Talk:Rebekah Jones/Archive 4

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. (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
 * 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.
 * The OIG investigation.
 * 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. Instagram post
 * The reality (from OIG report) Screen  Screen2
 * Jones' video about the "most shocking revalations" 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.
 * This is the quoted excerpt. Shamarial Roberson is the person who led the FDOH at the time
 * Shamarial Roberson's bio
 * The arrest. Another tweet by Jones . 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
 * (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 - . 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)

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)