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

Lede

Proposed: Evans is currently facing an ethics investigation by the Metro board over allegedly inappropriate payments he took from Colonial Parking and other DC businesses while on the board of the WMATA. The allegations became the subject of a federal grand jury investigation, and on June 21, 2019 the FBI raided Evans' home.

1) Evans' isn't "currently facing an ethics investigation by the Metro board". The investigation has been completed and Evans tried to obscure the findings and its consequences from public view. 2) The investigation wasn't only over allegedly inappropriate payments. That was one of many findings. The investigation "found violations of the board’s ethics code in three primary areas". Why highlight Colonial just because that was the one they agreed on. Colonial didn't even pay him as much as the others. If you want to make a helpful addition, describe the different clients and their payments in the appropriate para under outside employment. 3) We don't know the full scope of the grand jury investigation, but it is not focused on Colonial Parking, if it even looks at Colonial Parking at all, and reporting suggests it is less related to WMATA than it is to his role as a Councilmember. "A federal grand jury has issued a subpoena for documents relating to D.C. Council member Jack Evans and legislation he promoted in 2016 that would have benefited a digital sign company, Digi Outdoor Media." It also might be Colonial Parking, or Eagle Bank, or Digimedia, or Squash on Fire. The article can and should discuss all of this with great sourcing, but it does not belong in the lede. Bangabandhu (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

1) Fine. Change the tense then.

2) The board cited him only for the Colonial Parking issue. Multiple sources covering the Evans corruption story specifically point to Colonial Parking. Why wouldn't we follow the sources?

3) Ok. This can be clarified. But it's worth mentioning both the WMATA Ethics Board and the Grand Jury investigation in the lead. NickCT (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm glad to hear you're going to be more careful in your edits. The lede is supposed to summarize the subject in broad terms and not get into details. You can and should expand on text about Colonial Parking and the other companies in the appropriate paragraphs. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

So I corrected the tense, but you still seemed to do a blanket revert. Can you clarify exactly what issue you're having now? I'm not sure I understand the problem with calling out Colonial Parking in the lede. It's not as though the lead is overly long. Adding several more words about the corruption scandal doesn't seem undue.

Additionally, you seem to have repeatedly described the bribes Evans was taking as "outside employment". You understand that that's a bit of euphemism, no? NickCT (talk) 04:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Take it up with the sources if you disagree with the term "outside employment", its probably the most frequently used way to describe it. We're not putting Colonial Parking in the lede for many reasons, some of which I've listed above, others which include 1) its not the most significant company - if we were going to name a company, it would probably be NSE or Digimedia 2) that level of detail in the lede serves no purpose, especially for the reader who wants to understand the current ethics violations 3) Colonial Parking has been relevant in this story for a month, while there has been coverage and reporting on other companies for much longer (especially Digimedia, which is mentioned in the grand jury subpoena - Colonial has not been reported int hat regard) 4) the story is rapidly developing, for all we know there could be more significant clients yet to be discussed, so its important to have language that covers the breadth of the entry, not one that changes every week. Bangabandhu (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

re "the most frequently used way to describe it" - Wrong. Cite it or sit down. A lot of folks have called it "pay-to-play" (e.g. [1]) or "using his office for personal gain" (e.g. [2]). NickCT (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't have strong objections to either of the terms you suggest, except that pay for play isn't the official charge (which we don't know) and its isn't a particularly encyclopedic term. Anyway, "Jack Evans says he'll stop outisde work" D.C. Council has revived an effort to ban outside employment for lawmakers, the latest fallout from an ethics scandal swirling around council member Jack Evans. Bangabandhu (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

In one of those sources Evan's is describing his own activities as "outside employment", which is clearly not appropriate. That's like letting a criminal characterize his/her own crime. They're likely not going to be completely straight forward about it. The other source was written prior to any of the investigations.

I agree "pay for play" isn't a great term, but mainly because it's sorta jargon-y.

