Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zad68

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Zad68

Final (107/0/0); Closed as successful by 28bytes (talk) at 21:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Zad68 (talk · contribs) – Zad68 is one of our most promising and talented medical editors. He's been with us for almost 5 years with over 15,000 edits. He really picked up his activity in March 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 topics, Zad is also active at major noticeboards--AIV, ANI, RSN, DRN, BLPN, UAA--and he is a clueful commenter at AFD. Zad works heavily on peer review and GA review of medical articles and has helped to bring the extremely 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 continual 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 in controversial discussions and subjects. 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 encyclopedic medical content that reflects the best available evidence.

--Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you, Ocaasi, for your very kind nomination! I am delighted to accept. Zad68 20:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: As an admin, I'd still be an editor and I intend to keep working on WP:MED-scope content, mostly! I will take on admin tasks slowly, first by dealing with vandals at WP:AIV, and by helping walk editors who have registered with problematic usernames through the appropriate processes at WP:UAA. I run into both of these kinds of issues regularly within the Medicine content area. Eventually, I'd like to avoid having to burden the admins patrolling these noticeboards (and others like WP:RFPP) by handling issues as I come across them. I also plan to review and close WP:AFD discussions. Especially when I am working in the Medicine area, I will be careful to pay attention and avoid using admin tools when involved. In the case of any doubt, or where I might need to take quick action to protect the encyclopedia in an area I've edited (for example, protecting a highly visible page where I've been involved in the content, like Osteoarthritis, from a spate of IP vandalism), I would take the minimum necessary action and then post a note about it at an appropriate administrator noticeboard to have my action reviewed.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I have brought Low back pain and Circumcision to GA status. These are both widely-read articles (LBP has almost half a million views per year, Circumcision over 2 million) on topics with global relevance. LBP in particular is on the WP:MEDICINE Translation Task Force list, and has already been sent to the translation team for export to other languages. I'm very pleased to be able to make this information available and accessible to so many readers, especially as my work has been reviewed through the GA process. In my view, WP:GA is one of the most important milestones for an article, and I think I do a pretty mean GA review. I'm pretty proud of the reviews I did for ADHD and Burn--these were probably more thorough than many GA reviews, but the nominators were OK with the depth, and Wikipedia ended up with improved articles as result. I also really enjoyed doing the GA review for Carnotaurus as I learned about the WP:DINO sourcing guidelines, which are really different from what I'm used to for WP:MED-scope content.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have developed content in a few contentious articles. Probably the most stressful but also the most educational thing I've done is to bring Circumcision to GA status. In doing that, I really learned how to handle conflict. That article was actually highlighted in a recent study as one of the 10 most controversial en.WP articles, and (last I checked) has the fifteenth largest Talk page. The best way to handle editing in contentious areas is to remember that other editors are people too and they are (most of the time!) here to try to do what they feel is the right thing. Keep the tone light, be civil (not just "WP:CIVIL" but actually civil), remain focused on the content and not the editor (WP:AVOIDYOU gives really useful advice), and base all discussion points in reliable sourcing and policy. It also really helps to start off by stating something you can agree on with the other editor, and then move on to exploring the area where you don't agree. If the other editor is being particularly unpleasant, I've found that simply not responding to any comments or parts of comments that are directed towards things other than content is very effective at keeping a discussion on track and as heat-free as possible. If I really start getting annoyed in a content discussion, a great thing I've found to do is to turn away from it and work on something else for a while.

Additional question from Trevj

4. In closing AfDs in areas where the closer has considerable interest, e.g. medicine, how can it be ensured that such closures are not supervotes? -- Trevj (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

