dog. Also, I don't see what you're taking issue with in asserting that Digi was a client of your law firm, because the article doesn't say that they were. The excerpt you provided from BEGA says so, but BEGA is probably not reading this Talk page so I see no benefit to you from arguing your case against their assertion here. This isn't an all-purpose forum for voicing your grievances over statements made about you outside of Wikipedia as well as within it, so your comments are entering the realm of WP:TALKNO and WP:NOTFORUM. By the way, the sources cited here say the payments were made to NSE Consulting, not Manatt, Phelps. Largoplazo (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Further discussion on parking

Hi all, apologies for editing the article before consensus; I searched for "parking" in the talk page archive, not realizing that the search doesn't include the current page, so I missed the more recent discussion on parking. In the discussion above, it looks like there is not yet consensus on whether to include mention of parking in the article, as there are a few editors on each side, and I would side those in favor of including the info. I'm going to open a RfC to help get some additional perspectives on this matter. Cheers! - Sdkb (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Pinging previously involved editors: @Bangabandhu: @Bonewah: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdkb (talk • contribs)

Another: @Largoplazo: JohnInDC (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

1992 Council of the District of Columbia, Ward 2, General Election

The vote percentages for 1992 Council of the District of Columbia, Ward 2, General Election section appear to add up to 116%. I've marked the link as dead and I couldn't get much from [1], which was the other obvious source. This seems to be a fairly active talk page so I suspect there are much better people than me who can fix it.... Joe (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a great find, it looks like most of the links for the election results are dead - I think the Board of Elections changed their URL. I found the link to the 1992 results, though I didn't calculate the exact percentages, which probably requires Excel and a bit of patience. Its very tedious to fix all of them, especially the early one elections, as they're reported in PDF form with only raw totals not percentages. Bangabandhu (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately it appears to be affecting other pages - Phil_Mendelson for example. Given some free time I might investigate, presumably there is a wikiproject devoted to election results somewhere...Joe (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

It's probably every Councilmember before 2000 - likely several dozen pages or more. Is that something a bot could do? Bangabandhu (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I put the correct links here (I haven't formatted them properly or filled them in) I suspect I could do it with some quick vim macros once I work out how they are *supposed* to be formatted... :) Joe (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

To whoever is updating my bio, I have new Committee assignments as of January 2, 2019. Please see my Council Bio for updates. My new assignments are: member of the Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety, member of Committee on Facilities and Procurement. I am no longer on the Committee on Goverment Relations.

Also, please update my Electon Results section. I was elected National Committeeman in the November 3, 2018 general election.

The results are available at the DC Board of Elections. They are:

Jack Evans 42,873 Markus Batchelor 24,364

Thanks for your help. Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evansjack1 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Jack, can you post a link to those official results? Bonewah (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Bone. For the committees see Footnote 44 on my Wikipedia page and for the election results see footnotes 63 through 71. Hope that’s helpful. Thanks again. Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evansjack1 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I updated the committee assignments. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

ThanksEvansjack1 (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually I just checked and the committee assignments have not been updated. Bang please take another look. Thanks jackEvansjack1 (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I used the content directly from the currently footnoted source, which is the council website. Maybe have it updated there, first? Bangabandhu (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

https://electionresults.dcboe.org/election_results/2018-Primary-Election This is the link for the Board of Elections. Scroll down to National Committeeman. Evansjack1 (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I asked them to update the Council website.

