User:Ocaasi/Zad

Zad68 is simply one of our most promising and talented medical editors. He's been with us for just under 5 years with over 15,000 edits. He really picked up his activity in march of 2012, where he made the bulk of his 5000+ edits to article space, and began extensive engagement on article and user talk pages. That is where Zad truly distinguishes himself; he demonstrates impeccable discretion--calm, thoughtful, incisive, diplomatic skills. He is as expert as anyone I've seen at getting past controversy to discuss content while mediating between challenging points of view at the most contentious articles in the medical space.

A quick look at Zad's top contributions demonstrates why his unique disposition is so critical: Low back pain, Circumcision, Lyme disease, Medical uses of silver, ADHD, Water fluoridation. In addition to stellar mediating and content additions in those spaces, Zad is also active at major noticeboards--AIV, ANI, RSN, DRN, BLPN and UAA. Zad works extensively on peer review and GA review of medical articles and has helped to bring the extemely heated article Circumcision up to GA quality. Zad is a regular at WikiProject Medicine where he's become a trusted voice of reason and an active and helpful participant. He deeply understands the evaluation of medical evidence and demonstrates his grasp of the medical reliable sources guideline through his regular efforts to mentor other editors in appropriate use of medical sources. He also leads by adding new evidence about systematic reviews of medical studies to articles as new publications re-evaluate the efficacy of treatments.

That Zad manages to work at the heart of alternative medicine, elective procedures, medical controversies, and popularly disputed therapies with such grace is a testament to his value as a Wikipedian and a thorough encouragement towards what his value as an admin will be. He consistently and fairly applies his critical thinking to finding and adding quality sources; yet he does not belittle or discourage those with differing views or a less developed sense of evidence quality. Quite the opposite, he teaches and guides those who come to our articles with often vehement views, making them better editors as he lowers the heat at controversial articles. Continuing to work in these areas with the added admin tools will allow him to be even more effective in helping editors create dispassionately accurate and up-to-date medical content that reflects the best available evidence.