So you're OK with "using his office for personal gain"? What about my original proposal "allegedly inappropriate payments"? Aren't those two things basically synonymous? NickCT (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it gets messy when you start using words like allegedly in any article. And then when you put it in passive voice and don't have the specifics on who is making the allegations, its gets even less precise and un-encyclopedic. This is regardless of the validity of the allegations. Bangabandhu (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems clear from the text that a grand jury is making the allegations, right? Or at least investigating the allegations. NickCT (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

We know that the grand jury is investigating his outside employment. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Grand juries are typically called to look at things which are potentially criminal. "Outside employment" isn't criminal. NickCT (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes and when we know the charge we'll update it accordingly. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary. We've got sources like this one telling us what's being investigated. NickCT (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

What, exactly, do you take away from that link? "Evans' private consulting business was investigated by a federal grand jury in March"

There's no consensus for the language you're inserting. You should familiarize yourself with WP:3RR before you revert again. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take to this to ANI if you like. Think carefully about the fact that I've been trying to include your wording, while you've been blanket reverting. Not really in the spirit of WP:BRD.

The source very clearly states he is being investigated for money he took in return for political favors. Quit re-inserting your language about him getting investigated for "outside employment". It's clearly not appropriate. NickCT (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

You're deleting cites and excluding info which is of far greater importance than a mention of Colonial Parking - specifically, the recall. Wikiepdia doesnt' report on allegations; the investigation is into his outside employment, or if you prefer, outside business dealings. That's not even addressing the grammatical problems you're introducing. You said above that you were going to be more careful in your edits. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I maintained your cite. Again, I'm addressing your concerns, while you're relying on blanket reversion. Please stop your non-collaborative behavior.

re "doesnt' report on allegations" - Citation needed. Who says verifiable content about investigations doesn't get included?

re "grammatical problems you're introducing" - Care to point to specific examples. My English is pretty good. I'd be curious to know what you think is a grammatical problem. NickCT (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

While I see you've fixed the most glaring error, you've left a turgid sentence. For reasons that have been repeatedly pointed out, there's unnecessary detail that will confuse the casual reader and misstates the importance of the recent events. Do you feel good about your contribution? Bangabandhu (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

- You think it's too long? Possible. I can try shortening it.... NickCT (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe it's the other way around. He was employed by the law/lobbying firms, including the one he started on his own. He certainly wasn't bribing himself while self-employed under NSE Consulting. Finding his employment by Patton Boggs to amount to bribery is a conclusion to be drawn, no? Largoplazo (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Describing his relationship with NSE or anyone else as a "bribe" would be way outside of what WP:BLP allows until or unless he is actually charged or convicted of bribery. Bonewah (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bonewah, Bangabandhu, and Largoplazo: - Guys, I assume you know this already, but if you're a public official seeking bribes, you generally don't have people write checks out to your name. Doing that looks bad. Instead you form some kind of dodgy front company (e.g. NSE Consulting) and you call your bribes "consulting fees" rather than bribes. This stuff is Public Corruption 101. You guys act as though you've never bribed anyone before.

Bonewah is absolutely right that we shouldn't explicitly characterize it as "bribery" w/o a conviction. That said, if the FBI thinks it's suspicious enough to be investigating, we probably shouldn't characterize it as "outside employment" (i.e. as Bangab did) or as a "consulting fee" (i.e. what Evans would probably call it). I think "allegedly inappropriate payments" is probably the clearest, fairest, most WP:BLP way to describe it. NickCT (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

If his employment was a bribe, it was still employment, in contrast to being gifted with vacations at tropical resorts, having money slipped into an offshore account in one's name, or having plum jobs given to one's relatives with no relevant experience. Do you know that he didn't engage in activities of the sort that employees with his title would normally engage in? Largoplazo (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Colonial Parking was paying NSE, Evans' own company, not Squire. They might as well have been making payments directly to Evans. NickCT (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you unaware that the activities under discussion have been going on since before there was an NSE Consulting? Largoplazo (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I'm aware. But the investigation seems to have narrowed on NSE. That's what the metro board cited him for and that's probably what he's being investigated for. NickCT (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

