Talk:Rebekah Jones

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

Request to protect page from anticipated mass editing
Rebekah Jones, who tried to edit this page multiple times to whitewash it of anything negative, just created an alternate Twitter account @JonesWikipedia and is likely to push for a mass editing campaign to scrub this page. It might be ideal to protect the page to prevent what is likely coming.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.121.219 (talk • contribs)
 * We don't allow preemptive protection. The article is already protected until May 6, 2028. If additional protections are necessary, they can be requested if and when canvassing off-wiki, meatpuppetry, or vandalism occurs. If you suspect sockpuppetry to avoid a page ban, you can report it at sock puppet investigations. 🪞🦜∞👩‍💻💬 15:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Rebekah Jones- legal issues
I am not an editor, but the 'legal issues' section states that Forbes and Ars Technica reported that the login info Rebekah Jones allegedly used to access the states emergemcy botifocation system was easily accessible with a google search. That is false. Forbes linked to the Ars Technica article, but did not report independently. The Ars Technica article does not source any of their information and references a reddit conversation. That information is not reliable, and Ars Technica is not a reliable source. That is why no major news articles reported that the login information was 'googlable' the entire paragraph should be removed or significantly reworded. 2600:1005:B19B:E132:88B3:A798:8D43:B5EF (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2024
I am not an editor, but the 'legal issues' section states that Forbes and Ars Technica reported that the login info Rebekah Jones allegedly used to access the states emergemcy notifocation system was easily accessible with a google search. That is false. If this were true it would have been reported everywhere as thhat event was signifcantly covered by the media. Forbes mentions the Ars Technica article, but did not report that information independently. The Ars Technica article does not source any of their information and references a reddit conversation where a years old document is shown. There is no evidence or proof from the reddit string or anywhere else that that is the login info she used. The information reported by Ars Technica is not reliably sourced, and Ars Technica itself should not be considered a reliable source for wikipedia articles. Again, no major news articles reported that the login information was 'googlable'. The entire paragraph should be removed or significantly reworded. 2600:1005:B19B:E132:88B3:A798:8D43:B5EF (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * According to the WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources list, "Ars Technica is considered generally reliable for science- and technology-related articles." A cursory review of the destination article shows it was investigated with appropriate rigor. Unless you have a reliable source that contradicts their claims, there's no reason for it to be removed. However, I am going to remove the Forbes citation, as it adds nothing in terms of verification of the claim. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 03:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I realize that Wikipedia does not consider court records reliable sources; however they reveal Ars Technica's claim to be false.
 * Source: Leon County Court Clerk, cvweb.leonclerk.com/public/online_services/search_courts/search_by_name.asp Search "criminal" for Jones, Rebekah. Click on the most recent arrest and then the document corresponding to the 51st entry, "Response States Traverse".
 * "12. The State specifically denies paragraph 12 of the Defense's Motion.
 * "a. The information relied upon by the Defense, including their Exhibit A, refers to a system that was used prior to the implementation of the ReadyOp system which was in place at the time of this offense.
 * "b. The username and password for the ReadyOp multi-user account StateESF8 Planning is not available to the general public." 2601:645:A00:310:9A34:717C:8EAC:C2DC (talk) 06:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "I realize that Wikipedia does not consider court records reliable sources;" that's not a valid representation of the policy. WP doesn't rely on primary sources of information, but that has no bearing on whether the primary source is reliable or valid in any way. Primary sources require interpretation, and we editors must rely upon secondary sources for those interpretations, since we aren't allowed to interpret them ourselves.
 * I'll take a look around and see if there are any reliable sources that support your contention, but absent those, we have to go by the secondary sources. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A review of the specific document you presented shows that it's a pleading by the state, not evidence. Because of the deferred prosecution agreement, the case didn't go to trial, so no evidence was admitted. That's why we don't go by court records, because it forces us to rely on editor interpretation of the case documents, which may be correct or incorrect, but which falls under the broader umbrella of original research. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * See prior, removing from queue. Re-open if needed. Geardona (talk to me?) 18:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)