A: An accusation of supervote can happen when an editor feels the discussion wasn't closed in line with what they thought was the consensus. (We need to keep in mind here that "consensus" isn't the result of a vote, but takes into account the quality of the arguments as evaluated against Wikipedia policy.) This accusation can happen either because 1) the closer actually did not close in line with consensus, or 2) the editor questioning the close doesn't understand the policy requirements that the arguments are being weighed against well enough. In cases where there are a lot of !votes going one way but they aren't based in policy, and there are some !votes going the other way and they are well-grounded, a closer can try to minimize the chance of 2) happening by explaining the issues in the closing statement. To try to minimize 1), if I felt too personally interested in seeing a particular outcome, I would pass on closing it. If I were involved in the content, or I felt that the AFD was being carried by weak arguments, instead of closing it I could become involved in the AFD discussion myself, point out where I felt the existing arguments were weak and provide my own arguments, leaving the AFD for another editor to close. If not enough strong arguments either way had been brought, or there were opposing well-grounded views, I could relist the AFD for another week, and notify any appropriate WikiProjects (if they hadn't been already) to get more discussion going. Of course, if the discussion has been relisted a few times and there's still no clear consensus, the discussion should be closed as no consensus.

Additional question from Ottawahitech

5. What type of reasoning should be provided when nominating an article/category/template/file/etc for deletion? Thank you.

A: (I changed the question number from 4 to 5 as we've already got a 4, hope you don't mind...) I can answer about AFDs, as that's the area where I'm most comfortable. It should be noted that there's no requirement that the nominator must provide a reason, and sometimes things get listed without a reason for procedural purposes, but you're asking about should, and so are looking for best practices. The nomination should show that the steps at WP:BEFORE were considered. Ideally, an AFD nomination should state the applicable policy or guideline (for example, WP:ACADEMIC or WP:NCORP) the nominator feels the article fails, and describe the steps the nominator went through to see if the article could meet it (or them, if multiple guidelines might be applicable). Most guidelines mention WP:GNG as a fall back if the guideline-specific criteria aren't met, and so the nomination should mention that a check for that was performed as well. I haven't taken part in too many of the other types of discussion yet, and so wouldn't be active in closing those until I get better acquainted.

Additional question from Buffbills7701

6. What essay do you think best represents Wikipedia and why?

A: WP:BRD. It's so ingrained in Wikipedia culture that most editors don't realize it's not actually policy, it's not even a guideline, it's just an essay. It's at the intersection of several of Wikipedia's core principles: The first is that Wikipedia is a wiki that anybody can edit, so go ahead and edit it. Wikipedia's content is as broad and deep as it is because it's so easy for those interested in editing to get started. Most people who edit here started doing it after seeing something they thought needed fixing, discovered that they could fix it, were bold and did so. Some of those bold edits got reverted. Wikipedia isn't a free-for-all, we have lots of rules about things like sourcing requirements, content style and presentation. No editor knows all the rules perfectly and there can be honest disagreements about the best application of them to any given situation. So, discussion is needed. Discussion is where (hopefully) a new editor is welcomed, rules are explained, and consensus is built. It's all in those three letters.

Additional question from John Cline

7. Under what circumstances would you protect the talk page of an article actively being edited at regular, and frequent intervals? Please ensure that you also name the template you would use, or construct a freehand example that describes the protection as well as the appropriate manner an editor would follow to post an edit request.

A: I was actually involved in a situation almost like this, at Talk:Causes of autism and related pages, where an individual using a wide range of dynamic IPs had for years been engaging in tendentious editing. It ended up at ANI (several times), resulting in a topic ban for the editor and the Talk page semi'd, although I think the difference between this situation and your question is that the Talk page wasn't getting so many regular, frequent edits from other IPs.

It'd be appropriate to semi a Talk page if there were ongoing, persistent disruption from a wide range of IPs that couldn't be handled appropriately with an IP range block. Another reason I can think an article Talk page might be semi'd or even (briefly) full-protected would be if it were the Talk page of a high-visibility BLP of an individual at the center of some unfolding current event, and the Talk page kept filling up with BLP violations. Also, there might be an office action related to a legal complaint, I've seen a tiny handful of those.

The proper way to request that an article Talk page be protected is to go to WP:RFPP and create a new entry in the Current requests for protection using the {{lat}} template. To then request that an edit be made to a protected article Talk page (this is what I think your question is asking for), go to the WP:RFED section of WP:RFPP and create a new entry using the {{edit semi-protected}} or {{edit protected}} template as appropriate. These are pretty rare, I couldn't find even one example of a proper request to edit a protected article Talk page in the last four months of edits (10,000 diffs) to WP:RFED. This doesn't come as a surprise: I logged out, went to a protected article Talk page, and found no link to WP:RFED... actually there's absolutely no indication that requests to edit the Talk page will be entertained anywhere. The only thing it says is that you need to create an account or log in, maybe that should be fixed.

