Talk:Rebekah Jones

Stone high school hoax?

I went to Stone High School and it was not destroyed during Hurricane Katrina. It was used as a Red Cross Office and a relief camp. The town of Wiggins experienced a population boom during the fall of 2005 from displaced hurricane-affected residents from the coast. Here are sources about it: [https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna9331071] [https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2015/08/19/storm-shifted-population-state-across-nation/31987811/] [https://www.chicagotribune.com/sdpn-donations-sought-for-katrina-relief-camp-2005sep14-story.html] [http://www.cityofwiggins.com/docs/Comp%20Plan%20Final%20Draft.pdf] 71.47.44.218 (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

As I've mentioned below, there's a very simple reason. It's not a "hoax". Jones is a pathological liar and the source for the claim is this archived article from Syracuse University based on information provided by Jones.

[1]https://web.archive.org/web/20220327231604/https://www.syracuse.edu/stories/rebekah-jones-covid-19-dashboard/ IndianaMoon22 (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Oddly, you restored this claim even though you seem to agree it should be removed. 184.180.217.57 (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Removed 184.180.217.57 (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Possible POV/due weight issues

Reading the article (full disclosure: I had never before heard of Jones and searched for her after seeing her Twitter handle prominently displayed in an MIT datamap), the general impression is mildly sympathetic to the subject, with a journalistic tone. Due weight is not necessarily distributed, and the layout and presentation of facts tends to minimize the damage to the subject’s image caused by her actions. Also, I’m pretty sure a deferred prosecution agreement in which the subject admits to having committed a crime is considered a conviction for BLP purposes. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

"Damage to the subject's image caused by her actions" is putting it very, very mildly. This article needs some major rewriting. Here are just a few points:

The article clearly states the FOIG investigated her claims and found them to be unfounded or unsubstantiated. Despite that, there's a "See also" section linking to the pages of actual whistleblowers. This makes no sense, so I'm going to remove it.

What are the implications of the above? Clearly, that she's a liar. That needs to be the general tone of the article. In its current form, it's misleading and helps Jones scam people.

The section on how she forged a letter from the FCHR is buried deep within the article. This is a critical piece of information that, in my view, should be mentioned at the very top.

The section about her son's arrest and what she had to say on the matter is missing. It was removed in April by Drmies with the comment do not reinsert this, not before we have a consensus, preferably on WP:BLPN, that this material concerning a young person is acceptable, relevant, and appropriate. i will not hesitate to protect this fully. The problem is that Jones claimed and continues to claim that her son was charged with threats of terrorism because of posting a meme about a cop not wanting to stop a school shooting, not because he threatened to shoot up a school. Again, this is a critical piece of information. Anyone who reads it will instantly realize there's something wrong with Jones.

Jones has repeatedly tried to maliciously edit her own page and has been permanently blocked from making changes. There's a clue there.

In June, someone tried to remove "data scientist" from the list of her occupations. The change was then reverted, on the grounds of sources saying she was one. Here's an old tweet in which Jones explains she's not a data scientist:

[2]https://twitter.com/GeoRebekah/status/1341098465061990400

She claims to be correcting the press, but of course, the press didn't pull the description out of thin air. That's the problem - the false stories she told the media are used as sources in the article. So, as another example, the article states her high school was destroyed by hurricane Katrina. 71.47.44.218 pointed out it's not true above. The source for the claim is this archived article [3]https://web.archive.org/web/20220327231604/https://www.syracuse.edu/stories/rebekah-jones-covid-19-dashboard/ from Syracuse University. This was what Jones told the writer, no DD was done, and here we are.

Let me know your thoughts. As it is, I'm afraid the article is misleading and contributes to people getting hurt. IndianaMoon22 (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you & have done some work on it.

As long-time watchers of this entry are aware, it was subjected to quite a lot of padding by a user who was subsequently banned for sock puppetry; those edits were never reverted, though probably should have been. RobinLikeTheBird (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I've seen the edits. Nice work! IndianaMoon22 (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. That's appreciated. I think there's a lot more that needs to be done but am pausing out of respect for the community, in hopes that the changes I recently made will satisfy the community consensus. RobinLikeTheBird (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like to hear what others think as well. And yes, definitely more needs to be done, including work on the two sections I mentioned in my original post.

I had another look at your edits and have made minor changes, including changing "hacking" to "unlawfully accessing". I believe it's important to differentiate between the two. Supposedly, Rick Swearingen was the one who first used the word "hack" and it was parroted by the media. Whoever used it first, it allowed Jones to defend herself by saying she was computer illiterate (she's not particularly tech savvy). If you have a look at the complaint and warrant from the lawsuit, the expression that is used is "unauthorized access".

