Talk:Rebekah Jones/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This article has been recently transformed by a sockpuppet account

The now-blocked single-purpose and sockpuppet account User:You_Make_Me_Fade (block link, contributions) has been responsible 39 of the 76 revisions to this page since their account was created in January. This has transformed the article in a clear direction of bias concerning details that had already been hashed out in the talk page, before User:You_Make_Me_Fade's edits. The List of whistleblowers article has already been manually reverted to undo related changes by the same user. I'll do the same to this page when I get the chance. Sudopudge (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Content isn't usually reverted for bans even if it's suspected socking. A single use ip who axed whistleblowers who were turned into movies and tv but not 6 paragraphs about some obscure environmental hazard from the 70s is probably not a rubric for good edits, either. 24.16.22.248 (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

User:You_Make_Me_Fade is responsible for 57.9% of the article currently, with other editors' additions interspersed, of course. I don't even know how to begin manually reverting that.Sudopudge (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Taking pains to emphasize that I'm neither defending nor resisting the changes made by the user, I think it's important to keep any statistical analysis of added content in context, to wit, if you compare the last revision before that user's contributions, up to that user's last contributions, you will see that a significant proportion of the added text is in the form of either:

1. Quotes added to citations - which in themselves don't alter the article body presented to readers, for the most part, and
2. the insertion of archive.org cite rescue/prevention of link rot, which insertions involve a fair amount of text in presenting them appropriately.

To be clear: I haven't analyzed precisely who made the additions of quotes or the link-rot preventing cite modifications, but they are likely by the person mentioned. So, I think we can't jump to many conclusions about bias without a pretty thorough sifting through of all of the changes. And that, right there, is the biggest challenge, because, to put it colloquially, there are a metric- shite-ton of edits in that interval to go through. I think the first and "easiest" matter is to trim down, or entirely remove, the "quote" additions, which I think are generally reserved for ensuring for deeper readers that the article properly reflects material that is nuanced or complicated. Most of them seem unnecessary. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I've started clearing out some of the cite quotes. They are highly repetitious and add nothing to the article; the cites exist so that readers can verify. They add little but bulk to the page without adding value. There's also a lot of over-citation, where one or two cites would be more than adequate. Likewise, many of the cites are used throughout the article - in those cases, they should be made into named cites, so that the entire cite doesn't have to be repeated - which also adds bulk to the page without adding value. There's too much here for me to devote all my time to culling this stuff, so assistance would be appreciated. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I removed all the remaining cite quotes, which culled a ton of useless, invisible-to-regular-readers text. My understanding is that a cite quote is generally only needed where there's some question or dispute about exactly the content within a source that is relevant to what the article content describes. Pretty much all of the cite quotes removed were of no value. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

How do you know they're a sockpuppet and a single purpose account? I thought you were bluelinking to evidence, but you just linked to the pages for WP:SOCKPUPPET and WP:SPA?" What is the bias exactly? The RS in that user's edits seems to be okay. Kire1975 (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Sudopudge clearly linked to the blocklist entry. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 07:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Autistic son's arrest

It's well-sourced here, here, here, here and here, but there are several different viewpoints about it. It could be considered very contentious, but would not including it count as censorship? Kire1975 (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

If the arrest involved the son alone I don't think it should be included since the son is not notable. However, Jones -- who is notable -- is inseparably entangled with this episode due to the fact she was co-habiting with the son, was involved in transferring him to the police, and has publicly commented about it. Given the amount of coverage it's received I think, therefore, it is reasonable to include in a "personal life" section. I don't think it's appropriate to identify the son by name per the spirit (though maybe not the letter) of WP:BLPNAME. IOW, maybe we can limit it to saying "Jones' son" instead of "John Dow, Jones' son". I'm also not certain it would be appropriate to list his medical conditions, including autism or anything else. Chetsford (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Per the last two articles linked above (Newsweek and Tallahassee Democrat/Politifact), Matt Gaetz, her opponent last year, was mocking her 12 year old autistic son who was caught in an unflattering photo at her merchandise table. Kire1975 (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:NEWSWEEK WP:AVOIDVICTIM WP:NPF WP:MINORS

She created a spectacle so it's notable because of her. Keep it related to her and her role. Minimize contention and inclusion of him. 24.16.22.248 (talk) 05:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2023

Challenging neutrality and accuracy. They weren’t tweets and the current wording makes it sound like the police made it look like he wrote messages that weren’t his.

