Wikipedia:Administrator review/King of Hearts

How's my driving? 1-800-KOH-ADMN :-) King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

2009

 * Hi, I think very highly of any admin who makes use of this process, and I wish that more would, as you are. So I'm commenting largely because I feel bad that you've been sitting here alone for a few days! I haven't had a lot of personal interaction with you, but you did close this AfD that I started. Even though I started the AfD, I came to be persuaded during the process that the conclusion that you reached was going to be the correct one, and I believe that you were exactly correct in the way that you closed it. For whatever that's worth. Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Consistently reasonable admin. What more could you ask for? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're the ace of &spades; in my book. No complaints here.  --Bsay USD  CSU [ π ]  02:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel that you have acted too quickly without exercising due dilligence, as you blocked me based on a tip by an unreliable anon user. For instances of edit warring, rather than picking sides (aside from a 3RR violation), I would have rather that you give out warnings first. For the sockpuppet accusations, I expected to have an opportunity to defend myself since there was no initial proof, furthermore there was a tool available to check the IP addresses. While I'm willing to see your behavior as careless rather than malicious, I feel that these recent actions fall short of the standards expected of an administrator, and I'm concerned that another editor could have been just as unfairly sanctioned as I had. GoldDragon (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This guy is a loose cannon. He deleted the entry on Goldsea Asian American Daily, the leading Asian American content site on the internet.  Mind explaining why, King of Hearts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AA Patrol (talk • contribs) 16:57, August 6, 2009


 * Shows good judgement in my view. Keep up the good work.  Astronaut (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Tempted to actually call that number, just to see what happens... Don't listen to these fools with their "why did you delete ??? You're an idiot for deleting it!!!" You're doing a great job as an admin, and this is coming from true sincerity, not just because you're my admin coach ;)--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 16:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The only time I've ever seen you AFAIK is Articles for deletion/Metropolis Group, but I do think that's one of the more dubious closures I've seen. – iride  scent  23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification to the above; the fact that I don't recognise the name is a good sign, as it means I've never seen you being complained about anywhere. – iride  scent  10:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A very polite, friendly, and reasonable admin. Hasn't done anything to really stir up a conflict. Cheers.Smallman12q (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In closing Articles for deletion/No homo early, I wouldn't have used IAR as a reason. I would've used WP:SNOW (or a speedy keep reason) if closing early, and probably waited to close the discussion until it was decided to use it in DYK. -Mairi (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * At one page, you have said that I am using Sock. I assure and challenge that I am not using any Sock and even presenting myself for accountability. Please, clear this blame which has ruined my position. I would appreciate your immediate action. Regards, --LineofWisdom (talk) 10:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * All of my interactions with you have been at recent IfD/NFC discussions, so it is only upon them that I can judge you. Honestly, I do not see you as a strong admin- a strong admin, for me, is someone who is willing to enforce our non-free content criteria, no matter how unpopular it makes them. In a few cases, you seem to have ignored the obvious in order to favour the "mass opinion", which, although perhaps diplomatic, is not the way to build our encyclopedia. Consensus is not about the opinion of the masses. If it was, we'd be Wikipedia, the non-free Pokémon encyclopedia. It'd be great to have another admin bouncing around the NFC issues, but, please, if you're going to help out there, help remove content as needed, don't pander to the desires of the pro-NFC brigade. I'm not saying you have to be anti-NFC, but we have our compromise in the NFCC- let's not water it down further. J Milburn (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for intervening in my Storm Shadow dispute. I'm glad you fairly saw my point, despite me being an anonymous user.
 * Quiet and respectful, a good worker. I like an admin that reduces the stress and lessens the dispute, well done, keep up the good work. Off2riorob (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * From what I've seen, you're doing a good job. Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll Keep You - I noticed your active participation at AFD recently. I have found your comments, and decisions, both thoughtful and insightful.  Keep-up, (no pun intended:-).the good work. ShoesssS Talk 02:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * king, my account has not moved to my new username from fngosa to Freshymail. It is already 7 days. Thank you Freshymail (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've no concerns about any of your admin actions that I've ever noticed. From a quick look at your contributions I see you know enough to work on Edit Filters, which is a valuable capability. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent decision on my RfD. If I'd been less of a newbie I would have thought of that myself and just gone ahead with. Education is a fine thing. Jan1nad (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to second AA patrol's query - Articles_for_deletion/Goldsea_Asian_American_Daily shows two "delete" views: one complains the sourcing is questionable, the second complains of poor writing. Please explain your rationale for deletion. Thanks - KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 19:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * While I much admire your initiation of this process, I stumbled upon it in planning to draw your attention to the anniversary of an action you took nearly a year ago. On October 17, 2008, you blocked me for 24 hours for violation of 3RR without a personalized word of explanation even though I had not and have never reverted any part of an article more than 3 times in 24 hours, and despite your being able to see clearly above your notice on my talk page that the person whom I had last reverted implicitly acknowledged that he had violated 3RR but demanded that I not report him on threat of retaliation. Although that is the only time I have ever been blocked and I still don't understand your decision to punish the culprit and the attempted rescuer alike, that is not the point. The point is the appeal that I had previously made, and am now renewing, on the talk page of Michael I of Romania for assistance in rescuing the article from a sockpuppet whose aggressive OWNership of the article I documented back to March 2006. Although I had attempted to fix this by filing an appeal on the BLP board, which was ignored (apparently because -- never having done it before -- I supplied too many diffs for any admin to take under review) and publicly drew attention to the problem on the talk page, the BLP violation continues to this day. After you blocked me I have refrained from editing the article. Meanwhile, you can readily see from the talk and edit pages the result: the sockpuppet has continued to OWN the article, driving away by sheer persistence the few editors who were drawn to the dispute and attempted to free the article. Michael of Romania cannot live much longer, but Wikipedia continues to propagate the notion that he is a traitor and a thief, even though that is not the prevalent view of the man anywhere else in the world. I don't know what to do. I'll accept that I deserved to be blocked and that you were behaving in an exemplary manner as admin if you would just offer some practical assistance in freeing a BLP violating article from an obsessed ultra-Orthodox monarchist sockpuppet who is now entering his 5th year of using Wikipedia to successfully disperse a false history of one of the two last surviving anti-Nazi heads-of-state of World War II. Please! FactStraight (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