The link for the National Committeeman election is above. Thanks. Evansjack1 (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I will let other editors weigh in on that - I don't know if party leadership results typically get a results box, even if its city wide. For comparison, Bonds' Democratic leadership position isn't mentioned in her bio. I don't know if results below the Council-level are significant enough to mention - we don't include any of the ANC or school board races, as far as I can tell. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC about whether to mention illegal parking habit

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The RfC is closed with consensus not to include. I find it compelling that such might rise above WP:trivia if it becomes a significant part of their reputation but I am not convinced this is the case after reviewing the three press sources cited. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC) signed late

---

Should the article include mention of Evans' widely reported [2] habit of illegal parking, including the altercation in August where he told a bystander confronting him on video that "if I park illegally, that opens up a spot for you"? - Sdkb (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• No. The prior discussion was subsequent to the August 2018 episode ("altercation" overstates it). Nothing has changed since then. The 2015 discussion is here. My view remains the same as it did four months ago. Quoting:

These are parking tickets. A councilmember parks illegally and gets huffy when challenged. That's the beginning and the end of it. He doesn't punch anyone, or have their property taxes raised, run them over with his car, or keep a firetruck from getting to a hydrant. The tickets themselves are either dismissed, or paid. It's annoying to his constituents (some of them anyhow), and his response is puerile, but it's a petty abuse of power - emphasis on "petty". It's small-change, hyperlocal, and as such beneath mention in the article. IMHO.

JohnInDC (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I encourage incoming editors to review the Talk page archives beginning around Talk:Jack_Evans_(D.C._politician)/Archive_1#NPOV_problems to get a sense of the neutrality issues that editors here have been wrestling with for a while. The context may be helpful. JohnInDC (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, with caveat. I don't think we should mention a single incident. Quoting myself, from above - A single incident, or even many incidents, on their own is trivial. But that's long been surpassed and Evans' parking is now part of his reputation. He's more known for it than many other thingsin his bio. Look at how mainstream media refer to his parking (again, not a single incident, or even many incidents, but instead his reputation) - quotes are verbatim from the article - The Washingtonian: ("Evans, whose free-form approach to parking regulations has been well-documented..."), CBS: ("...has been caught parking illegally for years"), NPR: ("A veteran politician known for occasionally illegally parking..."). Any seemingly trivial act becomes noteworthy when it's done to the extent that its part of someone's reputation. Evans' wikipedia editing, for example, is trivia. If he became an editor of note (and there are some individuals notable for their wikipedia'ing) we could include that. Bangabandhu (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes with same basic caveat: make a brief, broad, politically neutral statement and then add citations so people can go read about specific incidents themselves.--Aboudaqn (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• No For reasons that have been discussed ad nauseum. I know as a new user you are not aware of previous discussions on this issue (this is a problem with archiving, really), but for those of us who have discussed this multiple times, nothing has changed. Bonewah (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes A brief (one sentence mention) seems warranted. It's "hyperlocal" because Evans is a hyperlocal figure. Evans himself has made public statements about it.JohnInDC: your personal beliefs about the newsworthiness of this issue aren't really germane here. Per WP:DUE: we cover things in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Nblund ^talk 23:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that editors' views about newsworthiness are irrelevant here, right below WP:DUE is WP:PROPORTION which states "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." We are not simply scriveners of reliable sources, its our job to decide what is worth including and what is not by way of judgement, discussion and consensus. This is the difference between a middens and an encyclopedia. Bonewah (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Mm. And if we include Evans's parking proclivities here then on what principle do we exclude it from other councilmember articles? This behavior is so commonplace that the local City Paper created an Instragram account for people to submit photos of councilmembers parking illegally. In addition to Evans, citizens have tagged Councilmembers Mary Cheh, Yvette Alexander, Jim Graham, David Grosso, Brianne Nadeau, Vincent Orange and (then-councilmember) Muriel Bowser. It's hard to believe that Wikipedia articles should be parroting these sources simply because they exist. JohnInDC (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:PROPORTION: we exclude or include on the basis of coverage in reliable sources. Instagram wouldn't really make the cut for a reliable source (WP:USERGEN), but if multiple news outlets pick up a story on other council members, it might be worth mentioning. Maybe I'm over-estimating the significance of The Washington City Paper, but judgements about the inherent newsworthiness of a story are outside of our pay-grade as editors. Nblund ^talk 17:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

