In all its glory.

This is a fairly mild proposal, not a whole lot less cumbersome than taking an admin to RfAr, and the biggest argument against it, in my opinion, is that it might be almost useless, but it is not worse than the status quo, and might be better, and might be improved on review, which is built into the proposal, so I supported it after some thought, even though there are aspects that are inadequate.

The arguments against are featured prominently at the top of the RfC, authored by TenOfAllTrades, who has provided plenty of reason, in the past, that someone might want him removed. Right now, Oppose votes are leading, with many of them based on an impression that There Is Nothing Wrong, Everything Is Peachy Keen, I've Not Encountered Any Rogue Administrators, So If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It.

Which is probably true for most Wikipedia editors. Until they do encounter one or a few.

I just thought it was odd that this wasn't being discussed here, given, etc., etc.

Community de-adminship is the basic solution to all of Wikipedia's problems related to administrators. That some people either don't see that, or are too self-interested to care, is appalling to me. This is actually a very weak proposal--it would be necessary to obtain 65% of the vote against an admin in order to desysop him or her--but the opposition to it is centered around the belief that any system at all, even a very weak one, is too threatening to accept.

If participation in the above-described system becomes mandatory and assuming there is no burden of evidence, I believe I could rally a 65% vote against any current admin, good, bad, or ugly (barring only the brand-new) with little difficulty.

Submit requests directly by e-mail if this passes (if you don't know my current address, find someone who does).

Come on now, we'll have a bushel of fun.

Impossible. I'd be surprised if you could find 65% against any admin at all. There are a few who might fail on a simple majority vote, but I think any admin could find support among 35% of participants. Any admin so deeply unpopular that they couldn't even find that much support would probably have already been desysopped by the ArbCom.

Alrighty then, give me a name.

And they'd basically eliminate the policy after the first successful attempt, right? Or else make it "voluntary".... They'd claim it was all grossly unfair, "offsite canvassing" skewed the results, blatant sock-puppetry and meat-puppetry, and so on. That's the usual pattern, anyway.

And just to be clear, there should be burden of evidence - without that, they'd lose more reformers than abusers, assuming they desysop anybody at all.

Well, OK--if you could do something about Raul654, I might just fall in love.

It's probably not going to succeed, looking at the numbers as they stand now, but the reality is that even if it was adopted it would be so ineffectual that it would have to be strengthened later on. Still, though, it would be progress just to have a procedure "on the books".

Community... deadmin... pigs... flying... frozen... skating... hell

The mists are clearing... I see a vision... don your Nikes... drink the communal potion and lay down... the mothership will soon be here.

Community de-adminship has always been the biggest wast of time discussion imaginable.

The basic problem is, although everyone agrees there are "bad admins" who it should be easier to remove - everyone has different people in mind.

If you need a "consensus to de-admin", then you'll never one for anyone, unless the admin has done such unquestionably bad things, that the current arbcom process would de-sysop by speedy motion. So, nothing gained.

If the consensus is lower, you'll see all sorts of politically-motivates requests for deadminship. I'd have faced several by now - all of which would have failed (if narrowly). This would have been a wast of my time, and the community's time. However, it would certainly would have been fun and caused lots of drama - which is usually the point of creating new processes on wikipedia.

That's the other reason these things fail. Whilst the bar to de-admin is set high, the bar to trigger the process is normally low. Wikipedia likes its processes to be open to all. That also means that you'd get lots and lots of spurious requests by disgruntled people - all of which would fail.

Would I get de-admined by such a process? Highly unlikely. Would you find 3/6/9 or even 20 editors (or even admins) in good standing willing to trigger it? No problem.

The same would go for Lar, Raul, SlimV, David Gerard, most of arbcom, indeed just about anyone with any type of profile on Wikipedia.

