Hello, Cowabunga101, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! – Muboshgu (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase myself: we shouldn't use "claim" because of the guidance at MOS:CLAIM. If it's on another page, it should be changed. Two wrongs don't make a right. Also, please don't edit war. Use talk pages for discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now you just committed a significant WP:BLP violation in your edit summary of your last edit on Jones' page. Do not use edit summaries for your personal opinions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not an opinion. I added context and explained why, in my opinion, mentioning the revenge porn ("sexual cyberharassment") charges in the lede would be a good idea.

If you want to change the "claimed" to "alleged", go ahead, but please remove the "purportedly", but I think it sounds worse for the reasons I've given. (She tried to deflect attention from the valid reasons for her firing, never provided evidence for her own claims, meanwhile she committed her transgressions online and this was documented by her employer. To me, using "alleged" is just making it sounds less silly than it was. I think "claim" is a perfectly normal word and it has it use cases. If we're trying to sound neutral and encyclopedic, I can understand that, but in this case I just feel like it gives the false impression that there was any substance to her claims. There wasn't. She just declared that the firing was for a different reason than it was, not presenting any evidence. Anyone else in her situation would have been fired as well. She was even initially shown leniency. To me, this is a pretty absurd situation.) Cowabunga101 (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "opinion" that I'm referring to is where in the edit summary you wrote The only explanation that comes to mind is that she and then continued with a BLP violation. Do not do that again. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my apologies. Cowabunga101 (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you removed it? Why? Maybe I should have toned the language down, but I think my general point is valid and important. Cowabunga101 (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because it's a WP:BLP violation. You can not commit WP:Libel on Wikipedia. Keep your personal speculations to yourself and only go by what reliable sources say. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the comment, as it was phrased, was extreme. BUT, I didn't say IT happened. I looked at the facts of the case, how she admitted to sending the pictures (but supposedly only to the victim), to creating and hosting the defamatory website (but supposedly, it didn't contain any naked photographs - again, this is not a matter of dispute, these sort of things can be easily checked, and they were by the affiant), and how the charge was dropped weeks later, and I concluded hm, perhaps some form of bribing took place. But I don't know. Maybe Jack Campbell is an excellent state attorney. It certainly doesn't seem so. So, I don't think that's libel. Cowabunga101 (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's libel to even suggest bribing took place and if you do not see this I do not know that you should be able to edit any contentious articles on this site. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of "seeing it". It simply is not. Not that I'm particularly interested in taking this any further. Cowabunga101 (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, personally, I wouldn't call this article "contentious". I think most of the pushback has come from her and her socks because not that many people care about her story or come here to edit the article. Cowabunga101 (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also, the press has pretty much refused to cover her story any further after finding out they've been duped (because they did no verification of pretty much anything related to her claims), and that's another very important reason why not many people come here to edit the page. People are still being scammed though. Cowabunga101 (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, the suggestion was below the belt. Cowabunga101 (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote it with your concerns. Be careful not to violate WP:3RR in the future. Using the word "alleged" in legal context is appropriate, but I couched it in the exoneration. The general consensus is not to use "claim". 🪞🦜∞👩‍💻💬 15:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it reads significantly worse. I think this might be another one of her socks. Cowabunga101 (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:ASPERSIONS. 🪞🦜∞👩‍💻💬 17:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In a normal legal context it would be, but this wasn't normal, which I explained above. Cowabunga101 (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She filed a formal whistleblower complaint. The legal term for her statements in the complaint are allegations. 🪞🦜∞👩‍💻💬 17:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we could change it to "allege", I don't particularly mind, but could someone restore the previous version? This person changed my "manipulate the dashboard's data" to "state COVID-19 data", which is the same wording that was used by another account that made some changes to the article earlier. No, it wasn't the state's COVID-19 data. It was that specific dashboard's data, because she wasn't in charge of the state's COVID-19 data (no single person was). Cowabunga101 (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's because the sources say "Florida scientist was fired for 'refusing to manipulate' COVID-19 data, she said". 🪞🦜∞👩‍💻💬 17:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I don't see why there was any need for a rewrite, which is a downgrade in my opinion, so I'm going to revert it. Cowabunga101 (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't revert the edits because I'd have to revert them one at a time and would be in violation of the 3 revert rule. Just editing my changes back in probably wouldn't be proper. Cowabunga101 (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 3RR is for the content you are reverting within a 24-hour period, which you have violated again with the manual revision. You should contribute constructively, instead of just reverting. 🪞🦜∞👩‍💻💬 15:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I haven't violated anything a single time. Once again, you've removed my original version of the second paragraph for no reason. Cowabunga101 (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is my final plea to restore the previous version of the second paragraph. This rewrite lacks the bite, the twang, is watered down, doesn't flow as nicely and there doesn't seem to have been a good reason for it. The previous version highlighted the ridiculousness and criminality of her actions much better. Cowabunga101 (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving it to others. I rewrote it because you reverted the removal of the word "claim" in favor of "allege" three times and tried to accommodate your issue with the way it was presenting her whistleblower complaint. The point was to be more neutral and more encyclopedic. A lack of "bite" or "twang" in an encyclopedia is a good thing. 