Change from: The Miami Herald reports that a redacted version of the warrant circulated by authorities withheld from the press that the disputed tweets were from two different accounts and that the actual threats came only from the one claimed by Jones to not belong to her son.

To: The Miami Herald obtained the unredacted warrant obtained in March, after students reported the threats to authorities. The search warrant contained two different usernames without disclosing how they were linked to her son. Jones claims that the account that wrote the threats does not belong to her son. 63.239.21.226 (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done interstatefive  22:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

§Legal issues → Son's arrest

There is only one account referenced by police. This was confirmed with witness testimony, police documents, public statements, and the evidence obtained from Snapchat. The search warrant contained the evidence needed for probable cause to conduct the search.

From: The Miami Herald obtained the unredacted warrant obtained in March, after students reported the threats to authorities. The search warrant contained two different usernames without disclosing how they were linked to her son. Jones claims that the account that wrote the threats does not belong to her son.

To: Jones tweeted that "[police] specifically hid [that the] messages sent came [sic] from an account that was NOT my son's" which was erroneously corroborated by the Miami Herald. Vice remarked on the error and verified the threats and memes in the Snapchat records obtained by police were from single account.[1][2][3]

Removed request to reorder since it was "unreadable" and "incomprehensible". 24.16.22.248 (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC) 24.16.22.248 (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a wholesale rewrite of all of the existing content on this matter. I believe it's too broad an 'ask'. But we can wait for other user input. I would suggest discussing changes rather than requesting a blanket rewrite. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't make heads or tails of this totally unreadable and incomprehensible post. What is the request? What is the matter? What is the context? The IP editor needs to consider they are writing for an audience, not for their roommate. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Drmies, is it necessary to make a personal dig at the user? I recall that we are be 'welcoming' and 'civil'. We don't have to bend over backwards to be friendly, but as a first communication with the user, this seems unnecessary personalized. Furthermore, I understand what IP editor wrote. It's not unreadable and incomprehensible, and it is formatted properly as an edit request.

Secondly, you blanked the content in the article, with inspecific claims that it may be 'inappropriate'. Since you removed the content, can you start a discussion, and explain your rationale? Your edit summary was hostile and threatening; I don't think that this is appropriate behavior for an administrator. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I removed the other part of my post but it seems you removed it all while we build consensus which makes sense. Thank you. 24.16.22.248 (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Multiple snapchat names on warrant

Per NBC: Those chat messages were sent from a different user name. The arrest report appeared to address the name discrepancy saying: "It should be noted Snapchat uses a name to id the account to other people and the actual user name." [4] 24.16.22.248 (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

id the account to other people? That's as clear as mud. Kire1975 (talk) 10:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It's exactly what it says. Snapchat uses display names and usernames. [5] 24.16.22.248 (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Except that that's not what it says. That's your interpretation of what it means. It is an exceptionally poorly written statement. 'name' 'id' 'account' 'other people' 'user' 'name'. I'm with Kire1975, except that it's worse than mud, it's word soup. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It is the way snap chat works. A "display name" is the name that id's the account to other people. [6] 24.16.22.248 (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

And that is, literally, not how the statement is worded. Which is what we've pointed out. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The statement is literally worded to describe a concept which Snapchat calls display name. Which is why I cited Vice, so it would not be misinterpreted as OR. Cheers. Adding your Display Name on Snapchat is a great way to help friends recognize you. Snapchatters who have you in their phonebook may see the name they've saved you as in their phone. 24.16.22.248 (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

According to official snapchat source above, Your username can only be changed once a year. Since he changed the username in January, before the threats were made, that contradicts the statement on the arrest report even more. Kire1975 (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It's not difficult to maintain more than one account on a platform. The bottom line is that this is a 'developing' situation, and neither we nor the press have all the information. So we shouldn't speculate beyond what is available. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

This is OR. There was only one account. This is not speculation. Per Vice [7]:

Police documents and warrant service reports, however, suggest that multiple students at her son’s former middle school reported him to teachers because they were worried he would shoot up the school.

