Can someone be KJV-only while rejecting Ruckman's views?

I would agree that it would be incorrect to claim that all those who are KJV-preferred are "hidden" or "closet" KJV-only.

On the other hand, there are at least some who attempt to deny that they are KJV-only while they still hold or make exclusive only claims for the KJV. These may strongly reject and even condemn Peter Ruckman's view of the KJV [Ruckman's claim of advanced revelation and claim of the KJV correcting the Hebrew or the Greek]. They in effect try to have it both ways: claiming not to be KJV-only while holding or making some other claims for the KJV that would qualify as being KJV-only. While they may reject any claim that the KJV corrects the Hebrew Old Testament or the Greek New Testament, they may not accept any edition of the Hebrew Old Testament or any edition of the Greek New Testament being used to make any corrections to the KJV. These would typically reject the NKJV as being a translation of the word of God in English in the same sense or in the same way as the KJV. They would believe and suggest that the KJV is the word of God in some different sense than any other English translation. Perhaps some may not realize what actually constitutes a KJV-only view.

Someone can believe and think that the KJV is a better overall English translation than the NKJV, and it may not be that they are not KJV-only. On the other hand, someone who cannot admit or see that the NKJV is clearer, better, and more accurate than the KJV in at least some places is likely KJV-only.