There are huge problems with the second paragraph under "Firing from the Florida Department of Health". Jesus. This page is riddled with lies and the Miami Herald is some sort of joke. Here's one example: In emails obtained by Miami Herald, Carina Blackmore assembled a small team including Jones to "to develop new data for a reopening plan" at the end of April 2020. The source for this nonsense is an article from the Miami Herald. Quoting from the article - That same Friday afternoon, Carina Blackmore, director of DOH's division of disease control, gave Jones an urgent assignment, according to the epidemiologist's sworn statement in the whistleblower case. Her mission, according to Blackmore: "to develop new data for a reopening plan" by the end of the weekend.

Ugh. Guess what. This claim is actually taken from Jones' FCHR complaint. Blackmore's sworn testimony is included in the OIG report [4]https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22039765-oig-report?responsive=1&title=1, on page 24 - According to sworn testimony, Dr. Blackmore stated she never directed the complainant to "develop data" of any kind because the complainant is/was not an epidemiologist. During the period in question, BOE staff developed the data analyses for the daily reports, which were visualized on the dashboard.

The entire paragraph is basically quoting Jones' insane complaint. Nobody asked her for an opinion on reopening or how to calculate the positivity rate. She managed a GIS dashboard, she's not an epidemiologist, for crying out loud. So it's silly to contrast her "expert" views with those of "outside epidemiologists" (not sure what that even means). She keeps mixing up antibody with antigen testing. Though according to Jones, she set up the state's COVID-19 surveillance systems and data feeds, sometimes she's a data scientist and sometimes she's not, and she led research on the "Hepatitis A Virus" (that's taken from her latest lawsuit that she's used to scam more people). Did the Miami Herald not look up her education and what her position at the FDOH was?

Maybe I can do some work on that paragraph later or maybe someone else could. IndianaMoon22 (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you that that entire paragraph should be axed. Jones has no background in public health or epidemiology (see: https://geojones.org/about/education/).Her opinion about things like how DOH "should" do things (they followed standard practices, like not counting non-resident cases, which is mandated by the CDC) is simply irrelevant.

And no, Miami Herald does not seem to have ever questioned her "expertise" on the subject. Their coverage of her has been mind-boggling.

Thanks for all your hard work on this entry today. Considering this entry's history, I expected vandalism. RobinLikeTheBird (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Jones's notability is for her work in public health on geographic epidemiology data in ArcGIS, a geographic information system. This is why we say what the sources say, rather than relying on editors' personal opinions about subjects or their work. 184.180.217.57 (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Like I wrote below, absolutely not. Jones is known for making the unsubstantiated/disproved allegations and taking advantage of the publicity to fundraise hundreds of thousands of dollars. If she hadn't made them, nobody would have heard of her and this Wikipedia page wouldn't exist. IndianaMoon22 (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Small correction. I was tired and a little bit sloppy. The warrant and affidavit included in the lawsuit's court filings use the expression "unauthorized access". However, in the complaint itself, Jones' lawyers did say she was accused of "criminal hacking". The state never used the word "hacking" in the criminal case. IndianaMoon22 (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I am personally 100% ok with "unauthorized access". RobinLikeTheBird (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

the content in the top portion is not unsourced, it refers to the body of the article. please refer to wp's style guide: MOS:LEAD. 184.180.217.57 (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

we don't revert solely on the basis of suspected or even actual sockpuppetry. they need to violate wp's standards. 184.180.217.57 (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring from IndianaMoon22

In order to not violate the 3 revert rule, I'm refraining from restoring the content IndianaMoon continues to remove for no valid reason and no support. I am going to update the lead to be more inclusive of the body text and remove the superfluous refs, not to avoid said rule, but to better the content with IndianaMoon's and another user's valid concerns about the content. 184.180.217.57 (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Not going to touch the article again until it is tended to by an admin. 184.180.217.57 (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I've been busy and didn't have time to comment on the recent developments on this page. I also didn't feel there was a need to address the issue of this anonymous user, but since there's some confusion as to what happened, let me explain (unfortunately this is going to be rather long).

Explanation + crazy tweets from Jones (including one where she calls Korea "an island")