Snapchat messages obtained by the police as part of a search warrant do indeed return memes that joke about school shootings sent by her son. But they also show legitimately concerning messages he allegedly sent that appear to be specific threats against a specific middle school.

Jones has tweeted that she believes her son did not send these messages—which, again, were obtained directly from Snapchat by the police and traced to the same account that posted the memes... cited a Miami Herald article

This appears, though, to be a misreading of the unredacted police report by Jones and by the Herald, and also a misunderstanding of how Snapchat works.

On Snapchat, users are able to have a display name and a username. A user can change their display name at any time, but the username will stay the same. The police report does not mention multiple accounts; it simply states what the display name was and what the username was. The memes and threatening direct messages came from the same account, according to the warrant service documents. Jillian Durkin, a spokesperson for the Santa Rosa Sheriff’s Office, told Motherboard: “I can confirm that per our investigation, there was only ONE account.”

The police report does not rely only on the content of the messages. Police also spoke to a 12-year-old girl who identified Jones’s son’s accounts and stated that had made threats to her on both Discord and Snapchat. The Snapchat records show that she was the recipient of some of the messages... Several of the Snapchat messages threatening to shoot up the school and named in the warrant service documents were sent to her. 24.16.22.248 (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kire1975 Edits like this reflect an opinion about this matter coming through as bias: [8] The edit summary says "CE", so the edit should be basic fixes WP:CE. Discover implies a degree of certainty that the source did not convey. They reported an unexplained discrepancy. They reported that students tied the threats to him in March. The removal left the impression that the threats were not tied to him. This same sentiment was indicated in this edit summary. [9] WP:SUMMARYNO Edited per comment on talk page challenging civility. 24.16.22.248 (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The Miami Herald source leaves the impression that the threats were not tied to him. Kire1975 (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

That's an interpretation, it's not what the source says. This is why WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS and WP:TALKDONTREVERT are good rules of thumb, especially when adding or removing recent content from talk pages. The source says the warrant appeared to contain two usernames and authorities did not say how they linked them to one account. It says the boy was tied to the threats in March when students reported the messages. It offers the Jones' dispute on the perceived username discrepancy and shares that her son acknowledged 2 memes tied to the other listed username. [10] Condensed, word-for-word:

The threats reportedly were made during a series of conversations on Snapchat and Discord, an instant messaging social platform, beginning around Feb. 1. They were brought to the attention of law enforcement authorities by other teens in March. The teens showed deputies screenshots of memes shared by Jones’ son on Snapchat, where they said the boy had also threatened to shoot up his former middle school the week before spring break, but then said he later changed his mind, according to the arrest warrant. The boy was interviewed by sheriff’s deputies on March 23 and shown the memes, which he acknowledged sharing, the report said.

An unredacted version of the warrant, obtained by the Herald, shows the threatening messages were sent by a username that was different than the one Jones’ son used to send the memes. The document does not say how authorities determined both usernames are linked to the same account. Jones provided a screenshot of her son’s account, which showed he changed to his current username in January, before the threats were made. She said he has never used the handle associated with the threatening messages. 24.16.22.248 (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Anastrophe Can you please fix this portion per Vice and NBC so it is accurate and neutral, per policy? 24.16.22.248 (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Removal of content regarding Jones's tweets about her son's arrest, et al

Administrator Drmies removed all content regarding a widely reported matter concerning Jones's tweets about her son's arrest, and their inconsistency with facts as reported in reliable sources. The edit summary accompanying the removal was threatening, without citing a specific policy basis for the blanking. Non-administrator editors rarely get away with blanking content then threatening editors if they restore it. I'd like to get some clarity from the administrator on this matter. The content is specific to the public actions of the subject of this BLP. Her son is not named either here or in reliable sources. What's your policy basis for both the blanking and the threats? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to open a discussion about BLP matters pertaining to a 13-yr old child on BLPN. You've been here long enough to know that we should err on the side of caution, and that this talk about "threats" is very immature. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