2010

 * King of Hearts, I am disappointed that you removed my article "Chatsworth Products, Inc.". It was under revision to provide more neutral content as directed by another editor. This article was not intended to promote Chatsworth Products, Inc., but rather to provide Wikipedia users with solid facts about the company’s origination as an Employee Ownership Association (ESOP), the types of data center products and energy efficient solutions designed for technology equipment and involvement in overall industry development. I created this page by reviewing company Wikipedia pages and the content on my page was appropriate compared to the others that I reviewed, which often touted the companies and their accomplishements and specific products. --12.16.243.2 (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)--12.16.243.2 (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Once in a while I disagree with his call, but nothing that I see as being out of line, just different views. I rarely even comment on these, but King is active and seems to be levelheaded and consistent. I'd be happy if more admins were like him. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Disappointed with the fudged "seems to have been addressed" in closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vision Forum. Would be looking for an admin to make a decision one way or the other. In my view the addition of yet more unreliable sources does not improve an article. At best it is  consistent with the general level of dumbing-down of Wikipedia these days.  Lame Name (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Articles_for_deletion/Laura_Massey, in which King of Hearts did not participate, had only two people voting for "Delete" and two voting "Keep." No consensus was reached. King of Hearts unilaterally deleted the article despite the lack of consensus. White 720 (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Articles_for_deletion/Laura_Massey was a good call. The AfD was open long enough and nobody put forth any sources for any of the existing content. Nothing of value was lost, and anybody is welcome to create a new article from scratch if they find sufficient sources that indicate notability and provide reliable information. That's that. Your close of Articles for deletion/List of prizes known as the Nobel of a field was less than stellar. You wrote: "This falls just short of consensus to keep (luckily, it doesn't matter). Despite the oddity of the list's topic, many agree that it is notable and verifiable." -- I've underlined the most awkward part of this close: AfD is not majority based since notability cannot be established by onwiki acclamation, and you know that (cf. example above). --83.135.122.157 (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you like to review your block of Nwar24? I have not been involved, although Beeblebrox has. I only found it in passing. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * deprive of adminship Most importantly inability to distinguish the rules as they say ORs and unreferenced material should be deleted as with this: ; for supporting to keep non-encyclopedic, rule-contradicting materials on this encyclopedia and for strong voting/commenting in favor of such material. For your info, the stay of such material results on the use of it in articles sooner or later and that it cannot be controlled. 109.75.34.109 (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/14th Transportation Battalion (United States) reads like No Consensus to me. The closing admin must abide by the consensus, and if there is no consensus in the AfD then the article must not be deleted. If the closing admin's role is to close the AfD as he/she see fit, then why do we even bother to have discussions? I request that User:King of Hearts restore the article for the reason that there was no consensus to it being deleted. Inniverse (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This person just deleted an article that was voted on when there, as he admitted, had twice as many KEEP votes and DELETE votes. Here is the vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Antoine_Dodson   That's an outrageous abuse of authority. Totally disrespectful of the whole voting procedure. Relying on his OWN personal interpretation of policy to make the decision to delete.  Rapidosity (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I must admit I wouldn't have closed either of the above as 'delete', but then again I am an inclusionist. I probably would have closed 14th Transportation Battalion as no consensus with a three month warning to improve.....but I have to ask why you keep this open for 11 months? Or is intended indefinitely? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Alrighty then.....I think learning what it feels like to bust a gut writing is a great thing for any admin. I note you list a few green articles on your user page - I note that there are a paucity of Economics and business articles on the Good articles page. Part of what I feel the whole 'pedia should be aiming for is alot more content review - like GA and FA. These also provide stable check points for instant referral as you watch your articles erode like sandcastles at the beach over time. Why not jump out of the frying pan into the fire with some of your B-class articles like Chinese currency or others? Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I 100% support your decision on the Articles_for_deletion/Antoine_Dodson AFD. Crystal clear WP:BLP1E, and a good example of a situation where the number of !votes is immaterial to best result based policy-based consensus. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Supported blind use of policy for deleting the Antoine Dodson article, does not listen or acknowledge his peer's opinions, and is generally a very poor admin. Clerkenwell ''TALK PAGE!" Contribs 02:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Generally, I think KoH is doing a top job, and looking at AfDs is never easy and people are often disappointed with decisions. And in relation to that, I would urge KoH to revisit WP:RELIST, because I think there's a misunderstanding here. RELIST advises no more than 2 relists, not including the original nomiation. Just scanning over the talk page, there's a couple of situations where KoH has closed as no-consensus when there's been one relist and one 'Delete' !vote, whereas for my mind a better option would have been to relist for one more time, or close as delete. If, after 14 days there's no keep !votes, and only !delete votes, aI struggle to see how that can be no-consensus. See Articles for deletion/Lazzat with Asad and Articles for deletion/Tony Koltz‎. Otherwise, keep up the good work! (and comment on my review when I get round to posting it ;) ) Ged  UK  13:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I was alerted by curiosity after seeing an 'optional' question you placed on a recent RfA which I feel did not contribute positively. Generally you tend to go for the easy tasks an admin can do and it makes me wonder if you really need the tools. This review has now been running for a year and I'm surprised that  you have not made a single gesture in attempting to acknowledge any of the comments or to address any of the issues. On the whole, in my opinion your sense of judgement in many areas is in need of significant improvement, especially in RfA (voting habits) where as an admin, or as an editor aspiring to adminship, you have made some exceptionally misplaced !votes - your own RfA might not  not pass by today's standards. Overall, where your admin work may prove to be a slight net benefit (AIV), your apparent level of maturity for the position of sysop is my reason for posting here. I am sure these things can improve with time.--Kudpung (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A++ transaction. Would buy from again.  (Wait, is this eBay?) Tarc (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this guy acts like he owns Wikipedia, he acts hastily in deletions without much discussion. Just see what he did with Ngensolutions LLC.  It was deleted without much discussion.  He should be removed as administrator.  trueblood (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have seen some closes at AFD that could have been better relisted once more before being closed as no consensus but none that I would necessarily go to deletion review for. Good Admin The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking. This is the first administrator review I have seen. I looked at some of the complaints above, and based on those that I sampled, you seem to be using the mop well to clean up Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I was disappointed that when I wanted to access some information on Blue Beam Project and the page got deleted. Can someone reinstate the content? The administrator shouldn't be allowed to just delete the whole article, unless it is offensive. This article was on Wikipedia for a good number of years, why is it being deleted now? It will just give rise to more conspiracy theories and also tarnish Wkipedia's reputation as a objective, neutral site. I think that King of Hearts does a good job as the administrator, he should just reinstate the deleted article as obviously the deletion has upset some people ans it was a mistake. I have read the article before, it was pretty harmless. I have already read some info on the blogs like quote: "Project Blue Beam has been deleted from Wikipedia, so it must be true" LOL. We don't want that kind of paranoia and negative publicity for Wikipedia, I think it is a great site :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.162.56 (talk • contribs) 08:28, October 6, 2010