5 days ago, about the same time I posted additional comments on Rebekah Jones, a newly created, anonymous account started undoing @RobinLikeTheBird's and my edits. Let me comment on some of their revisions: Jones's academic and professional career as a geographer is at the intersection of cartography and epidemiology, a data science named geoinformatics. Special:Diff/1185553753 This is blatantly false. Geoinformatics in itself has nothing to do with epidemiology. Spatial analysis may be used in epidemiological studies, but all analysis at the FDOH was conducted in the BOE (Bureau of Epidemiology) by epidemiologists as part of the ESSENCE system. Jones is not an epidemiologist, has no experience or education in epidemiology, and her job at the FDOH involved visualizing the aggregated data (as part of the GIS unit, itself not part of the BOE). All of this information can be easily found in the OIG report, which is used as one of the main sources in the article. Further, Jones is not a data scientist, and I've already linked to a tweet in which she herself says so. Reverting my change, which removed a "See also" section comparing Jones to actual whistleblowers like Frances Haugen and Peiter Zatko, on the grounds that "it's a point-of-view issue". Special:Diff/1185555315 By that logic, Alex Jones' page should contain a "See also" section linking to pages about MKUltra and the NSA's global surveillance program. The difference between people like Frances Haugen and Rebekah Jones is that Frances Haugen actually provided evidence to back up her claims (she leaked a lot of internal documents to the media). Rebekah Jones never provided any evidence, her allegations never really made sense in the first place, and later, two investigations from independent bodies disproved her claims (and yes, she then stated the opposite and altered an official letter from the FCHR to support her lie - it doesn't get much more stupid than this). The OIG report is used as one of the main sources in the article, and everyone can read it for themselves. The problems with her allegations boiled down to two issues: 1) At the department, her job was working on COVID-19 visualizations, and she did not have access to the raw data (and again, no experience or education in the relevant fields) 2) The data itself first went through the BOE (Bureau of Epidemiology) where actual epidemiologists conducted analyses and aggregated the data. It was then compiled as a daily report. And only THEN was it passed on to the GIS Unit for visualizing to the public. Therefore, if there had been an evil plan to falsify the data then A) Either there'd have to have been an attempt to do so at the source (MERLIN) without anyone else noticing. Or B) (This is Jones' scenario) EVERYONE at the BOE would have had to be part of the conspiracy (because the discrepancies would have been obvious to everyone), except somehow instead of altering the data at the BOE and sending it to Jones, they decided to "corrupt" her (the person at the very end of the data chain, responsible for visualizing it). Not to mention daily reports were also sent to county health departments. Again, it's completely contradictory to describe how her claims were found to be unfounded and then link to pages of actual whistleblowers. They also tried to change the lead to: She is known for her work managing the team that created the Florida Department of Health's COVID-19 dashboard using ArcGIS software and her subsequent termination, an unsubstantiated whistleblower complaint, democratic activism in Florida, and several legal issues. Special:Diff/1185562532 After that (and a good deal of reverting between the two of us), she suddenly did a complete U-turn and tried to add my earlier suggestions (adding info about the FCHR letter forgery to the lead, removing false info about the destruction of Jones' high school) Special:Diff/1185563834 Special:Diff/1185563947 I reverted that as well, because I'd said I'd wanted to have a discussion first, and because I knew this was an attempt at manipulation. The user's final, contradictory suggestions were to: A) Change the lead to highlight her work as a GIS dashboard manager and leave the comparisons to Frances Haugen etc while simultaneously B) Acknowledge she's a pathological liar who peddled false stories to the media that now are used as sources in the article and remove the lie about her high school's destruction and include information about the forgery of the letter from the FCHR in the lead. The reason why this anonymous user's attempts to change the article smacked of manipulation from the start was that Jones has claimed to be an epidemiologist, and in fact, as you can find out by reading the report, this claim is central to her allegations. She has, in the media and elsewhere, multiple times claimed to have set up the state's "surveillance systems and data feeds" (that would be MERLIN, ESSENCE etc - and no, this is not a joke) and to have been tasked with the development of epidemiological data "for the state's reopening". In the OG report, you will find stated multiple times her position at the department had nothing to do with epidemiology, it involved the visualization of data at the end of the data chain, and so because of this fact her claims were particularly strange. So, naturally, it's important to Jones that people think of her as some sort of incredibly important person at the department who had all the say in all the key issues and had to be corrupted (I've written on the logical fallacy of this above). The anonymous user has also stated that "Jones's notability is for her work in public health on geographic epidemiology data in ArcGIS, a geographic information system". No, definitely not. Jones is known for making the allegations. If she hadn't, nobody would have ever heard of her, and this Wikipedia article wouldn't exist. This is why it's so important that it not be misleading and contradictory. And no, visualizing "epidemiologic" data in a GIS program does not make one an epidemiologist. In the OIG report, Jones also claimed Dr Roberson, then Deputy Health Secretary, who has a doctoral degree in epidemiology and biostatistics, didn't know what a standard deviation was. To me, it's really annoying they included Jones' insane response in the OIG report and just left it at that. Meanwhile, here are a few tweets from her. Here, she called Korea "an island" - [5]https://twitter.com/GeoRebekah/status/1721634102174966236. Here, she mixed up the Azores with the Canary Islands [6]https://twitter.com/GeoRebekah/status/1665823391947935744. You can look up the whole affair with Natalie Dean (where Jones demonstrated a lack of understanding of COVID-19 basics).

IndianaMoon22 (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Criminal label?

Jones has entered into two deferred prosecution agreements and is currently on probation after pleading no-contest to cyberstalking. is there any reason that she is not referred to as a criminal on wikipedia? 184.180.217.57 (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Three deferred prosecution agreements. I would have no objections whatsoever to the word criminal being used; there just doesn't seem to be any need for it. RobinLikeTheBird (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

wp is not generally about need, but instead weight. Her criminal conduct is mentioned in the majority of the coverage about her. 184.180.217.57 (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

to follow up, they don't refer to her as a criminal, only that she has a substantial criminal history 184.180.217.57 (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2023: Improve lead

The SPA user made significant changes to the lead that reduced the quality and its purpose per MOS:LEAD. There is need to accurately reflect the body, which the user had tried to address with their edits.