More media coverage of Evans' parking and driving

The Washington City Paper has just put out some coverage of Evans' bad parking habits and seemingly multiple car crashes just this year. Given that this is adding on to the already quite extensive media coverage of this issue that we have discussed here previously, I'd like to re-open the discussion about including a sentence on it in the article. I propose to add the following to the "Personal Life" section:

Evans has been frequently criticized in the media for violating city parking regulations with his personal vehicle. In 2014, he issued a statement apologizing for parking in front of a fire hydrant for 45 minutes, and in 2018, he was filmed telling a bystander "if I park illegally, that opens up a spot for you."

References

Sdkb (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I support this. Though as said before I don't think the text should highlight any single incident specifically, especially not to highlight the length of time parking in one place. So the proposed text should be revised. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Seeing no other comments after waiting a month, I'm going to go ahead and add it, minus the "45 minutes" detail Bangabandhu objected to. Sdkb (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing

I'm curious about the source for this "Federal investigations into Evans by the Fraud and Public Corruption Division of the U.S. Department of Justice remain open." I don't remember reading that the name of the FBI branch investigating him was ever publicly reported, but I could have missed it. Could you add source? @Brucematia @Brucematia:Bangabandhu (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

While Bangabandhu didn't acknowledge it here, they did remove it from the article. It was weird because you wrote this two months before the media reported that new D.C. Attorney General Racine expressed his intent to create such a division—in response to the Evans affair. Largoplazo (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Complaint about article

Can some neural editors take a look at this Wikipedia page and edit it properly? It is written in such a way to totally discredit the individual. It contains numerous errors and false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4402:4F0:6D05:8524:9185:214F (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

You haven't said what you think is incorrect nor whether the information (all of which is referenced to reliable sources) doesn't accurately reflect the nature of his actions. If the article discredits him, what is your rationale for believing that such discrediting isn't commensurate with his behavior, or that it doesn't reflect prevailing coverage of him in reliable sources? For example, is it your position that he exploited no conflicts of interest and has not been the target of ethics investigations? Or do you think it's inappropriate for an individual's disreputable activities to be covered by Wikipedia? Largoplazo (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Evans was on the City Council for 29 years. Yet the paragraph under Ethics investigations is longer than anything else in his bio. It is way too detailed. He resigned. Why give a step by step account. There is no step by step account of fixing the Cities finances, getting a AAA rating, bringing back baseball, etc. The bio needs balance.

Why is there a section on his Constituent Services Account? And that the account paid for a $50 parking ticket 6 years ago. A legitimate expense. It’s almost like you want to make Evans look bad.

And in the Metro section, no mention that he led the effort to get dedicated funding, which was widely reported. The discussion about the investigation report of the law firm is completely wrong. The report was prepared long after the investigation was closed and was not reviewed by anyone. Evans was not paid over $300,000 per year. That’s just wrong. Again, way too much detail.

It appears the editors are attempting to make Evans look asa bad as possible. Several including yourself have been doing so for years.

Evans is gone, retired. Give him a break. He did a lot of good for Washington, DC during his more than 30 years of service. Let’s do a balanced bio. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a tabloid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:4181:1870:7CCB:EE57:8D4E:B46 (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're off base—I wasn't involved in building out those sections, and perhaps they should be reduced in length and detail—but at least consider that to anyone outside of the Washington, D.C., area, Evans' improprieties probably are the number one thing he's known for, what would make someone in Seattle or Mumbai more likely to come across coverage of him than of, say, Mary Cheh or Brianne Nadeau. Is it possible that about the same amount has been written about his career here other than the scandalous stuff as has been written for other Council members? And then the scandal-related material is commensurate with the coverage that his scandals received?

Be sure you aren't accusing editors of trying to make him look as bad as possible just because the write-up makes him look as bad as he was.