Thank you for this exemplary response. I did hope to demonstrate that we are missing the template to instruct editors on the procedure for requesting an edit in the rare eventuality when a talk page is protected; and commend you for highlighting this fact within your answer!—John Cline (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Biosthmors

8. A user adds info from a primary study and cites it in an article under WP:MED's scope. What do you do? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 08:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

A: The question doesn't specify that the primary study is necessarily biomedical, and plenty of articles under WP:MED scope have content in them that isn't biomedical (covering historical, anthropological or social aspects, for example) but I'll assume for this answer that the study and the content added is biomedical and this is the first time I've seen the edit.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such is a tertiary source, with content built mostly on secondary sources. Building content on primary sources should be the exception and not the rule, therefore I start off from the position that the content should probably not stand as added, but do look for reasons to see if it could. So, the first thing I do is go read the primary study. I'll look at things like the journal it's published in, whether it's MEDLINE indexed, the study type, date, the population studied, who the authors are and what institutions they're affiliated with. I'll then read the context within the article where the content has been added. If it's an "orphaned" primary source (meaning it's not being used alongside a secondary source that uses it), I'll go look at some secondary sources and see if I can find a secondary to support instead, or if the primary study has a conclusion out of line with the general consensus of the secondary sources (a problem per WP:MEDREV). It's also possible the new content added is already covered elsewhere in the article, supported by secondary sources, in which case it should be removed as duplicate.

There are a few cases where the use of a primary study might be beneficial. It's helpful if the article is using the conclusions of a secondary source which cites that primary source, and the edit is adding a bit of important detail or clarification directly from the primary study. If it's a new study in a research area that is not very active, meaning primary studies on the topic are few and far between, and secondary sources synthesizing conclusions from the primary data just aren't available, it might make sense to leave those in the article, although even here the lack of studies and secondary sources might indicate that current thinking has abandoned the hypothesis being tested by the study. If it's a large, advanced-stage clinical trial in humans with really interesting results, it may be appropriate to mention it with a general statement like "Research is being conducted into the use of X to treat Y" (without stating the results) in a Research directions section, although this is a judgment call. In most other cases, however, content based on primary research isn't appropriate for our articles, and I'll likely remove the added content. The quality of primary research is widely variable, and it isn't even always obvious that what was studied is actually relevant to the article topic; we need good-quality secondary sources to do that sort of evaluation. Also, a primary source cannot establish its own noteworthiness, and without a secondary source, it can't be shown that the principle of due weight is met.

In responding, I'll take a look at who the editor is, the article edit history and Talk page to see if this primary study has come up before, which might inform how I'll respond. In particular, if the results of the primary study added are not in line with the consensus findings of secondary sources, this is a red flag indicating that a diplomatic response is needed. If it's an IP or registered editor who's just getting started in making biomedical edits and hasn't been welcomed, I'd use Twinkle to apply a welcome template, and leave a hand-written message too explaining what happened and pointing to WP:MEDRS. If it's a new registered user with a problematic username I'd follow up on that also. If the edit were particularly good I might thank the editor for the edit, maybe even hand out a barnstar if I'm lucky!

What would you say about the second (and last) sentence of the paragraph here, then? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

And how would you characterize the appropriateness of this revert? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

This follow-up asks me to look at three different chunks of content. Biosthmors, I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to choose to respond to just one of them, the last one. The edit adds:

Further population based and case controlled studies found the risk of stroke post chiropractic spinal manipulation to be identical to a visit to a primary care physician[cite Cassidy 2008]. The authors concluded they found no evidence of excess risk of VBA stroke associated chiropractic care compared to primary care.