 * If the worst complaints people can come up with is that you closed a unanimous-delete AfD as "delete", I think you're doing your job quite well.  —  Soap  —  19:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This guy likes to be incharge, wants to delete without any discussion, will not read and just does what he wants, he should not be an administration trueblood (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised and disappointed to see the CG-Lock entry disappear. It seems this administrator is a bit of a loose cannon when it comes to product information.  Please reinstate the CG-Lock entry if only to tell people what it is.  There has been much discussion on blogs about this device recently with Ben Collins expose as the STIG. Ben has been using the device on Top Gear for the past 4 years.  I think it is just this kind of info that this site should capture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregRultz (talk • contribs) 13:58, November 16, 2010

2011

 * This guy needs to be banned forever, he has no clue what he wants, he thinks he is God. I have made a lot of contributions and this guy thinks he can make up stuff 75.15.205.174 (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This person has no clue about anything. A lot of contributions have been made and this guy deletes them at a whim. I say delete this person from Wiki!


 * You have officially deleted our institutional page "Commission on Filipinos Overseas". It is a legitimate instrumentality of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. We violated no copyright. We own the rights to our name, and to all the facts we included in the text. You have abused your editorial rights in this particular instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.92.86.195 (talk • contribs) 02:25, January 19, 2011


 * I'm deeply dissatisfied with the close of Articles for deletion/Failure-oblivious computing. Not because I "lost" but because in the close King makes it clear that he feels the essay WP:NOTCLEANUP is sufficient excuse to keep an article that is improperly sourced and does not establish notability, just because some participants in the afd claimed more sources exist. In the process he ignored WP:BURDEN, which is a subsection WP:V, one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. And I quote "it is not necessary that an article contain references to reliable sources; those sources must merely exist." Seriously? So we've just toss the idea of adding references to articles out the window as long as someone says it could be done? Since when? If you honestly believe that you should not be closing AFDs at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Follow up: in the end we had a fairly productive discussion about this, and King did remain civil and reasonable throughout. While I still disagree with he closing at least he wasn't a jerk about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't say my first impression was a good one. Which was in relisting the Noron Theory AfD, when it was utterly obvious that the article was WP:NOR violation, among other problems.  Now  "consensus" is even more elusive, with WP:SPA editors weighing in.  Shoulda killed it when you had the chance. Yakushima (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This DRV was a good call; bold, and a good decision. We need bold.  Chzz  ► 00:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. He deleted one page that should have been kept, can I challenge it somewhere? But haven't seen him doing any other mistakes. Nice that he userfied deleted pages that I wanted, thanks. Pelmeen10 (talk) 03:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Willing to make tough calls that will almost certainly leave somebody mad. Generally his admin actions are policy-based, and he is willing to explain his actions when challenged. VQuakr (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, he is doing an awesome job as an admin. Jessy   T/C 20:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This administrator needs to learn how to use the search function. He keeps deleting articles that are still linked from other pages, and can't even be bothered to change/correct the links - for example RouterTech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.15.100 (talk) 10:34, March 28, 2011
 * Consistently approachable and reasonable admin.— S Marshall T/C 15:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm proud to say that I admire his work so far. Keep it going, Wikipedia really needs people like you. Eduemoni<sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 01:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In a deletion review with more comments in favour of keeping the article, he called it a no consensus and salted the article name. Will update here with his actions in reaction to my post on his talk page, as this man most certainly is notable under WP:NHOCKEY.  CycloneGU (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All right, this has now been resolved. After his initial reply regarding my comment to have the name salted in case of deletion (which was true due to prior recreation, and I didn't object to the salting itself, just the consensus), I pointed out that there was a consensus (maybe not the stroongest, but still a consensus and a basing on policy) to keep the edited version.  The single oppose voter never returned after I replied and notified him, which to me left a clear consensus.  Just a moment ago he amended the decision to allow recreation.  I thank him for listening to my concerns regarding the close, and even if he had said it was still not a clear consensus I would have respected his opinion.  As an aside, I never noted a year or so ago that he caught vandalism on my user talk page before I even got there; I at the time credited him with being quick to catch it and remove it. =D  CycloneGU (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What a ridiculous admin. This WWE Over the Limit 2011 is a fiasco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveVesalius (talk • contribs) 00:54, May 16, 2011