As for "give him a break", I'm long since fed up with the idea that if people have done good, that gives them leeway to do bad later on and have people look the other way, whether it's self-dealing by a politician, police malfeasance, or embezzlement by the director of a non-profit organization. So while it's true that an article shouldn't place undue weight on this or that misdeed, I'm not inclined to entertain giving someone a break as a consideration. Bio articles have to be fair, not nice. Largoplazo (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Jack Evans was active on his own article for a long time and the editors here bent over backwards to accommodate his objections, even though his involvement was dubious by Wikipedia's own ethical standards. I honestly can't say I've ever seen anything like it. I would venture to say that the article is far more favorable towards him than it would otherwise be if the man himself were not aggressively challenging negative information about himself here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

All I’m asking is that the bio be fair. To make it so, in my opinion, would be to eliminate the play by play and summarize what happened.

And delete the cheap shots like the 6 year old $50 parking ticket and the parking paragraph which I understand he was actually parking legally because of the Council exemption. 

You have to agree that the most of the bio deals with events in the past year.

Remember, Evans has never been charged with let alone found guilty of any wrongdoing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:4181:1870:7CCB:EE57:8D4E:B46 (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC) I would like to reiterate my request that some independent editors review Evans bio. I’ve gotten responses from the same editors responsible for the current version.

I was asked for suggestions Shorten the bio. It is one of the longest for a local elected official. Evans was not that important

Specifically

1) when describing the Mayors campaign delete the number of petition signatures and money raised. It is not mentioned in any other candidates bio

2) delete the reference to Federal Grand Jury. It is not mentioned anywhere and doesn’t exist

3) delete the details beginning with “Ten days after”. It’s not important. He ran and lost. Period

4) why is the Constituent Services Fund discussion under the Ethics Investigation section. The Fund was never investigated and never did anything improper. It actually should be deleted. CSF’s are not mentioned anywhere else. Evans’ opponents always tried to embarrass him with references to the CSF. At the very least delete the reference to a $50 parking ticket

5) under Outside Employment, delete he resigned in 2017. Evans and everyone else resigns or retires from all jobs. Clearly one is trying to imply that he resigned because something was amiss. If so, say so. If not, delete it

6) the NSE paragraph is way too long and again is trying to say something was amiss. Nothing was

7) At Metro, Evans was the longest serving Chairman of the Board in history. 5 and 1/2 years in total. He had numerous accomplishments the most important being his leadership getting dedicated funding, which is widely reported. Yet no mention. The ethics investigation produced one issue which was addressed. The Metro Ethics Committee the publicly stated that the matter was resolved. Later, internal documents were released. But these had been rejected by the Ethics Committee. Evans never made $325,000 a year. Ever. And none of his clients had business with Metro not 10! The entire paragraph needs to be redone.

8) finally, under Personal Life the references to Evans’ parking are not accurate and are clearly there to make him look like bad.

I would appreciate your addressing my comments.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:4181:1870:5190:FBEA:5564:1F37 (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I would again like to request that an independent editor review my comments on the Jack Evans page. The prior two who responded are long time anti jack Evans editors.

Mr Evans page needs to be fair, balanced and accurate. Currently, it is none of these.

Thank you for taking a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4402:4F0:FC5B:B9D7:AA2E:C582 (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I have not received any response on this talk page. As such I removed the parking section which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article unless the point is to embarrass the subject.

As I said earlier, Evans is gone. Let’s make his bio accurate and fair.

Please respond so I don’t have to take unilateral action as Largoplazo, an Evans hater from way back, puts it.

I'm just now seeing that you hid this continuation of the discussion that's below at the top of the page, almost as though you were trying to prevent it from being seen. So I've now moved it to the bottom where it belongs. Anyway, having two people disagree with you, followed by responding to them and getting no response, does not amount to achieving a consensus. So, no, again, you do not get to unilaterally remove a section that multiple other editors previously debated and worked at length to tailor. "So I don't have to unilaterally take action" is a contradiction as, if it's unilateral against consensus, you not only don't have to do it, you may not do it. Largoplazo (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Please edit Evans’ page. It is to detailed with a focus on the last year. Nothing about the first 29 years.