Change: She was fired from her job at Florida Department of Health in May 2020 and months later was investigated and subsequently arrested for unlawfully accessing the department's computers. She insisted that both were retaliation for "being a whistleblower" and "refusing to manipulate COVID-19 data", but investigations failed to uphold any of her allegations.

In May 2022, Florida's Office of Inspector General exonerated the state health officials, finding her claims against the DOH to be unsubstantiated or unfounded. In December 2022, she signed a deferred prosecution agreement admitting guilt to unauthorized use of the state's emergency alert system on November 10, 2020, which had resulted in her home being searched under warrant by state police in December 2020.

In the 2022 U.S. House of Representatives elections in Florida, Jones was the Democratic Party nominee against Matt Gaetz for Florida's 1st congressional district; she was defeated on November 8, 2022.

To: She is known for her work managing the team that created the Florida Department of Health's COVID-19 dashboard using ArcGIS software and her subsequent termination, an unsubstantiated whistleblower complaint, democratic activism in Florida, and several legal issues.

In May 2022, Florida's Office of Inspector General (OIG) exonerated state health officials of allegations Jones made after she was fired in May 2020 for repeated insubordination. She had been granted whistleblower protections during the investigation, but the OIG determined her claims to be unfounded. Jones subsequently posted a forgery of the OIG's letter on social media, which she later deleted.

In December 2022, she signed a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) admitting guilt to unauthorized use of the state's emergency alert system on November 10, 2020, which had resulted in her home being searched under warrant by state police in December 2020. The execution of the warrant with armed police, widely referred to as a "raid", was due to Jones's criminal history. She previously completed a DPA due to an altercation in 2016 with Louisiana State University police and in 2023, plead no-contest to a 2017 cyberstalking charge against a former Florida State University student. She was fired from both institutions.

Jones was defeated in the 2022 U.S. House of Representatives elections in Florida, as the Democratic Party nominee against Matt Gaetz for Florida's 1st congressional district. 184.180.217.57 (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

"She is known for her work managing the team that created the Florida Department of Health's COVID-19 dashboard" - highly contested, and it's not clear where that claim originated.

Jones herself has been vehement, many times, that "I designed the public- facing dashboard literally and completely alone" (see for example https://web.archive.org/web/20200616074409/https://geojones.org/2020/05/22/public-statement/ on her personal website, which she later deleted.)

There is NO reference to her "managing a team" in her whistleblower complaint, her lawsuits, or any of the records obtained from Florida DOH via public records request. Like "data scientist", it's a claim that's been repeated but seemingly sprung out of thin air. RobinLikeTheBird (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

It says it right here, "architect and manager of Florida's COVID-19 dashboard". Drmies (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Drmies, let me be the first to welcome you to the fabulous world of Rebekah Jones' disinformation, where paradoxes abound.

It is uncontroverted that her working title at Florida DOH was "DOH manager". It is uncontroverted that she "managed" the GIS dashboard, in the sense that she managed its permissions and was responsible for updating it. Jones says she was the "architect" of the dashboard; Florida DOH has strongly disputed that. There seems to be no original source for "managed a team"; please feel free to provide one. All available information contradicts that. RobinLikeTheBird (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Dang. Her final working title at DOH was "GIS Manager" (*not* "DOH manager", my error). Her final job classification was "Environmental Health Program Consultant". See https://www.scribd.com/document/499841681/Rebekah-Jones-FlaDOH-HR-Personnel-File RobinLikeTheBird (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

 Note: Given the responsive discussion below this request, I am marking as responded-to. The request itself contains no reliable sources, so I'm assuming any consensus reached on this request will include some sourcing (possibly those provided by responders). -- Pinchme123 (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2023 - Remove school destruction claim

Per above and the note accompanying the claim, Jones's high school was not destroyed in Hurricane Katrina.

Change: Jones graduated from Stone High School in 2007, after missing months of school due to the school's destruction[a] during Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

To: Jones graduated from Stone High School in 2007, after missing months of school due to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. 184.180.217.57 (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Pinchme123 (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, what a joke this is. Spend 5 minutes to check what you're talking about first. The footnote that's supposed to provide sourcing for the claim actually links to articles that confirm Stone High School was used as a Red Cross Office (and not destroyed). Then, at the end of the sentence, there are two references. Reference 14) is an archived article from Syracuse University, the only source for this claim. This article is gone from their website. Reference 8) is a wuft.org article that cites the deleted article as the source for the claim. Oh, the mind-boggling stupidity. IndianaMoon22 (talk) 04:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2023 - add relevant descriptions to first sentence in lead

Previously Jones was listed as a geographer, data scientist, and activist. These are accurate and should be restored. The overwhelming majority of sources refer to Jones as a data scientist and more than three refer to her as an activist. In a previous edit, I specified she was geographic data scientist with a note that the coverage refers to her as a data scientist. Previous consensus was to leave data scientist in the lead, but from the page history it appears that this will get continually warred over as being 'inaccurate' with no sources to back it up. It is not contentious that Jones worked in geographic information systems in the field of epidemiology. It is the basis of her notability.12345

Change: Rebekah Jones (born July 25, 1989) is an American geographer.