 * I came into this page thinking you're on a one-off review, just to realise this has been left ongoing (nice tactic) for more than 2 years! Just some thumbs up: I really appreciate the way you aren't afraid of dealing with contentious issues, and despise repeated antagonism and heavy drama you kept doing it, keeping up a good general standard. Keep it up. Deryck C. 23:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a hard time respecting an admin who makes decisions without knowing the facts. Stark Raving Dad was TFA on September 19, 2011 and it originally featured an image of Michael Jackson, which King of Hearts removed. The rationale that he eventually gave me was: "What I meant was that there was insufficient EV to justify having a picture a Michael Jackson on a Simpsons episode on which he made a minor cameo. If people saw a picture of Michael Jackson on the Main Page, they would think the article would be substantially related to him, not some random TV episode." It immediately became clear to me that he had no idea what he was talking about, because the episode not only substantially features Jackson (it was written just for him), but the majority of the prose in the article also relates to Jackson in some way. Whether or not King of Hearts even read the blurb is questionable, because it makes in clear that Jackson was heavily involved. In the end, it's a minor issue, but King of Hearts made a call on a clearly mistaken rationale. In the end, a new image was added (and it was a terrible, borderline copyright vio image which looked awful, but that's beside the point). -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  23:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * its refreshing to see an Admin take on a really tough issue, where consensus if fractured in multiple directions, and call the ball correctly in closing statements. Keep it up! <font style="background-color:Thistle;font-weight:bold;color:Black;">Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 22:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * awesome work, the page looks great,..Surfing_in_Ecuador fantastic work in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfing_in_Ecuador page cheers •  Daytonarolexboston
 * Good job. This Admin has my support... Alayna the Extravagant (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The decision to delete List of important publications in biology was a victory of bureaucracy over common sense. In the recent flurry of AfD's for other lists of publications, more than one adminstrator expressed a temptation to submit a deletion review. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Mixed feelings. The deletion of List of important publications in biology was probably a mistake. The argument that such lists are necessarily WP:OR and inherently not objective is very, very weak; it has been refuted by many other editors in the parallel AfDs of similar lists, most (if not all) of which were closed as keep. See this for example. On the other hand, I agree with the way King of Hearts closed Articles for deletion/Timeline of conservatism—proper application of WP:IAR there. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to express the same concern more positively. I think it is excellent that you close AfDs with regard to the weight and validity of the arguments made, rather than sheer numbers. However, when discounting the views of a significant majority of editors on policy grounds, it is essential to think very carefully whether your personal take on what policies mean is coloring your assessment. I'm not saying you didn't do that, but subsequently many editors have expressed a different understanding. I would also recommend providing more detailed reasoning in such circumstances. Geometry guy 19:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is really crazy stuff! This guy has deleted Anton Singov, a professional videogamer who has won well over $140,000 at the highest level of competition with excellent sources to back it up. He is one of the most successful professional videogame players of all time. He more than meets the criteria listed in Notability and Notability_(sports). For a less up to date article entry you can view: [] Some of the games were on satellite national tv. Just because this admin doesn't consider it to be something worthwhile doesn't mean other don't!!! Many small sports and niche events deserve mention on Wikipedia. Most importantly he is going against the clear Wikipedia notability policy. I really think this admin needs to be stripped of his admin powers, at least for now. Anonywiki (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Why did you delete the Slim Dunkin article. He was just killed and is in so many newspapers. It just makes Wikipedia look bad. I was looking for information on Slim Dunkin on Wikipedia and thanks to you there was nothing. I'm sure more people know about him than you. If you can't edit properly, get off Wikipedia. - Added by 99.158.29.160 —Preceding undated comment added 05:03, December 19, 2011‎.

2012

 * Admitted to potentially having a bias in an AfD, even though he was allowed to close it because he not not directly involved in the debate. A sign of good character. BusyWikipedian (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Any admin willing to repeatedly take tough decisions and deal with the inevitable flak in a patient and courteous manner is alright in my book. Having looked over some of your AFD closures and other forays into contentious areas, I have to say I wish I had your balls. And not (unlike many others) on a stick, either. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  10:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Very helpful, great, as well as very experienced admin. In simple words, you're really "King of ♠". Torreslfchero (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Mpenndesigns: Hope that we will be able to fix the page you deleted although I know from my communication with others that is was the correct thing to do. However Daniel Hernandez is worthy of being on Wikipedia so I am looking forward to rewriting his bio to suit the rules of wikipedia. I just hope all is going to go well for you seeing you have done some extensive work here to make wikipedia a place that maintains its integrity and rules. TruthTank 09:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