We're not parroting sources, we're looking at what has been extensively sourced and repeatedly mentioned and then using that as the basis for determining its significance. If any of the other CMs were known for their parking (if it consistently turned up in RS-published bios) then we'd include it. If you take Jim Graham, for example, he's known for his distinctive Volkswagen. He might have parked illegally a few times, but it never reached any significance and doesn't show up in his bios or obituary - "his cream-colored Volkswagen convertible" or that he was "seen driving his Volkswagen Beetle Convertible all over town does. I might go add that to his page. Bangabandhu (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nblund judgements about the inherent newsworthiness of a story is exactly the job of editors. If it werent, then rules like DUE and PROPORTION wouldnt even exist. You are correct that we exclude or include on the basis of coverage in reliable sources, but that isnt and cant be a mechanical process. There is no formula for determining what is worthy of inclusion or exclusion, it ultimately comes down to editorial judgement. @Bangabandhu, again, i disagree that this is so extensively and reliably sourced that it obviously must be included. As i have stated several times in the past, coverage of this topic is largely either mentioned in passing or sourced to local, gossipy blogs, neither of which rises to the level of 'so well reported that it obviously must be included'. Bonewah (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

There's lots of coverage about lots of council members. DCist: D.C. Politicians’ Worst Parking Jobs, Ranked (Grosso, Bowser, Graham (x3), Alexander (x2), Evans (x2), Norton) Does Evans's parking warrant unique mention because his spot was ranked #1? Greater Greater Washington: DC councilmembers are exempt from some parking regulations. That doesn’t mean they should flout the rules. (Leads with Evans, moves on to Nadeau, Grosso, and "several former council members". Money quote - "Councilmember use of parking perks has inspired a now-dormant Instagram account from the Washington City Paper, many a thread on Reddit, and talk on virtually every local DC blog.") It's pervasive. Mention it everywhere or don't mention it at all. JohnInDC (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

It's right there in the text you quoted (emphasis mine): "strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." There are some aspects of this situation that are open to interpretation, but on this, the policy is very clear and Nblund is entirely correct. - Sdkb (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

That is just another way of saying what i have been saying all along, editors use their judgement to determine what weight, if any, is given to a given topic based on its treatment in reliable sources. The only difference between what im saying and what you and Nblund are saying is whether the weight given in an article can be 0. If 'no coverage in a wikipedia article' is not an option, then get to work detailing the kind of car Evan's drives, how he decorates his house, what kind of cigars he smokes and a thousand other things that most definitely appear in reliable sources, but plainly (in my opinion) dont warrant inclusion here. Again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database. Bonewah (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Nblund's original point was that, per policies like the one quoted above, coverage in Wikipedia should be proportional to the amount of coverage a topic receives in mainstream sources, not how newsworthy editors personally think a topic is. Some people here seem to be disagreeing with that, which is to me a clear misreading of the policies. Yes, we have to use our judgement about whether or not a topic is covered substantially in the media, but that's not the same thing as using our judgement about whether or not a topic's substantial coverage in the media means it's significant. - Sdkb (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I dont think you can do one without the other, but clearly we disagree as to what extent editorial judgement plays a roll in deciding what should be included and what shouldnt. It doesnt matter to me as i have also said that i dont find the coverage to be all that substantial as stated above. Bonewah (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Me, I’d like to know how we write this so that it’s accurate, evenhanded and proportionate. Accurate: DC law exempts councilmembers from most parking laws if they're on official business. Source. So a lot of what the sources are calling out may not be “illegal” at all. In fact in the video that launched this discussion, Evans is sitting in his car and therefore "standing", not "parking" at all. Do we mechanically echo the sources even when they’re wrong? Evenhanded: We’ve established that this kind of parking is longstanding and commonplace among council members. What do we say about Evans? That this is pretty typical stuff for the council but he is often described as the worst offender? (I feel silly just proposing that.) Proportionate: How many sentences do we want to devote to Evans’s annoying parking habits? My question is rhetorical, but it’s real too. I don’t know how you write this up, I don’t know what words to use that don't make it sound even sillier than it is. JohnInDC (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• No (once I worked out what a "D.C. politician" was as it wasnt clear!) this appears to be trivia and like all local politicians this just shows some arogrant behaviour but that is not unusual in elected officials. MilborneOne (talk) 11:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
• No - Summoned by bot. Illegal parking? Not notable enough for inclusion on a BLP. Meatsgains^(talk) 20:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment (Summoned by bot) This RfC is malformed. Without a full description of the sourcing and the proposed text and placement thereof it is impossible to make an informed judgment. Don't ask editors coming in cold to engage in guesswork or investigate the issues. I won't. Coretheapple (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• No Trivia, as per others above. (Summoned by bot) HouseOfChange (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment: This discussion was previously closed as "mixed results". It was reopened per the request of Swarm below. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