To: Rebekah Jones (born July 25, 1989) is an American geographer, geographic data scientist, and activist. 184.180.217.57 (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but epidemiologists aren't data scientists either. (Not that Jones was an epidemiologist.)

Jones says she's not a data scientist. None of the work samples she has presented publicly demonstrate any data science skills. Data science is something very specific - it doesn't just mean "scientist that works with data". RobinLikeTheBird (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

None of that says epidemiologists are data scientists, but I don't think you understand any of these terms or academic fields. 2600:8807:40C0:6050:980A:F8ED:A1FD:3E31 (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

 Already done Current version has this information in the lede. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2023 - restore rs content removed by SPA

Undo the following changes:

1. [7] 2. [8] 3. [9] 4. [10] 5. [11] 184.180.217.57 (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Why are you supporting the inclusion of unsourced information in Wikipedia, single-purpose IP address? RobinLikeTheBird (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Point is now moot. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

It is not moot. You reverted the entry to include a whole lot of unsourced information. Now it is incumbent on you to support all your revisions (and there were a lot of them) or they will be reverted again.

Have fun!

As I suggested, start with "cum laude". Please provide a source other than the LP herself. RobinLikeTheBird (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

It is not at all moot, Drmies. It is incumbent on you to support all the unsourced claims you just made. There are a whole lot

f them, and I plan to hold your feet to the fire. Start with "cum laude", and have fun. Cheers! RobinLikeTheBird (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2023 - remove weasel word added by SPA

The source refers to police reports in court documents, not the victim himself. Given that this case concluded without contrary evidence and in favor of the victim (Jones is now on probation), this is not an allegation.

Change: Jones was allegedly fired from her position as a teaching assistant at Florida State University for threatening to give a failing grade to the victim's roommate.

To: Jones was fired for threatening to give a failing grade to the victim's roommate. 184.180.217.57 (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The academic process by which Jones was removed from her teaching position at FSU (Title IX investigation) was completely separate from the police investigations and 3 arrests that stemmed out of the same relationship.

Nothing in the police reports or court records says anything about Jones' having been fired.

Unfortunately Title IX investigations aren't public. We know for sure that one occurred because Jones wrote about it, but everything we know about its outcome is third-hand at best.

This sentence really doesn't belong in this section at all, should be under "education". RobinLikeTheBird (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Removing "alleged" when you yourself admit there is no conclusive evidence is the most blatant of BLP violations. Plus, I can't tell if you want it changed, moved, or removed. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Um, the best we have is third-hand testimony, so including "alleged" in the sentence seems appropriate, rather than stating it as fact. RobinLikeTheBird (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

"Police said she published a 68-page document online discussing private details of her relationship with her former boyfriend, including explicit texts and nude photographs, and shared the link with him. The two had sex in a classroom in 2017 when Jones was his married professor at Florida State University, the man told police. She was fired from the university after threatening to give a failing grade to his roommate as revenge, he said." 1

The source is a reliable secondary source referring to the primary source, the police report from court documents. 2600:8807:4408:C600:3968:C35C:E479:F104 (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure you meant well, Drmies

But your reverting the entire entry doesn't resolve the "neutrality" issue (which I was trying to address) and it re-introduces a whole lot of unsourced material into to the entry.

Please provide citations that support all the info in this entry. RobinLikeTheBird (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest that you start with "cum laude". Yes, she says so on her personal website page. Do you have any better source than that? RobinLikeTheBird (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

verified this was reported by the uni 107.127.56.131 (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Drmies, please present evidence

...that Rebekah Jones is a RobinLikeTheBird (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

...well, Wikipedia seems to have nuked my very long, very well-reasoned exposition of this entry? 🤣

Suffice it to say, Dmries, you cannot simply shrug and say "edit war", and re-add one hell of a lot of unsupported information to this entry unchallenged.

Again, let's start with "cum laude". Please cite someone other than the LP in question about that. Your credibility is in question here.

Bueller?...

Bueller??

If you can't supply a credible reference, it MUST be deleted. Edit war or no. 🙄 RobinLikeTheBird (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Request for action from administrators

RobinLikeTheBird's and my changes have been reverted by Drmies. Ample time has been given to the user (who happens to be an admin) to justify their revert. As pointed out above, the revert has restored unsourced and blatantly false statements that this article is riddled with. Sadly, it seems Drmies is not acting in good faith. In April, they removed a section detailing the arrest of Jones' son and her statements on the matter on the grounds of "a lack of relevance" (and threatened to lock up the article if anyone tried to reinsert it). As I explained earlier, the information is highly relevant because Jones claimed the arrest was political persecution, and because she explicitly said the threats of terrorism charges resulted from his posting unflattering memes about cops. This is not a joke. [12](RJ's tweet).