2013

 * In general you're a great admin, but especially noteworthy for your edit filter work - I see a lot of little tweaks and improvements on filters, and I find that very helpful (considering my luck with edit filters). <font color="#0">m.o.p 19:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your driving is lousy. You topic-banned me from all faith-related topics. But: the initial proposal was for Christianity articles. A few editors specified support for a faith-based ban. One specified Christianity, and most specified nothing at all (other than support). You can't get consensus for all faith-based topics "broadly construed", out of a proposal for Christianity in particular when most editors didn't specify that (and you can't get all "topics broadly construed" out of "articles" when most editors didn't specify that.) You implemented a ban sloppily, without consensus. Humanpublic (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I must applaud your willingness to undertake tough close decisions on XfD discussions. One day I will likely seek adminship and I hope to be half the admin you are. Cheers, Mkdw talk 09:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I &diams; King of &diams; &clubs; because he is a firm, but fair administrator, who also (although I'm not an admin) works with me to fight vandalism. Thanks, KoH. WorldTraveller101Did I mess up? 01:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This admin blocked my account and accused of me being a sock puppet without any hard evidence. As far as I can recollect of why this may have happened is - all I did was comment and voice my opinion on the Erica Andrews article that for whatever reason is hot on fire and in dispute because of edits. My edit was so minor and my comments were my own. I had asked for hard evidence to show that I am someone's sock puppet but no one has been able to show me and that is because I AM NOT A SOCK PUPPET. I can only assume that because I agreed with some comments of someone else that I am suddenly their sock puppet. I did not realize that Wikipedia does not allow for freedom of speech or support of someone else's edits. I would expect an admin of Wikipedia to be more ethical, fair and level-headed. Even in real life, if you accuse someone of an alleged crime, you have to show hard evidence and if you have none, then all you may have is suspicion. You can suspect I am a sock puppet as that is your freedom to do so but what is not in your freedom to do so is accuse me without any hard evidence. I realize that my account is quite new and maybe that is what has triggered off this sock puppet accusations. To this, I had also mentioned that I used to have an account from some years back but I switched my ISP and I can't retrieve my password since I have forgotten it. Is that a crime on Wikipedia too? I attended a real life event (a memorial) and people were encouraged to memorialize this late entertainer, so I made a new account to edit/help. I can only deduce that my timing was really bad and I made my account at the wrong time and walked right into some disputes on the article. That may be true and maybe that is what I am most guilty of. Seriously, please lift my block and please leave me alone. I am not worth your time and effort, trust me. I am just some insignificant Wikipedia user/author who comes on once a week or once a month, if that. 208.54.86.210 (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought the Finkelstein close was excellent, established a good precedent in clear, well thought-out terms, and both upheld and helpfully clarified an important aspect of the BLP policy. Chick Bowen 22:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * KoH is active as an editor/contributor, admin, and OTRS reviewer. Responses to requests for assistance are swift and effective. Thank you for your hard work. --Godot13 (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I have to say that this user fails to see the big picture when it comes to some issues. Yesterday a sock report (see Sockpuppet investigations/Hackneyhound) was filed against me by a long-term pov pusher who has managed to impose his world view on Wikipedia for several years. Rather than look at the background KoH went straight to the support of the pov pusher (who is also an acknowledged sock) even going so far as to set up a filter to try and limit the so-called "abuse" apparently perpetrated against this user. It is not, of course, abuse we are talking about, but content disputes. KoH, I genuinely think you should look at detail and background more than you do. Such an approach is vital for admins. 212.183.128.133 (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Polite and very understanding person. And the way you write your name is really very amazing. Shobhit Gosain (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I went through your edits and admin actions. After watching your edits I think telling good will be misjudge and a mistake. Cause you are not good!! You are better!! And sometimes best. Keep working like this. WP needs editor and admin like you.-- Pr at yya  (Hello!) 14:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

2014

 * Could you explain how your signature complies with Signature? There was a short time ago a very angry exchange about a user showing a flag in his signature, and there is now a discussion going on to promote this guideline to policy. I've seen your signature for some time, and apparently nobody took exception. Nevertheless, I think this is a bit confusing. Kraxler (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * They are unicode characters, not images. Different coding. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that we've interacted but I think that you're a great admin. I associate your signature with a calm and level-headed person; you're highly experienced, polite and always ready and willing to explain yourself when questioned. I also commend you for having this review ongoing for several years. Keep up your excellent work! :) Acalamari 14:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're one of the nicest and most levelheaded admins I've run into. I appreciate all your SPI work. Do you sleep? Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 19:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Very nice admin, in my experience you have answered all queries. I appreciate your work on SPI, Afd a lot. You have done a lot to help, and I hope that you will always continue doing so.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 05:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)