First closure discussion

•  Administrator note Just as a followup to this, the user who closed this was an inexperienced and problematic newbie who happens to be my adoptee. The user is on their very last legs before being blocked due to overstepping their bounds in terms of experience. I hope my earlier defense of Jack did not sway their judgment here, and I will not assume that it did. That said, I find the reading of a "definite" consensus in opposition here to be highly incorrect. "Previous discussions" are irrelevant in the context of attempting to establish a community-level consensus, per WP:CCC and WP:CONLEVEL. The relevant policy considerations in this case are WP:V and WP:DUE, and the case should be considered strictly based on its merits. The supporters presented numerous sources to support their conclusion that the content in question is relevant, and the opposition did not present any policy-based opposition. We have: "this has been discussed before", "all politicians do this", "not notable", "malformed request", and "trivia". None of these are legitimate, policy-based refutations for including content that is covered by reliable sources, and in my assessment, the result was corrupted by the closer's inexperience. This, I fear, needs to be re-discussed in a new RfC. Supporters should take care to make a more thorough case, and opposers should take care to make policy-based rationales. But, I do not think that this should be considered to be "settled", nor a legitimate close at all. ~Swarm~ {talk} 09:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: Thanks for your insights on this. How would you recommend we move forward here? I don't think I'm the one to propose another RfC, but I would like to see this matter carried to resolution. - Sdkb (talk) 04:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, let me say that, for all of Matt's flaws and missteps, he has been willing to receive criticism in good faith at every turn. So, I would start by simply requesting that he un-close the discussion, and then add a new request for closure by another editor at WP:AN/C. I do not think that he would be unwilling to do so. If he was, for some reason, you may challenge the closure at AN. IMO, there is a consensus to include the information. The opposition has not been convincingly rooted in policy. The only invocation of a policy-based reasoning to exclude the content is WP:TRIVIA. Given the existence of entire articles on the subject, even this is dubious. So, IMO, if it comes to it, there's a strong case for a close challenge. ~Swarm~ {talk} 06:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@MattLongCT: Does what Swarm proposes above sound reasonable? - Sdkb (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

As criticism of admins goes, this seems a bit harsh. I disagreed with the decision but I've seen closes that were far more egregious. The reasoning here was thorough and the initial RFC was poorly phrased.Bangabandhu (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm, Sdkb, and Bangabandhu: I have removed the undone the closing. I will note that (1) I am on wikibreak, (2) Even I will admit this was not my best closure, and (2) as a result of a global rename, I was not successfully pinged before. Bangabandhu, Swarm is my adopter. He has done a lot for me, and I do not feel he was harsh on me whatsoever. ^{Also for the record because he mentioned it, I didn't weight his opinion more than anyone else because we barely had interacted at that point _lol}. Sdkb or Swarm, one of you will have to put in the request at WP:AN/RFC. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Second closure discussion