Largo, I see your response. My point is that the Evans page is way too detailed. It is similar to the page in 2014 that had to be totally redone because it was clear that it was presenting Evans in a very unfair light. Please take a look and see what can be deleted as irrelevant to an encyclopedia article. Thanks

To the user who keeps posting at the top of the page

Since the user in question isn't a registered user and posts from an ever-changing IP address, they don't have a user talk page I can explain this on, so I'll do it here. Even though I've now explained it half a dozen times or so, you appear openly confused as to why you need to post your comments in the discussion that they're part of instead of repeatedly putting comments completely out of context at the top of the page. New discussion topics go at the bottom. New contributions to an existing discussion topic go at the bottom of the discussion. You can't post at the top of the page and then, when nobody sees what you've posted, claim that no one is responding and that therefore you can do as you see fit. I've moved your contribution to the bottom myself several times, and you appear determined not to follow the example. I'm not doing it for you any more. Largoplazo (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Meanwhile, yes, you've made it plainly clear that you don't like the outcome of the previous long-wrought discussions over this. That doesn't mean we want to keep discussing it over and over and over and over ad infinitum. If you have a new perspective, new considerations that you don't believe have been taken into account and that you believe would change the consensus in your favor, fine. But otherwise please have the consideration not to occupy other people's time and attention wanting to go over all over again what's already been gone over. Kindly read the previous discussions so you can see what perspective and considerations were raised then, and addressed. Raising them again isn't going to change anything. And calling arbitrary contributors to those discussion "haters" (with no evidence to that effect) isn't a magic key that allows you to override the existing consensus. Largoplazo (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

To clarify my concern with this particular user: After I'd stopped moving the user's content to the bottom for a while, the user posted at the top on August 18, then on September 9, then on September 16, concluding with "Please respond so I don’t have to take unilateral action as Largoplazo, an Evans hater from way back, puts it." As this had all been posted at the top of the page, it's entirely possible that nobody even noticed it there—it took me a month to see it. And it was disjointed from the foregoing discussion, this editor really did appear to be creating the impression that this had never been discussed, that therefore they could take the lack of response as evidence of a lack of disagreement, and that therefore they could act unilaterally. This is why I've come to consider this top-posting disruptive: it's creating a false impression, an invalid justification for removal of content from the article. Largoplazo (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Largo, your frustration comes through. I am not trying to be difficult I really don’t know where the bottom of the page is. In your posting, please explain how I get to the bottom of the page. I’m serious.

Also, in response to a question I posted 8 areas where Evans bio is incorrect or needs editing. Please take a look if you haven’t already. I would welcome your comments.

I reviewed past discussions especially those by John who appears to be not anti Evans. All of the edits took place by a person named Bang who has a terrible reputation and all recently. Even the parking stuff was constantly rejected then added in with no discussion.

I’m trying to be helpful. I’ll look for your response.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by

But this time you did post at the bottom of the page. So you must have figured it out. If you don't mind, I took the liberty of indenting your response (the colons at the beginning of each paragraph) so the thread can be followed.

Also, please sign your posts on talk pages. See WP:Signatures.

Since my participation came and went (to my recollection, I got involved mostly when Evans himself was editing the article), I don't know the gory details, but while it's possible I'll be surprised if after all of that those who disagreed with edits that were eventually made didn't raise a stink if they were against consensus and seek resolution elsewhere. In any event, if the current content is against consensus, then, yes, it should be edited—to conform with consensus, rather than starting from scratch as though the matter had never been discussed. Of course, if there are details on which there never was any consensus, there's more leeway. But would it be correct to say that consensus called for not mentioning the parking tickets at all? I dunno about that.