I agree with the original revert in that the content and source as it stood could be seen as a WP:MEDREV problem, and also needed to be fundamentally reworked. Previous to this Cassidy 2008 primary study, reliable secondary sources indicated that manipulations of the upper spine were associated with a risk of stroke. For an example, look at this 2007 systematic review by Ernst. The purpose of Cassidy 2008 was to provide better evidence through a more rigorous protocol, and this primary source came to the conclusion that there was no increased risk.

So, to (possibly) replace the primary, I found a MEDLINE-indexed article, PMID 23320608, that cites and summarizes Cassidy 2008. It is actually a primary source itself, but it has a large discussion section that acts as a secondary source. It's not optimal but it might be useful, I'd want to propose and discuss that idea. I also found nine more relevant sources that covered Cassidy 2008, mostly from Canadian chiropractic associations, but none of them were MEDLINE indexed. It's another matter for discussion as to why Cassidy 2008 hasn't been picked up by more MEDLINE-indexed secondary source journal articles in the 5+ years since it's been published. (I also found PMID 20682039, which is an editorial published in a non-MEDLINE indexed journal, so it wouldn't be useful for the article, but it provides a very nice, clear explanation of why the Cassidy 2008 study methodology was better than previous studies, and what the results mean.) There were a few other problems with the edit: it had a copyvio, it didn't summarize the source accurately in several ways, and the ref cite itself had mistakes in it (it specified the wrong journal and date). So I agree with the revert, and I probably would have opened a discussion on the Talk page about using PMID 23320608 instead.

I hope this demonstrates my thought process well; if you have any more detailed follow-up questions on this content, we should probably take it to the relevant article Talk pages. Zad68 13:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Let us pretend, for discussion's sake, that the addition of Cassidy 2008 did not have a copyvio, was perfectly verifiable, and was perfectly formatted. As you can see, the edit summary that accompanied the removal of it stated "we need to use secondary sources". The next edit, which was me, reverting this removal, had the edit summary of "actually it is a primary source, but it's an improvement to the paragraph, which already cites other lower-quality primary sources (and it's a landmark study)". Considering that information (the context into which the edit was placed), and the hypotheticals I have given, do you still support the original removal? I found 75 citations of Cassidy 2008 in Web of Science with 13 of those being classified as reviews. I'm not sure why you state It's another matter for discussion as to why Cassidy 2008 hasn't been picked up by more MEDLINE-indexed secondary source journal articles in the 5+ years since it's been published. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

And doesn't your recent edit summary here contradict what is stated in WP:MEDREV? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Zad68: Zad68 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Zad68 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

• I've placed a followup about the missing template referenced in John Cline's question 7 on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