I'd characterize the closure this time as significantly worse than the first one; the closer didn't even properly sign their name. I definitely should have done more work to form the RfC better, so as to avoid leading to a mess like this, but it's also the responsibility of the discussion participants, particularly the closers, to look at things thoroughly, which was clearly not done here. (I'm not even convinced they read through the entire discussion, as there were more than three sources for Evans' bad parking cited.) Assuming that this close is also undone, I hope that the next person who attempts to come in does a more competent job. - Sdkb (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

There were three sources which I considered reliable. The strength of arguement lays in showing that Evans' parking habits are a significant part of his reputation. It is not the same as establishing he parks illegally/poorly/badly. There are 11 links in the discussion, of which, two are used twice. Two aren't even relevant to Evans. One might engage constructively to clarify my close. One might make objective comments. However, casting aspersions about the messenger does not change the message. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

There were three sources I cited. That was no where near exhaustive, but for some reason you seem to base your assessment of the issue's significance on that small sample. There are entire articles devoted to single incidents. The decision seems oblivious to many of the points about what makes something trivial - its not our interpretation of the act's significance, but the sources.Bangabandhu (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see your problem with the close. It reflects the opinion of the majority of respondents. You requested a change. People disagreed with it. Move on. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Red Rock Canyon: RfCs on Wikipedia do not use a majority vote to arrive at consensus. See WP:NOTVOTE. - Sdkb (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I know that. But the majority opinion is one consideration when determining consensus. My point is just that is the obvious result of this RFC is not to add the material. I could read it as either "no consensus to include" or "consensus not to include", but there's definitely not a consensus to add this material. The closer said that they reviewed the sources and decided that the main argument of the opposition (that this is irrelevant trivia that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia) was stronger. This isn't some huge, complicated, controversial RFC about a major change that demands an administrative close. The closer is an experienced, un-involved editor, and continuously arguing over closure when you don't get your way is unseemly, especially when it's obvious that the majority of respondents were against you. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I did not say I thought there was a consensus to include the information. (That was User:Swarm, and since they are an administrator, I give a fair amount of weight to their perspective.) And I do not go around constantly challenging closes just since I do not like them. This discussion has been subject to two bad closes, though (the first of which was undone after being initially challenged by another user, not me), so I'm going to call that what it is. - Sdkb (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Subpoena

FYI, the sentence added to my Wikipedia page is not correct. According to the Washington Post article,the subpoena was issued 5 months ago in September 2018. The Post also says it is a document request and is much broader than Jack Evans. it appears to be focused on signs and other people. The sentence should be deleted. Thanks. Evansjack1 (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

You're right about the first part. It originally said the Post reported such-and-such in March 2019. I removed the "reported that" on the theory that articles should state that things happened, not that things were reported to have happened. But I didn't notice that the subpoena was earlier and the Post was reporting it now because they'd just gotten a hold of it.

I don't agree with what I infer to be your rationale, that a legal process shouldn't be mentioned in an article about a person if that person isn't the only one targeted by the process. The Post states clearly that you are at least a target: "the subpoena ... provides the first public confirmation that the city’s longest-serving council member has been under the scrutiny of federal law enforcement officials." Largoplazo (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Reprimand

Jack Evans was reprimanded by a unanimous council motion in March 2019 for using his DC Council staff and email to solicit business from law firms that lobby the city. Resisting calls to remove him from Chair of the Finance and Revenue Committee, Chairman Mendelson stripped him of oversight of Events DC and the DC Commission on the Arts and Humanities. Evans apologized and claimed that he had stopped outside consulting.