I've probably said all I have to say about this. For specifics of earlier discussions, hopefully others will chime in. Largoplazo (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Another response to the person who keeps posting at the top for some reason

You say no one has objected to your removal of material that has already been the subject of exhaustive discussion on this talk page, but you can take the fact that at last four editors have now reverted your removal, in addition to earlier discussion, as a display of substantial objection. Largoplazo (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The Evans bio contains several errors because it cites the metro report which contains false information. For instance, Evans did not make $325,000 per year from 10 clients. How do we edit the bio and summarize the events of the last two years rather than do a day by day account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4402:4F0:F01B:5E77:83EC:9FA3 (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

You do that by presenting evidence, via reliable sources, sufficient to cast doubt on the reliability of the source that's already there; or else you present other arguments sufficient to obtain agreement that that source isn't reliable. Largoplazo (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your latest edit (which has been reverted) with the edit summary "I’ve made requests on the Talk page but no one responds": I see no requests by you beneath the one in the previous section from September, and that one was responded to. Have you been hiding all your other requests where no one reading this talk page chronologically will see them?

Regarding the following sequence of activities:

• Comment on the state of the article and request changes.
• Have several people disagree.
• Make the changes yourself multiple times and have them reverted each time, with multiple people responsible for those reversions.
• Make the same requests over and over (and not only that, but hide them where no one will see them) until everyone's given up responding to repetitions of the same requests and arguments.
• Declare that "no one responds" as though all the previous responses that you did receive the first few times have an expiration date and as though all the reversions don't reflect a consensus against you, and go ahead and make changes without consensus again.

I hope you don't think that that's how this works. Largoplazo (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

evans page

the evans page needs a complete makeover it is all focused on a scandle that turned out to be a non event no action against evans ever occurred 2601:14F:4402:4F0:7430:4534:FE45:D634 (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the ethics violations (or scandals, as you say) are well-sourced and representative of the news coverage of the individual. Also, I believe a fine is an action, so is the resignation of the individual. Below, I source a public apology, so I'm a bit lost with that narrative. Do a Google search for "Jack Evans" "Washington, D.C." and these are topics that are referenced ad nauseum by reliable sources.

As stated in a prior comment (by potentially the same anonymous user as above), I do not see any recent events since his primary election in 2020 that require further discussion on this encyclopedia. I believe the editors here are fairly present, so we'd be happy to review any specific topics you may suggest. Beyond my latest edit to make it clear Jack Evans is no longer the metro board chairperson, these are the latest distinct news topics I've uncovered, where a few are, in my opinion, not necessary for this encyclopedia:

• March 2020 - Public apology (doesn't feel necessary to discuss this)
• May 2020 - Agrees to pay fines (2nd source, 3rd source) (doesn't feel necessary to discuss this)
• March 2020 - withdraw from special election and June 2020 - discussion on subsequent election results (perhaps a topic that requires an extra sentence)
• Feb 2021 - Car stolen (doesn't feel necessary to discuss this)

Happy to hear your thoughts on general topics not explored coupled with a reliable source, but reading the history of this talk page, I believe the consensus by other editors is that the ethics violations are well-sourced until we see evidence via a reliable source that shows otherwise. Please review the page "Good practices for talk pages" to get more comfortable with editing a talk page. --Engineerchange (talk) 07:17, 10 June 2021

Engineer, thanks for your response. I'm glad to see a new set of eyes on the Evans bio. My goal is to produce a fair and accurate bio of Evans that is similiar to other Councilmembers. Currently, Evans' is not. It contains way more detail and is not at all objective. Over the years, a number of editors added information to make Evans look bad. That was acknowledged 10 years ago when the entire bio was rewritten. At that time, the bio attempted to make Evans look like an elitist even talking about his childrens' bedrooms and hamsters. An example in the current bio of this is the reference to the $50 ticket. The Constituent Services Fund disbursed over $1,000,000 and had thousands of transactions. Yet the only transaction mentioned is a reimbursement of a $50 parking ticket that was perfectly legal. The attempt is to make Evans look foolish. why not mention the transactions where the fund paid peoples back rent, etc. I believe the current bio has way too much detail concerning the Ethics ivestigations. It could be summarized in three sentences. Same with other employment. just describe what it was not the whole ethics issues again. Evans is widely credited with being the financial genius behind getting the Cities finances in order and getting a AAA Bond Rating. yet there is no mention. Evans is also credited with bringing baseball back to DC. many articles were written in the Washington Post, yet it is barely mentioned. it should at least get as much coverage as the Ethics section in the Personal section, the Editors mention Evans divorce and even his former wife's name. yet there is no mention in Phil Mendelson,s bio of a divorce. Nor in Anita Bonds, nor in Mary Cheh. Why single out Evans? and why the paragraph on parking? seriously, it is longer than any of Evans Accomplishments. it is clearly there to make Evans look bad. That's why the City Paper wrote the articles. I could go on and on. there is actually a list of 8 areas where corrections need to be made.