For "community deadminship" read:

"fruitless process of putting random admins in the stocks and throwing things at them for the fun of it. PS, the admins in question will usually (if not always) enjoy the notoriety/victimhood that ensues. Occassionally, this process will lead to the death of a victim, but no need to worry, because such victims were terminally ill anyway and would have died of natural causes in 24 hours had the stocks been unavailable. This is among the best types of entertainment on wikipedia."

The most insightful thing I read there was "Wikipedia is still in its political infancy".

I thought it was a great idea, getting rid of abusive admins, until I remembered I was one of them.

The proposal is not a rigid voting process, and discretion remains with a closing bureaucrat. A guideline is provided that suggests bureaucratic discretion between 65% and something like 80%, I forget. Not easy to accomplish a desysop with socks, sorry to disappoint you.

However, if you take the socks off and go in completely naked, it might distract everyone enough.

The basic problem here is common with communities that set up a consensus standard for decisions and then don't realize that consensus changes and if a consensus is required to reverse an earlier decision, that sets up a severe bias toward the status quo. I've seen many times that the "consensus organization" status quo becomes displeasing to the majority, but it benefits enough members that they will steadfastly oppose change and be able to prevent a new consensus from forming.

And this happens even more often than is easily visible, because disgruntled members leave. So it's even possible that, if all the original members were to assemble and consider the matter, the earlier consensus would be overturned by consensus (which necessarily means, here, "rough consensus," some organizations insist on complete consensus, and they either abandon that or they die as organizations, becoming only a shell of their former position, with a few people wondering where everyone else went or dismissing them as "trolls" and "malcontents" and "whiners.")

What's really silly is that all this was worked out centuries ago, and "the consensus was" majority rule. No situation continues without the continued consent of a majority. Some decisions require "absolute majority," but even the most basic laws of an organization can be changed by an absolute majority (a vote of more than half of all eligible members. This presumes that membership is active in some way).

And then short of absolute majority, the same fundamental changes can be implemented by a supermajority, typically two-thirds, of those assembling and voting after notice. That a situation -- any situation -- would continue in the face of a two-thirds majority of those voting upon notice is preposterous, but this proposal only allows a decision beginning at two-thirds.

Normally, officers can be elected or removed by simple majority vote; that is because officers are positions requiring trust, and majority trust is minimal, wider trust for some officers is important.

Sophisticated organizations that value consensus, then, set up consensus as a goal, not a fixed restriction. They will discuss in depth, and may back off from making quick decisions based on a mere majority. But who decides when enough is enough? The majority of those voting on the subject!

Wikipedia's adhocratic structure is not conducive to this, it needs supplementary structure that is more formal and reliable, such as a Wikipedia Assembly. Proposals to form one have long existed, and were even supported by quite a number of arbitrators, but it was assumed that consensus was necessary to form such a representative body.

That's the error, which locks the status quo in place. An Assembly should be formed, probably off-wiki, and this would not require on-wiki consensus. It would have no specific power, only the power to advise, but if properly constituted, this power would be overwhelming. It would be a representative body, and there are devices that can be used to create that efficiently. It is possible for such an Assembly to be fully representative, not merely representative of a majority, and classic organizational rules can be used effectively, all that is needed is representation in deliberation, to keep discussions manageable.

And the Assembly could recommend that an admin be desysopped, and, if the Assembly was truly representative, even if only of a large faction, without there being any larger faction opposed, it would happen unless it were an abusive recommendation. The Assembly itself could and would set up a committee to examine any particular issue, delegating the task to a relatively small number of members, who would then prepare a report, based on collected testimony and its own investigation. The report would include recommendations, which would go back to the Assembly for an acceptance vote. Standard deliberative process! The result of that vote, absent some sort of "official recognition" of the Assembly, would simply be coherent advice, backed with evidence and considered argument, the best that could be assembled. Ultimately, it would be Completely Stupid for the WMF to ignore this, it would be practically suicidal.