References

Bangabandhu (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me; let's remove his first name and the spaces in between the citations and implement in the body after the current paragraph. I think it's important that the law enforcement investigation is still ongoing, but having this in combination with what's already there will establish that. Also, if the movement to recall Evans gains steam, that may become worthy of inclusion at some future point. - Sdkb (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there any particular need to cite the Daily Caller here? It looks like everything is covered in WaPo already. I don't see any reason to think their reporting here is inaccurate, but they've been deprecated per WP:RSP, and many editors (often with good reason) will just remove statements cited to bad sources on sight. Nblund ^talk 15:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, good catch. Yeah, WaPo would be a much better source. - Sdkb (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits and the paste to mainspace.Bangabandhu (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Constituent Services Funding

I went back to try and retrieve the earlier discussion we had about CSF and I don't think its been archived properly. I see it reflected in this version of the talk but not in Archive 2 as it currently appears. I don't know how to correct that or I'd fix it now. Anyway, the text currently reads "In 2016, the council approved a $20,000 increase to the funding limits of constituent services funds" without mentioning that it was Evans who requested an increase in the limit. Bangabandhu (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

NSE Consulting

Right now the article mentions Evans' corporate employment but doesn't describe NSE Consulting - which apparently is still active.

This text was in mainspace earlier.

In 2016 Evans formed a company called NSE Consulting, using a prominent lobbyist as the firm's registered agent. Within weeks, the advertising firm Digi Media wrote checks totaling $50,000 to NSE, for what Evans claimed was legal services to be provided to Digi outside the District of Columbia. Two weeks later, Evans returned the checks, undeposited, citing ethical concerns. Later that year, Evans proposed then withdrew emergency legislation to permit Digi Media to install electronic signs not permitted under city regulations. Digi Media had been installing signs in violation of the regulation and had been ordered by the city to stop. After withdrawing his proposal, Evans unsuccessfully sought enactment of an emergency rule by the Mayor, who originally appeared to have supported Evans's efforts.

Some of this is contained in the current para on Digi. This might suffice and is not redundant:

In 2016 Evans formed a company called NSE Consulting, using a prominent lobbyist as the firm's registered agent. Facing federal scrutiny and calls for his resignation, Evans announced he would no longer pursue outside income and outside consulting. In March 2019, he renewed the business registration for NSE Consulting.

References

Bangabandhu (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Previous concerns to the inclusion of NSE Consulting, from our talk in 2018 were, basically - we don't know what NSE Consulting is about and exactly Evans' relationship to it, so we don't know its significance, so it may not be notable. Except that NSE Consulting is integral to the timeline about recruiting outside business, closely connected to the federal subpoena around his business dealings and the subject of ongoing reporting. Based on the volume of sources and reporting, its more significant and relevant than his time as an executive for Central Benefits Mutual Insurance Co., which seems notable only because it appears in his official bio. Bangabandhu (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@JohnInDC: You wrote back here - "Now - if we have a reliable source that identifies an actual problem with Evans having private clients, and his reluctance to disclose this confidential information to - well, someone who has a right to ask; if that issue becomes a reported matter of public interest - then let's please revisit this." What's your view of this now, given the additional links above, and its relevance as a campaign issue. Bangabandhu (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bangabandhu:, your second proposed paragraph isnt too bad. Could be tweaked a bit, but im not opposed to at a glance. Bonewah (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah its pretty anodyne. Not clear to me why you reverted when I put it up before. Bangabandhu (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

WaPo story, 23 May: more unethical behavior and conflicts of interest

See here[3]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes the page probably needs updating and greater detail. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Criticism

Evans page needs to be significantly edited. My suggestions are important. How do we get some focus on this?Why were my edits reversed?

I’m posting where I just posted. I thought this is the bottom. Is this not the bottom

All my edits were reversed. Why?

I have waited two months and have received no feedback on my concerns about the Evans Wikipedia page. I can interpret that to mean no one objects to my editing the page. Therefore, I will proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:4501:200:C034:6E78:DC9C:FCC (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Some must extensively edit the John K Evans III page. The way it is now written is intended to make Evans look like an asshole. This is just irresponsible on the part or the Wikipedia editors. A handful of Evans haters in Washington,DC have written his page. It contains all negative information and ignores anything good he did in thirty years on the City Council. Come on people. Be fair.

