Talk:Sukavich Rangsitpol

Human Rights Education

http://www.lifeisball.info/p/edurite.html 49.228.64.97 (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Help me

Improper duplication of content removed.

49.228.35.238 (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you are trying to achieve here, but that is misuse of the help me template, use the relevent ones - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 21:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

This entire mess

Clearly, the IPs and SPAs want the article to present a more complete and less negative view of the subject, but lack any ability to write proper encyclopedic articles in English, so they resort to pasting blocks of quotes and PR material from elsewhere, which gets reverted due to being irrelevant to the context of the articles. While there are inherent COI and promotional issues to their actions, I do think (as I commented in the RfC back in 2019) that the article as written presents an WP:UNDUE focus on certain negative aspects while barely touching on the subject's actual work. The obvious solution is of course to expand the article, but RJFF, the main contributor, isn't familiar enough with Thai sources, no other regular editor appears interested, and the IPs/SPAs are clearly just incapable (in addition to biased).

Personally I'm against greasing the squeaky wheel as it reinforces the wrong behaviour, so I'm disinclined to invest work so long as the IPs/SPAs are still making a fuss. But this is becoming a nuisance. Does anyone perhaps have ideas on how to constructively engage with the IPs/SPAs? Maybe educating them on reliable sources and asking them to help provide some, so that they can used to properly expand the article? --Paul_012 (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I do not believe there is a constructive way to engage with the editor. This group of editors appear to be linked to the family (either the subject himself or her daughter). I have met a scholar in Thailand during the Wikimedia Thailand event, and he told me that he was contacted by the daughter of the subject in an attempt to reframe the narrative of this article to their view. The scholar said he politely explained to her how Wikipedia works and that she must find the source (the newspaper at the time) to prove the statement critical to the subject, but it doesn't seem to enlighten the daughter, who insisted in the inclusion of "fuzzy" contents (without secondary sources, no less) while trying to remove the criticism against him. These groups of editors also claimed to have file a police report for false statement being published on Wikipedia (I cannot provide links as I was warned against outing the editors). Harley Hartwell (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Paul 012, Harley Hartwell, and Taweetham: In my opinion, the problems caused by this article are far out of proportion to the notability of the subject. My pragmatic proposal would be to stubify the article to the most basic, uncontroversial key data, like the year of birth and terms of office, and then implement the level of page protection necessary to keep it that way. Having troubles with COI users is not a valid reason to delete the article completely. The subject undoubtedly passes the notability threshold, having been a government member at national level. But we should also limit the problems that this article causes for us editors to a reasonable level. I do not find the subject of the article so interesting that I would enter into legal squabbles for it. Anyhow, the article should not remain in its current, extremely unencyclopaedic, digressive and confusing state. I would prefer a simple three-liner to this. --RJFF (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I would support such a course of action. The only reason I hadn't proposed it earlier myself was that it would remove the work you put into the initial version, but if you're fine with it then I am too.

This should also be brought up at ANI, as I think long-term protection is warranted, given the lack of watchers, persistent sockpuppetry, and real-life harassment that led to the Thai community electing to implement a total ban on any articles related to the family. (See WT:WikiProject Thailand#Meta proposal on Thai Wikipedia and sister projects.) --Paul_012 (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reduced the text to only basic factual information, which is still quite substantial (more than what would be considered a stub). Here are the removed references:

• Economist Intelligence Unit, ed. (1994). Country Report: Thailand, Myanmar (Burma). p. 21.
• Dachakupt, Pimpan (1999). "The current innovation in curriculum development in Thailand". International Journal of Curriculum Development and Practice. 1: 93–101. Retrieved 18 September 2018.
• "All Quiet on Western Front". Bangkok Post. 28 February 2002.
• Rosalind C. Morris (1997). "Educating Desire: Thailand, Transnationalism, Transgression". In Phillip Brian Harper (ed.). Queer Transexions of Race, Nation, and Gender. Duke University Press. pp. 53–79, at p. 54.
• Peter A. Jackson (2002). "Offending Images: Gender Sexual Minorities, and State Control of the Media in Thailand". In Russell H. K. Heng (ed.). Media Fortunes, Changing Times: ASEAN States in Transition. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. pp. 216–217.

I will note that this goes against the 2019 RfC result, but consensus can change, and given RJFF's position I believe it has. The past several years have shown the previous approach to be impossible to maintain. I'll be watching this page and will take raise the issue at ANI should the problem edits resume. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

ANI

ANI thread opened at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Long-term abuse surrounding Sukavich Rangsitpol. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)