Anyway, thanks for taking a look. Evans was not perfect. Far from it. But he deserves to be treated fairly. I believe he was unjustly treated by his fellow councilmembers and has paid a heavy price. 2601:14F:4402:4F0:280F:D360:4402:31C3 (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I just reverted your latest changes. You still aren't getting this "consensus" concept. Regarding your comments here and there on his divorces, imagine if every time somebody thought to add something to an article, the addition was barred unless every other article on topics in the same category had a corresponding mention. If that were the case, then (since it isn't that person's job to first identify the corresponding information for every other topic and then update all those articles all at once) nothing would ever get added.

There is no such principle as "you can't mention any detail in any article where a corresponding detail isn't already mentioned in articles on similar topics".

And I can't imagine why you think it's terrible to mention somebody's previous marriages and the names of their spouses.

If you insist on precedent, there are skillions of bios here in which previous marriages, with the name of the spouse, are listed. Whether or not any of them has also been a member of the D.C. Council is immaterial. Largoplazo (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

largo, it doesn't appear anyone is interested other than you and me. is there anything you are willing to change on Evans' page? The $50 ticket? The detail about Metro? Anything? there is no concensus because no one cares but you and me. Let me know. if not, i will stop my efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.200.118.123 (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

See the part in the previous section where I said "I hope you don't think that that's how this works." These discussions were already carried on a long time ago, over a long period of time. Refer to every single thing that was already said about all those matters. The fact that people don't feel like coming back to discuss all these things all over again suggests that the matter stands decided. Everything isn't subject to endless relitigation, and I'm certainly not interested in getting involved in yet another rehash. Largoplazo (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I just discovered that a large amount of previous discussion had been, presumably inadvertently, commented out and rendered invisible on this page. I've fixed it and it now appears at the top of this page. Largoplazo (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

A pertinent essay: Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. Largoplazo (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Largo. Again I ask, are you willing to fix some of the obvious mistakes and poorly written areas. These are outlined above in 1-8. I too am tired of this. i would like nothing better than to read a fair and balanced bio of Jack Evans. He is gone. At least let history accurately reflect the 30 years he gave to the City. It's in your hands Largo. No one else cares. 2601:14F:4402:4F0:C1F:CCAB:25BD:626D (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Admin note

I've been watching this page since I protected it in January. I've partially blocked the IP editor from editing the article for a year since they returned right after protection expired and have recently started back up again. For the IP, please stop edit warring. Build consensus for your changes on the talk page, and if others ultimately disagree do not make the changes anyway or you will continue to be blocked. I'm also highly suspicious of a COI given the tenacity and previous issues with the subject editing the article, but there's enough reason to block that I haven't looked into it too deeply. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

im not getting a response to my questions

You are, you just don't like the answers, those are different things. Secondly, even if you are right and no one is answering you, you are still not allowed to edit war by continuously reverting editors that oppose your changes. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

While this isn't dispositive, an additional ingredient in my COI suspicion is that this user has had unusual difficulty making edits to this talk page, professing to having trouble with things like finding the bottom of the page. The user formerly self-identified as Jack Evans also had serial, and unusual, difficulties with the mechanics of editing on Wikipedia. Largoplazo (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

One last attempt. Is there any interest in making changes to the Evans' bio? Please let me know? Thanks 73.200.118.123 (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)