1. Support As nominator, gladly. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
2. The well-written nomination statement captures everything I would like to have said. I'm happy to support. NW (Talk) 20:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Great candidate. Looks like he'll make an excellent admin. Plenty of experience keeping a cool head in contentious situations. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
4. Zad68 is one of the most outstanding editors I have seen at this site. Above, Ocaasi has stated most of what I would have stated. That description could not be closer to the truth. Zad68 works in highly contentious areas, as well as areas that sometimes require a great deal of knowledge of the subject to edit them well. Topics such as these are fraught with debates, POV-pushing, edit warring, incivility, activists and specialists more interested in using Wikipedia to promote their own views and/or work than they are in building an encyclopedia. And through it all, Zad68 displays a calm approach that is to be admired. He edits with all the accuracy one should expect of an encyclopedia, often fact-checking and double fact-checking just to make sure he or someone else gets the contribution right. And he communicates with our editors and readers with a grace that we should all aspire to, a grace always showing civility, immunity to losing one's cool...and genuine consideration for others' points of views. He often does this while pointing others to and respecting Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. I am rarely as proud of a Wikipedia editor as I am of Zad68. He is, to put it simply, a brilliant, valuable addition to this community. Flyer22 (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - User shows intelligent contribution towards medical-related articles, contributing towards Wikipedia namespace pages (ie:AIV, AfD and etc.) and shows well-knowledge of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. ///EuroCarGT 20:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
6. Support - Great editor with alot of experience & knowledge who will be an outstanding admin here, No issues whatsoever! ..- Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
7. Support Seems pretty well qualified. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 20:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
8. Support - Just had a quick review of Zad68's contributions and mostly everything looks helpful and constructive. Good answers to questions where they have indicated their trustfulness and a clear and genuine need that the tools will be used in the benefit of Wikipedia. No concerns here and everything else looks good. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
9. Support Sure. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
10. Support. Of course; we share the same name! — Status (talk · contribs) 21:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
11. Support --Rschen7754 21:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
12. Support -- this one is obvious. --Stfg (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
13. Support An ideal candidate. Produces excellent content. Has a level head on his shoulders. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
14. Support Keeps a level head when others don't, knows medical referencing policies better than about oh let's say 99.7 % of editors (that's 3 standard deviations to you and me) and does all of this in contentious areas. I could not think of a better candidate. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
15. Strong support - I trust Ocaasi enough to know that when he is this positive about something, he usually is right. In addition, my cursory review of some discussions and articles, as well as his comments and work in admin areas makes me wonder why he isn't already an admin, and makes me wish we had about five editors with the same qualifications become admins dedicated to their respective content fields, but I digress. Enough said, give him a mop, but please, don't spend spend all of your future on-wiki time in admin areas - your articles are read by millions, literally. Go Phightins! 00:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
16. Support - No problems here. Seems like a great candidate with lots of experience, and will make an excellent admin. Good luck! :) StevenD99 ^{Talk | Stalk | Sign!} 00:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
17. Support Good answers. Humble, thoughtful, and an honest editor, critical qualities in a good admin.(olive (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC))
18. Support a medical editor that also nice and full of clue. We need lots more of these. PumpkinSky talk 01:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
19. Support Kraxler (talk) 01:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
20. Yes, absolutely. Excellent contributor, good record of content work in contentious areas, and the admin corps could use a lot more people like Zad68. He'll do good work. MastCell ^Talk 04:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
21. Support "...as he lowers the heat...." The true challenge of an administrator. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
22. When we had a minor disagreement at low back pain a little while back, he showed a laudable willingness to critically reanalyze his position, and did indeed seem relatively cordial. Keep up the hard work. II | (t - c) 06:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
23. Support. Expertise in an important content area that few can critically examined, excellent contributions, shows excellent demeanor and temperament, should make a great administrator. Donner60 (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
24. Support, per nomination and Mark Arsten, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
25. Support No issues. Jianhui67 Talk 07:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
26. Support I opened as many closet doors as I could find: no skeletons. I went through all his talk page archives: His posts are very polite. Good collegial spirit. He's so easy to deal with. I think he'll be a great admin. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
27. Support Happy to support Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 08:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
28. Support I would almost support you just for the quote "Not just WP:CIVIL but actually civil". Fortunately, upon reviewing your edits, I've got many more reasons to choose from. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
29. Support because I see no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
30. Support I'm pleased to see this type of nomination come up. Even though I haven't interacted with this user at all, I can tell from his contributions that he is a truly professional editor with the bonus of having a high level of maturity. Give credit to the nominator as well for providing the community with such an expertly and accurately written nomination. Minima© (talk) 10:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
31. Support - trustworthy and experienced editor. PhilKnight (talk) 10:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
32. Support, we need more admins like Zad68. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
33. Support - a sensible editor seemingly willing to provide good advice. No concerns. Stalwart111 13:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
34. Support. Most of what can be said about Zad68 has already been said; I'll add that when I saw the beginnings of his steady, persistent effort to see that attention deficit hyperactivity disorder met GA status, I doubted that anyone could reach that goal, having watchlisted for years the trainwreck there. With little else that can be added, I enthusiastically support per nom, and look forward to the addition of another excellent medical editor to the admin corps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
35. Support I find nothing but positive here. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
36. Support Fine candidate, and nominator is trustworthy. Very good answers to questions, and a desirable attitude toward dealing with conflict. Miniapolis 15:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
37. Support I wanted to nominate, but I've been too busy in the real world. No question or concerns here, I'm confident they will be a consciences and cautious admin. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
38. Support. Fully qualified candidate, good nomination statement and answers to questions, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
39. Support From all I have seen, a cluefull and mature editor. Abecedare (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
40. Support I am very happy to back this candidate. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
41. Support - Per all of the above. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
42. Support. Excellent contributions. Significant activity in several admin-related areas. I have also interacted with Zad68 at WT:MED. Zad68 is one of the best RfA candidates that we have had in recent times (appropriately reflected by the unanimous support). Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
43. Support. Excellent candidate for the mop, no concerns here at all. — sparklism ^hey! 19:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
44. Support A good content creator. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
45. Support A great candidate with a history of positive contributions and interactions.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