I've addressed multiple problems with the article in detail above. But, in a nutshell, it's misleading and contradictory in that it paints a picture of Jones as a credible public figure and makes comparisons to actual notable people in the "See also" section while simultaneously mentioning things like the forgery of the FCHR letter, the OIG investigation, the multiple arrests, her pleading no-contest to posting revenge porn (which was included in a 342 page "essay" she wrote). This is a person who publicly lied about both the OIG's and FCHR's findings regarding her case and then went on to doctor a letter from the FCHR. This is a person who maintains that in Florida you can be charged with terrorism for posting memes about cops. I think it should be common sense that such a person has no credibility at all. A real whisteblower would make utmost effort to maintain their credibility - when you accuse a government of serious wrongdoing, the stakes are high. But Jones lies all the time, about the smallest of things, on social media. To me, it's quite obvious this article has serious problems with tone. So I would appreciate it if an unbiased person had a look at the recent edits and took appropriate action.

I'm tagging two admins who have made edits (or reverts) to this page. Thank you. @Discospinster @Keith_D IndianaMoon22 (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• IndianaMoon22, a negative bias against a person is also a bias. I can't help but wonder what you are trying to achieve here. I will post a more formal template on your talk page, asking you to disclose any conflict of interest you have--which may be a negative one, of course. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  it also appears that @IndianaMoon22 and @RobinLikeTheBird are either socks or meat 2600:8807:5840:8B50:5886:AB8F:50CF:9C50 (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  Drmies, you did not make the same request of me, but I reviewed the template and can tell you I have no conflicts of interest.

  Are you familiar with the history of this entry? Much of its current content originated from a user called You Make Me Fade, who was subsequently banned for sockpuppetry; however their edits were never reverted. Since you're an admin perhaps you're able to go back and review that history. RobinLikeTheBird (talk) 08:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  We have a bit of an absurd situation here. Let's focus on these two specific things (the investigations and the arrest).

  First, the forgery

  [13] Politifact article The word "demonstrated" does not appear in the official version of the report. It states Jones disclosed a violation of the state law that qualified her for whistleblower protections.

  (Yes, it simply refers to her submitting the complaint. The letter states discrimination did not occur.) Politifact, Pensacola Journal and Caputo all requested a copy of the letter from Penela (the spokesman). Caputo's tweet about the forgery. [14]

  The OIG investigation.

  [15] Link to OIG report

  According to this wiki article, the investigation found her claims to be unfounded/unsubstantiated. Officials were exonerated. But not according to Jones. [16] Instagram post

  The reality (from OIG report) [17] Screen [18] Screen2

  Jones' video about the "most shocking revalations" [19] Instagram video

  From the video: - "3.While the person leading DOH during COVID-19 had NO epidemiology training - Ms. Jones had both education and training in infectious disease pandemic management, and even taught university level courses on disase tracking - Page 5"

  Actually, Page 34 of report, section "Rebekah Jones' Comments". Quotes own reponse and portrays it as coming from the OIG.

  [20] This is the quoted excerpt. Shamarial Roberson is the person who led the FDOH at the time

  [21] Shamarial Roberson's bio

  The arrest. Another tweet by Jones [22]. If there's still any confusion about what she means by this, here's a video (from October). This video very recently (a few days ago) was still up on Tiktok. Mysteriously, it's been taken down. Here it is on Facebook [23]

  (37 seconds into the video she says her son was charged with "felony threats of terrorism for sharing these memes" and goes on to say that "they charged him with felony threats of terrorism, saying that the content of showing things that were related to police and schools and shootings was tantamount to threatening a school shooting") (he was arrested for threatening to shoot up a school)

  My question is - is it possible, in any state, to be charged with threats of terrorism for posting memes about cops? Does this happen often? There's a whole legal process. The police present an affidavit to a judge, the judge then issues an arrest warrant (in this case there was a separate process to secure a search warrant). The police are then dispatched (or the defendant may agree to surrender voluntarily, as was the case here). There is a lot of papework involved, filings etc. Do we think in this case everyone involved in the legal process had some personal connection to the Uvalde response team and just couldn't stand them being criticized?

  If the answer is no, then there must be a problem with the article.

  I'm going to have to ask another admin for help, since I haven't received a response.

  @User:Charles_Matthews. Hello, Charles. I'd be grateful if you could have a look at this. IndianaMoon22 (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  This whole conversation has gotten very convoluted, but I just wanted to point out that Jones' forgery of the FCHR letter successfully directed attention away from the truly significant thing about the letter: it established that she is NOT a whistleblower, because she was not an employee at the time she made her complaint. Florida's law is specific on that point.