"very immature". Again, with the personalizations. If I had blanked the content, and warned users that if they restored it the article would be locked, I'd likely have been sanctioned. Let me ask: If I were to restore the material you blanked, right now, what would the consequences be? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Having carefully extricated my head from my arse and applied some copium, I agree with the blanking - and frankly think the page should be fully protected for a couple of days anyway, as the polarizing nature of the subject of this BLP is likely to bring about others who would add new interpretations of the events without reviewing these discussions. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the blanking. WP:MINORS WP:NPF WP:BLPCRIME WP:LPI WP:BLPPRIVACY

Age is not a DOB, but it is considered personal information. (Non-personal ages are "fuzzy" is 10-20, adolescent, teenager, minor).

Presumption in favor of privacy

...exercise restraint and include only material relevant to notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.

We should build a consensus of what is appropriate to include, especially because we are talking about a minor. 24.16.22.248 (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

In Florida, a minor's information is not private if they are charged with a felony, as is the case here. More information is here: https://ejdirga.com/orlando-criminal-attorney/florida-expungement-lawyer/expungement-options/juvenile_expungement/juvenile-records/ Dgoldwas (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it's immaterial in terms of what's under dispute here, I'd say. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a public record. 2601:600:9B7F:844E:F9A9:12C2:1FF:401B (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

A highly left-wing news source, Vice, reported [11] that Jones' claims are blatantly false and that her son threatened to shoot up a school, hence he was arrested. Jones accused DeSantis of kidnapping her son, among other conspiracy theories which she choose to spread wildly after his arrest. Considering how she made the story public and decided to share it to numerous nationwide outlets, I don't understand how this isn't notable for this article. I think the article merits some inclusion of how Jones is a conspiracy theorist considering various documented claims spread by her that were blatantly false (some examples can be found in a right-wing article [12] or a left-wing one [13], and this story is a place to start. Bill Williams 00:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Podcast

WP:TWEET source

Remove: On December 8, 2022, it was announced that Jones would be hosting a new podcast, "Miss Informational" on Big Mouth Media, a new venture by former congressional candidate Cindy Banyai. 24.16.22.248 (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done 73.28.38.149 (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Florida State Auditor

I’m aware that the Florida's Office of Inspector General exonerated the state health officials, but is it not worth mentioning that the Florida State Auditor released a report stating that the data from Florida’s Merlin COVID systems “did not appear complete or contained anomalies that would limit the accuracy and usefulness of reported information”? This seems worth noting, as it would lend some credibility to Jones’s claims.

https://flauditor.gov/pages/pdf_files/2022-200.pdf Page 5, listed as Finding 2 2603:7000:2402:3543:61BA:D328:3DE6:ABB (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

That's interesting, but I suspect that could be considered analysis of a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and WP:OR. It it's mentioned in a secondary source somewhere, I would say allow it. Kire1975 (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

She did not have access to Merlin so this is not related to Jones. [14] 2605:B100:53D:11:15A4:49B4:B380:4DE4 (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Read the actual audit report. They were comparing reported Merlin deaths to medical examiner deaths. The report states that medical examiner reports were missing thousands of deaths the state reported. Those deaths reported by the medical examiner that weren't reported by the state had to do with a lag between time frame of deaths and reporting as well as clerical errors. It wasn't nefarious, and the auditor report has nothing to do with any of the activities outlined in Rebekah Jones' complaint. 2600:1006:B133:44EA:D48A:ED4C:31B9:C5E0 (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

[15]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)

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 - restore rs content removed by SPA

Undo the following changes:

1. [16] 2. [17] 3. [18] 4. [19] 5. [20] 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)

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)

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)

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" - [21]https://twitter.com/GeoRebekah/status/1721634102174966236. Here, she mixed up the Azores with the Canary Islands [22]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)

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:

[23]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 [24]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 [25]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)

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: [26][27][28] [29] [30] [31] [32] 98.97.114.123 (talk) 20:10, 25 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 - 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 - 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)