46. Support Intelligent, thoughtful, knowledgeable and polite. Is bold enough to try things out, and balanced enough to accept corrections and learn from the experience. Gives good, clear advice. Understands Wikipedia, and is able to write. This is exactly the sort of person we need as an admin. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
47. Support - Seems to be level-headed, and seems to understand Wikipedia. See no problems.  ● Thane — formerly Guðsþegn  00:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
48. Absolutely. Zad68 will be a tremendous asset to the project as an administrator. Kurtis ^(talk) 01:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
49. Looks like this editor is ready. Good luck. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 01:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
50. Support As per nom and track.See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
51. Support - No problems here! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 01:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
52. Support - wonderful content contributor & a cool head in admin areas. Great candidate. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
53. Support No concerns. Widr (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
54. Support A superb editor who "gets it" and so should make a superb admin. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
55. Support I see plenty of clueful discussion and level-headedness in the candidate's edits. Access to the admin toolset will permit his work here to be more effective, relieving others of such work. -- Trevj (talk) 08:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
56. Support A great editor. Will be a great admin too. -- Colin°^Talk 09:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
57. Support. Yep, 100%. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
58. Support Wonderful answer to my question. buffbills7701 11:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
59. Support per my usual standards, in particular: his fine editing work, work at AfD, user page, and awards. Bearian (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
60. Support per Flyer22. theonesean 16:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
61. Support - per everything I have seen.—John Cline (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
62. Support with pleasure. Great candidate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
63. Support Didn't take his/her own advice then apologized for it in public without being required to and without any indication the apology was only if offence had been taken. An admin who knows when they've blown it and drops it is perfect.... for Wikipedia. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC))
64. Support No concerns, keep up the good article work Jebus989^✰ 21:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
65. Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
66. Support. We need more editors like this, as well as more admins. I'm a bit surprised that I haven't had that much crossing of paths with the candidate, but the nomination, the answers to questions, and the many supports from other editors whom I trust are convincing. Clearly, this is someone with a strong track record in a content area that requires good judgment. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
67. Support. Easy choice, this is an editor with a lot of clue and a great manner. AIRcorn (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
68. Support. Of course. We need more good admins. Jonathunder (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
69. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
70. Support. Seems like a high quality candidate to me.Jcmiller1215 (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
71. Support. Upon reading 5 days of comments, I switched Neutral to Support, despite edit-count of 1 file-talk, because candidate stated quickly (in Q1), "will take on admin tasks slowly" so has time to study wp:NFCC about images/files, and the willingness to write content could help edit some protected pages, to offset my recent closed RfA/Wikid77 which focused on editing of protected templates or articles. If plan A stalls, support plan B to get pages updated faster. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
72. Support Great candidate. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
73. Supported by all User:Technical 13/+3, of course. Technical 13 (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
74. Support very good candidate. There has to be more where you come from, right? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 20:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
75. Support -- 2 cents inserted Seppi333 (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
76. Support-- I don't know what the criteria for being an admin are, but in my interactions with Zad, I would describe them as dedicated, very thorough, knowledgeable of policy & guidelines, polite and helpful. Of particular note is promoting circumcision, a minefield of controversy to GA. Lesion (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
77. Support. Diligent, intelligent, civil editor with a good grasp of our content policy and norms. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
78. Support No evidence they will misuse the tools or abuse the position.--MONGO 07:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
79. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 12:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
80. Support candidate has always been considerate, professional and civil. LT90001 (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
81. Support - I did plenty of digging, but in the end following the persuasive nomination would have saved me the time :) Pedro :  Chat  14:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
82. Support. Zad86 does good work here and I have no apprehensions about handing them the tool. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
83. Support and wish we had more like him. Maralia (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
84. Support Great candidate, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
85. Support Answer to Q6 rocked. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
86. Support A trustworthy, knowledgeable candidate. Has my full support The Cosmos Master talk
87. Support One of wikipedia's finest! Great all round wikipedian who is well seasoned in wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Also a very experienced article builder.'--MrADHD | T@1k? 19:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
88. Support Great contributor and hope that continues as he takes on new challenges. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 21:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
89. Support. Certainly. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
90. Support. Looks good, will be a solid admin. Spencer^T♦C 23:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
91. Support. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
92. Support. Level-headed editor with experience working on high-profile and controversial topics. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
93. Let's try to get this thing to 100 :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
94. Support. I think Zad68 would be a good admin. The initial answersto the questions inspire confidence. Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 10:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
95. Support. Calm, thoughtful editor; a great researcher who really respects Wikipedia's policies, and is very helpful on Talk: pages and admin and request noticeboards. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
96. Support I have no issues with Zad86 being an admin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
97. Support. I've seen Zad68 around for a while and have been impressed by his exceptional writing skills, calm demeanor, and general cluefulness. The answers to the RfA questions are some of the best I've ever seen. Glad to support. Rivertorch (talk) 05:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
98. Support Iselilja (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
99. Support I really wanted to be 100... Mkdw^talk 07:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
100. Support Seems to be an excellent candidate. HalfGig (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
101. Support. Solid Wikipedian who can be trusted to use the tools to further the encyclopedia's aims. Snowball support, but sincere. JFW | T@lk 15:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
102. Support Great content work in some difficult areas. James^x12345 15:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
103. Support Others have said it all, really. Looks like an excellent candidate. Rcsprinter (talk to me) @ 18:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
104. Support Dealt with this editor before in passing in several WP:FRINGE articles. Answers to questions are particularly lucid. I appreciate the attitude of "How can I fix this problematic edit" as opposed to "How quickly can I revert it". Enjoy the mop! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
105. Support I have had limited dealings with Zad68 but in my limited experience he has been level headed and attempted to move contentious issues forward. Good qualities for an Admin.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
106. Support Looks good to me. -- Marek.69 ^talk 19:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
107. Support—can't find any outstanding faults; very good editor who definitely has a positive impact and will continue to do so as an admin. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