  This is one of many things that could be handled better in the article. RobinLikeTheBird (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  No, I don't think there's anything convoluted about the above. If you follow the links, you'll see the lies are quite blatant. IndianaMoon22 (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm also fairly sure you quoted one of her lies (by accident, I'm sure). I know she said that at some point, but it makes no sense. The Whisteblower Act lists "discharge" as one possible retaliatory action. The idea that if you're fired from your job, you're not allowed to file a complaint doesn't really make sense, does it? But that's the thing with her lies. They're often very nonsensical. IndianaMoon22 (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'd be very surprised if I repeated one of her lies. I fact check every word out of her mouth, including "and" and "the". If you figure out what you're thinking of, please let me know.

  I don't mean "convoluted" in the sense that the discussion isn't sensible, but that someone's going to have to go through the Talk section and pick out 20 different comments on the FCHR section, and try to do a revision that's acceptable to @Drmies based on all of them. Would be better to have a dedicated "FCHR letter" section in Talk just for that. RobinLikeTheBird (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  Jesus. Where do you see 20 different comments on the FCHR section? It should take about 10 minutes to read my post above (that starts with "We have a bit of an absurd situation here") and all the included sources unless someone has reading difficulties. We're not trying to do a revision that's acceptable to Drmies. I've been accused of being a "paid actor" for writing about her lies (including the 3 mindbogglingly stupid ones above). IndianaMoon22 (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  And sorry, I should say, rather the idea is that you are allowed to file a complaint, but you automatically lose after the investigation has been concluded (but it still takes months anyway) IF you file it after you've been fired. Is that what you meant? Because I've checked her statement and she was actually referring to a somewhat different situation. IndianaMoon22 (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  The Florida Whistleblowers Act protects employees of state agencies that file complaints that fit certain parameters from adverse personnel actions. Jones was not an employee when she filed her complaint. Read it for yourself. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0100-0199/0112/Sections/0112.3187.html

  The FCHR letter properly points out that "Complainant did not incur an adverse action, as defined by the Act, after filing a complaint with the Commission". She was fired May 25, 2020 and filed her complaint July 17.

  The final word on the matter will come from the court, of course, since it's one of the grounds for her lawsuit. RobinLikeTheBird (talk) 11:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  So you did quote her lie. This is what she refers to - [24]. Yes, she couldn't have been fired for filing the complaint, because she filed it AFTER being fired. She could have however been fired for asking them how to file one. It's just her twisting words and the truth as usual (it's her favorite pastime).

  She does claim in the 2023 lawsuit that "terminating an employee that the employer knows is going to file a complaint is a common tactic to prevent a written complaint". But that's a complete absurdity. The lawsuit is full of nonsensical claims. IndianaMoon22 (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  Anyway, this is veering off topic so I think we should refrain from posting in this section any further. You've missed the point here, I'm afraid. It's not a section for debating FCHR complaints. I mentioned her lies about the findings of both investigations regarding her allegations (which is what she's known for) and the arrest of her son, and provided screenshots of excerpts etc debunking the lies so that an admin could easily see how stupid and blatant they were (and restore our changes). IndianaMoon22 (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's pretty clearly not going to happen. RobinLikeTheBird (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know who asked you for an opinion. Can you stop trying to sabotage me? I'm sure there are Wikipedia admins who haven't fallen for her con and can understand that the article is misleading people and propagating her lies and it's Wikipedia's responsibility to do something about it. Again, I don't know how much more stupid the lies could get. It's not difficult to see through them when presented with the facts. IndianaMoon22 (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  WP:RGW 75.11.51.146 (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  But that's not the point. I'm trying to get my change restored that removed the comparisons to Frances Haugen etc (and I already must have explained this a number of times). This is a common sense thing. If this page hadn't been hijacked by biased/compromised/whatever admins, it wouldn't be an issue. I have also made other suggestions, such as removing blatantly false statements from the article. Improving the article's tone is not synonymous with admitting the subject is a serial scammer. How the available information is presented matters. This is an issue that can't be escaped. IndianaMoon22 (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  If the article copiously quotes from the subject of the article's (often blatantly counterfactual) FCHR complaint, but doesn't contrast these statements with the OIG's response - that is a choice, one that favors the subject (and as has been pointed out, these changes were made by one overzealous account that was later banned for sockpuppeting). IndianaMoon22 (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not trying to sabotage you in the least. That would be counterproductive; after all, it's mostly MY edits you're trying to get restored.

  I'm simply pessimistic about the prospect of involving admins in an edit war here. An incremental approach may be more productive. RobinLikeTheBird (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  Also, a correction: Shamarial Roberson PhD did not "lead DOH". She was Deputy Secretary of the Department of Health. Its head when Rebekah Jones was there was Scott Rivkees. RobinLikeTheBird (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  Shamarial Roberson was part of the leadership. But you're making it more confusing. What's important is that she claimed twice Roberson had no education or experience in epidemiology (and in the "celebratory" video, she made it sound as if it had been the OIG who had said this). Another easily disprovable lie (and quite an incredible one). IndianaMoon22 (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for proposing and discussing improvements to articles. Please give a concise example of a change to this article, in concrete terms, that you believe would improve it. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

