Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Rktect

message: Improperly positions response by rktect moved --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:rktect]] 

message: I first encountered Rktect's contributions on WP:AFD.  My interaction with him has been mostly minimal, as his areas of interest and mine do not intersect.  As an editor and reader, however, I will say that even a cursory reading of his work is simply devastating.  Putting aside the formatting issues, which are simply irritating, his writing has a deeper problem.  His prose is elliptical, obscure, and virtually incomprehensible.  His reaction to criticism seems to be to immediately personalize the issue.  Attempts at resolution become adversarial almost instantly.  His response to the consensus process is to view it as hostile and catastrophic.  He publically mischaracterizes the statements of other editors in a way that is shameful.  To take one simple example, in his response, above, he states:
 457 separate attacks by Egil since August 5, contacting users Crissov,Jimp, Gene Nygaard ,Indefatigable, Kenwarren,Icairns,Allen3,Drini,KevinSaff,Nandesuka,PBurka,Paul August,Zoe,Fred Bauder asking for assistance in making personal attacks which has been provided 
The only communication that Egil has had with me is here (coupled with a followup question and response here,   ).  In that communication, Egil informed me of the existence of this RfArb — nothing more.   In other words, Rktect is willing to describe informing an editor that an RfA has been filed as "asking for assistance in making personal attacks."  Whether or not Rktect is deliberately misrepresenting the words of other editors, or simply cannot tell the difference between discussion and vilification is not clear to me, but is not relevant.  What is relevant is that this pattern of behavior is consistent, ongoing, and Rktect shows no signs of recognizing it as a problem or indicating any willingness to moderate his behavior.
Nandesuka 05:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Nandesuka]] 

message: * Accept, but you are both going to have to show better evidence. Fred Bauder 20:50, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
* Accept. James F. (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/0/0/0) 

message: Just curious, do we ever impose short bans like this anymore?  Should this be interpreted as "may be briefly blocked"?  The guy's de-facto banned (indef-blocked in early 2009 after tons of WP:IDHT), but the socks keep appearing (see the block log for Khamis Mushat), so I figured it couldn't hurt to get a little clarification.
:PS I've added Dougweller to this purely because he should be able to contribute if he wants to.  He just now blocked the Khamis account due to clear WP:DUCK evidence (he emailed me the evidence; I'm sure he wouldn't mind sending it to you if you care to see it), and a comment from him is the only reason I'm aware of this situation.  I fully back his actions, and I can't imagine anyone other than Rktect objecting to what he's done.  Nyttend (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Nyttend 

message: ::The wording is clearly wrong. It says " Rktect (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from all articles which relate to weights and measures (metrology)." and then under enforcement "
Should Rktect (talk · contribs) edit any article which related to weights and measures (metrology) he may be briefly banned, up to one week in the case of repeat offenses.". Dougweller (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Dougweller