User:Kenwarren/sandbox/rktect

Statement by third party Kenwarren
I have been involved in this very nearly since the beginning. I located the mediator who initially attempted to mediate this dispute, and I have been an active participant in many of the discussions with Rktect on his various articles and edits. Rktect has made serious charges against a number of people including me, so I suppose that involves me in this dispute.

Conspiracy
Rktect has accused a number of Wikipedians of conspiring against him. I will not speak for anyone else, but I have not been made aware of or participated in any such conspiracy. With the exception of several private emails exchanged with Egil here, and three emails received from Rktect here all of my communications are available on the various talk pages this has been playing out on.

Accuracy
Rktect's contributions, factually, are a mixed bag. His general contention that systems of measurement have been imported from culture to culture is non-controversial. Many of his specifics are shaky, see e.g. Itrw, which he identifies as a distance of 21,000 royal cubits. This distance differs from the literature: see e.g. near the bottom of page 4, and various print sources, all agree on "approximately 20,000 cubits". There are enough factual errors in Rktect's contributions that all of his facts need to be checked, a difficult task. He also shades into conclusions which are rejected in the field of classical studies, such as a contention that Egyptian (and thus probably all following) systems of measurement are based on a precise knowledge of geodesy.

Article style
In terms of article style, Rktect's contributions are very hard to deal with. He uses indents in a manner which makes it impossible to follow the text, he mis-uses (or doesn't use at all) headings , he frequently breaks wikimarkup in the process of (I believe) copy/pasting from an external editor, and almost every edit includes material that isn't relevant to the subject of the article. His prose is typically not easy to follow even without other problems, due to punctuation and grammar errors. In general, nearly every article he does significant work on should be listed on Pages needing attention. When left alone, Rktect's preferred article version seems to be this less than useful version, see e.g. which has not been touched by any of the involved Wikipedians since the 27th of August.

Relevancy of material
Eratosthenes is one of several articles on which Rktect has declined to address concerns regarding relevancy. See where I revert to remove irrelevant material,, where I explain why,  where Rktect reverted, claiming additional cites (in his edit summary, not on the talk page) to substantiate his statements;  where I revert again, for exactly the same reason,  where Rktect reverts again, and finally  where Rktect finally replies on the talk page with a filibuster intercalated with my own comments to the point where it's hard to tell what I wrote by reading the talk page. See also Mille Passus with numerous "Degrees of X", none of which mention the subject of the article; This version of Mile , and this version of Gabriel Mouton  currently containing material which has been repeatedly challenged, which challenge has not yet been satisfactorily answered. Rktect's response in the last case: doesn't address the relevancy issue.

Editorial style
Rktect's style as an editor is combative. When his edits are challenged, on any grounds, his normal tactic is to simply paste back in what he originally wrote, possibly with additions. See, e.g. Mile: (69.164.70.243 is a known anon of Rktect)     (Note: this continues for another dozen or so cycles of revert or clean up and repaste by Rktect untl the article is finally protected on August 19th ). On talk pages, he frequently filibusters by pasting entire articles into inappropriate talk pages (Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Standards of measure in the Jemdet Nasr, for example) and intercalates large amounts of text into others' comments. See e.g. this series of edits by Rktect where he intercalates and filibusters enough that it's basically impossible to follow their comments afterward without extensive recourse to the history.

Engaging him in productive discussion
I have tried to engage Rktect in discussion numerous times, with results ranging from complete failure (,, User talk:Kenwarren/Metrology) to those like Gabriel Mouton where Rktect appears to ignore those parts of the discussion he doesn't like. It is not impossible, however. See, e.g., Livio Catullo Stecchini: here I remove some POV material, here  in which Egil adds some potentially controversial material and I try to do a bit of cleanup, here  where rather than just "removing some of the more flagrant POV material" Rktect whitewashes Stecchini, here  where I try to produce a neutral POV again, and here  where Rktect whitewashes Stecchini again. In the meantime, this conversation on the article's talk page:  (in which Rktect pastes the entire content of the article into the talk page, a common tactic) This is the only time I would say I have succeeded in engaging Rktect in substantive discussions on an article's content.

Vandalism
Rktect has engaged in minor vandalism on one occasion:, , to make a point:. Additional disruptions: and Gabriel Mouton VfD,  and Pseudoscientific metrology vfd, both of which I believe to have been either to make a point, or to have been intended as revenge edits.

Bad faith
I see little evidence of bad faith on his part beyond the above and interpreting a mediation truce as permitting him to continue editing on the various articles related to weights and measures, while constraining Egil from doing likewise. See here where I made the initial mediation request, here where Rktect(operating as anon user 69.164.70.243 redefined truce the first time, and here where I clarify and Rktect redefines truce again.

Edit summaries
Rktect has used, and continues to use, deceptive edit summaries. While he no longer misuses the minor edit flag, he still words edit summaries in a manner which would make one think that the change made is relatively minor. See, e.g. and  which suggest minor changes, and  and  (neither one, admittedly, a major change) with no edit summary at all.