• Neutral. (moved to Support) I am concerned with the limited edits to files (images), with 1 edit to a file-talk, especially in medical pages, which display several images each among thousands of medical images (such as numerous Gray's Anatomy drawings from Commons). If a candidate has almost no experience working with wp:Fair_use images, then perhaps might be a burden to other admins when working with images. Hence, I am tempted to recommend further work with medical images (or any images, sound files, or videos) for some months, then try RfA again. I was thinking 6 months working with many images, or perhaps just 3 months (to January 2014), then seek RfA again as better prepared to handle both text and image policy issues in those articles. Also, more template work might be beneficial, but my main concern is medical images, especially about permission to display patient photos such as hospital photos. However, I am willing to discuss if that file-talk edit-count might be too strict in this case, and could be persuaded to support instead within the next day or so. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:20/15:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

  Do medical articles use a lot of fair use images? I didn't think they did. I'm not sure why we should hold it against a candidate that he doesn't edit in areas where he would encounter them very frequently. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

  I am uncertain how this matters. If medical articles use a lot of fair use images, it might, but most of the examples I find from Zad68's contributions have public domain government images. Can you provide examples? I am not sure if this will impact my !vote, because I don't have an opinion on the breadth requirements for adminship or any basis for forming one. But, I would like to understand this concern.. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC))

  Well, I was also thinking about experience in finding free images, but candidate would have time to study wp:NFCC issues as a new admin. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

  Still useful that you brought it up here for Zad68 to think about images in medical articles. Thanks. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC))

  I hear this concern. As mentioned, medical articles (or at least the ones I've been working on) don't make much use of fair use images, but I'll be sure to pay careful attention to the WP:NFCC policy and WP:FAIRUSE guidelines if I should come across the need to upload or use a fair use image. Thanks for the note and the support. Zad68 17:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.