This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2020. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
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)[reply]
Rebekah Jones never filed a complaint with the Florida Department of Health Inspector General’s Office (FDOH OIG) Jones’ whistleblower complaint was filed with the Florida Commission of Human Relations (FCHR), which is not inside the Florida Department of Health (FDOH). The FCHR filed the complaint with the FDOH OIG.
Additionally, the FDOH OIG investigation was not an investigation of Jones’ complaint – it was an investigation specifically into the conduct of four FDOH employees – Carina Blackmore, Scott Pritchard, Courtney Coppola and Shamarail Roberson. Jones did not interview for the OIG investigation, as the investigator notes in his report.
The FDOH OIG did not and did not even have the authority to “dismiss” Jones’ complaint because her complaint was never filed with OIG and that is not what the OIG investigated.
The FDOH issued four statements in regards to conduct on these specific employees. Two of the findings ruled “could not prove nor disprove” in regards to direct orders of data manipulation by Coppola and Roberson. That is neither a dismissal nor rejection.
The third charge, regarding the state’s change in measuring positivity, was deemed “unfounded,” despite thorough documentation of the change. The investigator, misled by Thomas Troelstrup, on page 26 of the public OIG report, confused case incidence rate (the rate of cases per 100,000 persons) with positivity (the number of positive people tested divided by the total number of people tested). The change in measuring positivity was not only reported by FDOH, but well covered in the media.
The fourth and final charge, per the OIG report, found that the events as described in Ms. Jones’ FCHR complaint did happen as described, but that the OIG office did not find that the conduct of the employees in question violated a specific rule or policy.
The FDOH OIG conferred protected whistleblower status onto Jones and has not revoked it. Legally, Jones remains a legally protected whistleblower in the state of Florida.
The FCHR investigation, however, resulted in a notice that Jones did, in fact, engage in protected legal activity and did report a violation of law, but because she filed her complaint after she was fired, the agency determined she could not have been fired for filing the complaint. This is often referred to as “preventative termination” in the legal community – when an employer terminates an employee knowing the employee intends to file a complaint.
Jones’ civil case remains ongoing.
Any statement or implication that Jones’ whistleblower complaint was “rejected” is patently false, as per official documentation by the state and the fact that Jones’ case is ongoing. Allowing Wikipedia to become a tool of propagandists with political agendas does a grave disservice to not only Wikipedia’s reputation, but the mission and goal of the site since its inception.
I formally request a review of this wikipedia page by a non-partisan party who will not weaponize and misrepresent information regarding an American hero and legally protected whistleblower. Tomdevinenwc (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. [1]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.121.219 (talk • contribs)
There is no evidence that Jones has ever created any secondary accounts. The link used is from a know far-right DeSantis employee and one of Jones' online stalkers. The account above should be permanently ban for misusing wikipedia.
I formally request a review of this wikipedia page by a non-partisan party who will not weaponize and misrepresent information regarding an American hero and legally protected whistleblower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomdevinenwc (talk • contribs) 14:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
"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.
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)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
Partly done: See prior, removing from queue. Re-open if needed. Geardona (talk to me?) 18:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)