RobinLikeTheBird and I made edits to the page and were waiting for input from other users when our changes were reverted by Drmies. I can't undo his revert because I'm not admin, but I was trying to illustrate the problems with the article's tone by showing how the subject has repeatedly lied and misrepresented the findings of investigations regarding her "whistleblower claims" (among other things). IndianaMoon22 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

And I greatly appreciate your doing so. It's a terrible entry. RobinLikeTheBird (talk) 06:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Charles, I'd appreciate it if you could take 10 minutes of your time to read my post that starts with "We have a bit of an absurd situation here" and follow the links (without reading the full OIG report - I only linked to it for reference), and if you agree the subject's statements in question are blatantly false, then please restore the article to revision Special:Diff/1185551426. IndianaMoon22 (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I meant what I said. Emphasis on "concise" and "concrete". Charles Matthews (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Dude, that's all I've been doing. Do you have problems with your attention span? Your "concise" and "concrete" request is RIGHT above your reply. IndianaMoon22 (talk) 06:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I have added {{talk header}} at the top. You'd be well advised to have a look at some of the bullets. We could have a form to fill instead of article talk pages. If you want admin action, there is a serious need for you to do as I ask. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Splendid. Perhaps you, too, would do well to acquaint yourself with the bullet points. I wonder, when the subject of the article is finally convicted of a major crime, will Wikipedia still keep the comparisons to Frances Haugen and Peiter Zatko, or will the article suddenly have to be completely rewritten? IndianaMoon22 (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

A point I hope you will take is that this page is not for discussing conduct issues. Stick to saying what should be done, in your view, to the article text. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Dude, I don't care. You have a huge mess that should have been fixed a long time ago, and you don't want to do anything about it - that's on you. IndianaMoon22 (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. RobinLikeTheBird (talk) 05:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Look, if you want to file a complaint with this boor (or at the noticeboard), that might still work. I don't think there's much point in trying to pander to a person (Drmies) who outright accused you of having "non-encyclopedic goals". Given the available information (which has been presented on this talk page in the form of suggestions), I think you have to have the intelligence of an artichoke (or be very biased and unable to admit to having been conned - which is sad in its own right) not to see what the problem is here. IndianaMoon22 (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you under an obligation to read with comprehension as well, buddy? IndianaMoon22 (talk) 05:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

So Wikipedia is a collaborative site, has its way of doing things, and insistent rhetoric is no part in that. I'm actually supposed to use my discretion (and am accountable for how I do that). You get the choice of engaging or yelling. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You really have to have the last word, don't you. Engaging or yelling :D. Stop spamming here. You're obviously out of your mind if you're unable to read a paragraph of text and keep being obtuse but still think you're acting coherently. IndianaMoon22 (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

And talking about "blame games" is particularly shameless and obtuse. I've already told you, you boorish dolt, it's because of the idiocy of people like you that people are getting hurt and scammed. Maybe if I'd compressed it into 3 words, it would have made an impression on you (that's clearly the only way). IndianaMoon22 (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

What I said: "Be polite and avoid personal attacks". I'm advocating a standard approach to getting some traction on the neutrality dispute concerning this article. I've asked for your input. Look, there is a whole genre of "how to complain" books. I doubt that any of them gives advice in the form (a) say it's all a mess but refuse to discuss details, and (b) abuse the person giving you attention. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll lay it out again. You have framed the situation as a dispute. You have contacted me as admin. The dispute resolution that can go on here, on this page, is what concerns the article content. The first step in dispute resolution is to get a statement of what's wrong. No point coming with the snark and blame games. Say clearly what is wrong with the present version of the article, in your view. I'm under an obligation to give you the proper advice, and that is it. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Factual disputes in lead

data scientist - it's true that much of the media called her that in 2020, but they later backed off, just like they backed off their original claim of her having a PhD. She denies being a data scientist and her role at Florida DOH was far from that of a data scientist. Do we go with what "reliable sources" said at one point, or the truth?

activist - there has never, ever been a source provided for that. She did run for office. I'm told that during her candidacy she showed up at a couple of protests claiming that she had organized them (she had not). That's an awfully thin resume to base a claim of "activism" on. Is every single person who ever ran for office an "activist"?

That's just the first sentence. More later. RobinLikeTheBird (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

In another thread, an IP user brought up WP:RGW, and I concede there's an element of that here. However, in the case of "activist", we're not dealing with an error like "data scientist", which was indeed perpetuated by the media; "activist" was wholly invented by a single Wikipedia user, but has established itself as being resilient to correction. RobinLikeTheBird (talk) 07:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

"activist" is from the media: [25][26][27] [28] [29] [30] [31] 98.97.114.123 (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

neutrality dispute

I've looked at the talk and history and started the work of resolving it with the top. I'm confused by the back and forth. It seems like people both think it is too favorably biased towards the subject and others, including the subject herself, think the opposite is true. I do think there is substantial negative coverage missing, but the overall weight of the subject in reliable media is positive. 184.180.217.57 (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)