🪞🦜∞👩‍💻💬 23:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask you. Like I said, the usage of one word or the other is not that important to me. The other problem was the "purportedly" in the previous version which didn't sound right. The rewrite was unwarranted and there was no need for it. It's one thing to be neutral, another to be objective. If she did some idiotic things, like made a forged copy of the whistleblower complaint, posted it on social media and followed it up with a false statement, we want to highlight that because it's blatantly criminal. Likewise, if her superiors said she was fired for a repeated violation of DOH rules and this was documented, then for her to claim anything else without proof was really silly. And that should be highlighted as well. We're actually being more objective and encyclopedic this way, by not trying to diminish the stupidity of her actions. Cowabunga101 (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one is trying to diminish her actions. It is not our job to highlight the stupidity of her actions, either. The weight of the content should match the weight of what's written about her and the pov should be neutral. What you are describing is WP:NOTHERE. 🪞🦜∞👩‍💻💬 13:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It is our responsibility to reflect what the sources say neutrally. We strive to avoid injecting our own personal biases into articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diminish the stupidity, yes, you are, with your pointless rewrite of my original version. She was fired for repeatedly sharing the DOH's data online, in an interview with a magazine, on social media, also for removing her co-worker's administrative access to the dashboard, things that would get ANYONE fired. I think that's pretty obvious, isn't it? Can we agree on that? So by changing my "she alleged (or claimed) instead that the firing was retaliation" to "in response, she filed a complaint with the FCHR alleging retaliation" you are actually displaying bias, or bad intent, whatever it is, by trying to diminish the absurdity of the situation and normalize her actions. Does being fired for bad behavior usually warrant "a response"? You are making it sound like this was a dispute she had with the DOH, like it was a dispute between equals. Language matters. If we're trying to be objective and neutral, then we have to call things for what they are. I think this should be pretty self-evident. Cowabunga101 (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you need any further proof that Parrot is trolling or acting with bad intent, here it is. Did another pointless rewrite of my changes, it seems the only point is to keep removing my edits, because the rewrites are horrible, and keep this thing going. She/he broke the sequence of events, changed my "despite being repeatedly reprimanded" to "after" (said the despite didn't make sense - more pointless trolling), referred to the FCHR's letter as a "dismissal letter", wrote that the OIG "dismissed" her complaint, removing mention of the actual investigation. Overall, a lot of needless incoherence. Cowabunga101 (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Rebekah Jones shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have made 5 reversions to Rebekah Jones in the past 24 hours. 🪞🦜∞👩‍💻💬 22:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. Get out of my page with this template. It's quite clear this little psycho is trying to get my account locked for edit warring by making pointless changes to the article. Cowabunga101 (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Cowabunga101 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: ). Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring, as you did at Rebekah Jones.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cowabunga101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Oh dear. This is obviously a mistake. If you read the content of this talk page, you'll find out that I did in fact try to discuss the changes, and in the case of Parrot's continued disruption to the page, I did not receive a reply from anyone else. Neither were my edits complete "reverts", I tried to remove the bad content while keeping those changes that were remotely constructive (even if there hardly were any). The last edit that has been restored was made under the pretense that the previous version "read like a narrative, not an (sic) informative". The solution was, according to user Parrot, to move the information about the OIG's conclusion of the investigation (referring to it as a "dismissal", removing any mention of an "investigation") to the beginning of the article. This is obviously a pointless change which breaks the sequence of events - it makes no sense to introduce the subject with this information. And obviously, the article has always maintained the correct sequence of events, introducing the subject by talking about her activity in 2020. It shouldn't be that difficult to see that the changes that were being made by the user were pointless, disruptive and not constructive. The idea that taking one sentence from the middle of the paragraph and moving it to the beginning would somehow change it from being "narrative" to "informative" (whatever that means anyway) is nonsensical. Obviously, the user was trying to achieve exactly this outcome. Cowabunga101 (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Edit warring does not have to involve the exact same edit each time. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cowabunga101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

That's a non sequitur. Did you bother to read my post? Removing disruptive or pointless edits is not edit warring either. It's too bad you don't want to follow your own website's rules. Cowabunga101 (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This doesn't address the personal attacks. And yes, clear edit warring. Yamla (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cowabunga101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't know how to reply to the above message by editing the source, so I'm going put this here. Like I said, removing spam is not edit warring according to your own rules. Edit warring is what the other user did. It's too bad you can't seem to understand that or be bothered to read the discussion because this should be very simple to understand. I'm not sure what "personal attacks" you're referring to either. Now my constructive edits have been removed and you're stuck with bad content (which can't be removed because that would be edit warring). Cowabunga101 (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were clearly edit-warring and making personal attacks. And the now-deleted edit summary warranted an indefinite block on its own. Acroterion (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Acroterion (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]