The criticism is factual. We need JohninDC and other objective editors to redo this. The whole presentation is false and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4402:4F0:3183:86FF:BF76:4E35 (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Where can we discuss these edits? Largo is the number 1 Evans hater. He lives in the Washington area and has held grudges against Evans for years. We need a neutral editor.

PS. I will not just go away.

My edits have merit and should not be dismissed without further discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4402:4F0:3183:86FF:BF76:4E35 (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I’d like to discuss editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4402:4F0:3919:2900:C95:A047 (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The Jack Evans page needs significant editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4402:4F0:681F:41B1:3CAA:FC85 (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The Federal investigation or Grand Jury investigation has been domant for almost 2 years. Nothing has happened. Evans was not accused or charged with anything. We should state that or eliminate all the details around it.

It is totally unfair to leave the reader with the impression that Evans did something wrong. He didn’t. Nothing happened. No charges. Case closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4402:4F0:681F:41B1:3CAA:FC85 (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Suggested updates

In the section about WMATA. New text in italics.

In May 2019, Evans said he would not serve another term as Chairman of WMATA, which coincided with the conclusion of the review into Evans' ethical conduct.The review identified 16 different ways in which Evans violated either the board’s ethics code or the Metro Compact, the founding charter of WMATA. Maryland Governor Larry Hogan said that he was too ethically compromised and called for him to step down from the board entirely.

In 2016 Evans formed a company called NSE Consulting, using a prominent lobbyist as the firm's registered agent.Among the clients of NSE Consulting were Willco and EastBanc, development and investment firms, and the parent company of Colonial Parking, all of whom stood to benefit from legislation Evans introduced. Facing federal scrutiny and calls for his resignation, Evans announced he would no longer pursue outside income and outside consulting. In March 2019, he renewed the business registration for NSE Consulting, claiming he was following advice of counsel.

References

Bangabandhu (talk) 02:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

At a very brief glance, it looks fine to me. I'd say WP:BEBOLD and add it; if someone objects, we can come back here and work things out, but for an article like this that's not especially high-profile, it doesn't make sense to pass every change by the talk page, since placing the D before the BR in BRD is going to interfere with WP:THEDEADLINEISNOW. - Sdkb (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes I generally follow WP:BEBOLD but edits to this page have frequently sparked reversions, lengthy discussions, and allegations that I have some kind of anti-Evans bias. So I figured we could stave it off by discussing here, first. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Violation of ethics

Add paragraph about "Alleged violation of ethics"

I suggest to add a paragraph about the alleged violation of ethics. How about the draft paragraph below? I tried to include both point of views (POV), with their respective sources.

On June 21, 2019 the FBI raided Evans‘ Georgetown home. According to FOX 5, Evans was previously reprimanded for violations, he allegedly admitted he was in the wrong about ethics. As of this date, Evans is under investigation about accusations that he knowingly abused his position on both the D.C. Council and the board of Metro for personal gain, WTOP reported. Evans initially maintained that an investigation found no ethics violation. After a report was made public, Evans conceded that an investigation did found ethics violation.

Sources

Francewhoa (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

---

I don't think that's necessary. All of that information is already contained in the article. Also the phrasing has room for improvement. Why mention that its according to FOX5 when there are many outlets that have reported the same thing? His reprimand came from the DC council and is independent of the FBI raid.Bangabandhu (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Why did you propose here to add content and then make that addition anyway just one minute later? Largoplazo (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the way this should be handled is that we should expand the parts about outside employment, and expand the part about his WMATA chairmanship. But I don't see any need for a special header for everything that's going on. Would it cover WMATA, the DC Council? Would it be the federal investigation, the BEGA investigation, the WMATA investigation, or the recently launched D.C. Council investigation? The way its structured with this one header sitting there, its going to read like a "criticism" section - which as we've already discussed here, isn't Wikipedia best practice. Bangabandhu (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)