For if the Assembly represented enough editors, it could, should it run into a brick wall on-wiki (unlikely, actually), simply recommend to its members, back through the chosen representatives, to the full community of Wikipedia editors represented, that they start their own damn wiki, picking up all the Wikipedia content they choose to port (start with all, by default), and having enough labor and resources available to maintain and grow the thing beyond that. But this would be the big stick carried, actually using it would be unlikely to be necessary.

On the other hand, large factions could do this anyway, if organized, and that's what scares the shit out of some arbitrators and administrators about "cabals." (Short of forking, they can seriously push and influence on-wiki activity.)

May the faction with the best ideas and the will to implement them win! But it is generally better to find ways to cooperate, it is more powerful. "Majority" is a minimal standard for where advisability of action begins, other things being equal.


Look, I've served nonprofits as an officer, and when it appeared that I no longer represented at least a majority, I've been happy to step down. In fact, I prefer to step down well before that point, it's terribly frustrating to struggle with a disunited organization, where every significant action becomes controversial.

The basic problem here is with people who do not have a φreekin clue what the word "consensus" means.

Jon

Community de-admin ....thats the day the sun burns out.

I haven't really reviewed this in great detail, but I'd be interested in a running tally and proportion of admins vs non-admins voting for and against.

At a brief glance it looked like the turkeys were handily voting against Thanksgiving =)

edit: Did a quick'n'dirty check:

42 users (53%) 13 admins (25%) supporting
36 users (46%) 39 admins (75%) opposing

6 users 2 admins neutral (not included in above calculations)

I looked at the figures a couple of hours ago and came up with 52% of opposes from admins vs 27% of the support votes, so no surprises there.

The opposes that amuse me the most are the "we don't want a popularity contest", but isn't that what RfA is?

This is irrelevant.

The reason most experienced users will oppose this is that they know it is pointless. It will not desysop anyone who wouldn't get desysopped anyway, and it will cause pointless drama.

Having said that, that it will cause drama is probably the reason it has so much support too.

It may be irrelevant to you, but it confirms what many suspect, which is that any proposal for change will be blocked by sitting administrators, many of whom ought to have been chucked out on their ear already.

So I agree with you that it's pointless, but not for the same reason.

But I agree it is pointless for the real reason. The ordinary Wikipedian is as much of a problem as the Admins. No amount of internal "democracy" is going to make Wikipedia more responsible and answerable to stakeholders outside the project.

This is just basic statistics — sample a population of full of hypocrites and you get a sample full of hypocrites.

Jon

It confirms it only to idiots who are not thinking.

I will oppose this and it will not be fear of accountability or whatever nonsense you want to infer. It will be because it cannot work.

I imagine you can guess what I think, which is that you are selfishly propping a corrupt system. Has there ever been an example in history of a corrupt leadership voting itself out of power?

I'd be at least as happy with term limits for administrators; at least that way the crap won't be around forever.

Malleus, would you like to rerun your check, this time looking at editors who have been actively editing for a year or more?

That's more effort than I'm prepared to invest when the answer to the question would change nothing.

This may be jinxing it, but so far no 6 editors have actually come forward.

Voted against it, partly based on the expectation that any future attempts at improving, discussing, reforming the whole admiship/deadminship process are going to be shut down with "we already have this (half-assed, ill thought out, badly conceived and mostly ineffective) policy in place we don't need nothing else!" if this was to pass.

I'm a big believer in not making the perfect an enemy of the good but this seems to run into the opposite fallacy: "Something must be done (about deadminship)! This is something. Therefore this must be done!"

I still think other proposals (requiring admins to be content creators, requiring a re-approval of the tools, requiring a periodic hiatus, setting up a completely separate committee to deal with admin tool abuse) would work much better and hopefully as time passes, things get worse, will become viable too (that's the crazy naive idealist talking)

I think there's some merit in the "let's just sit back and wait until things get so bad that even the administrators realise that this is going tits up" approach.

Always the best approach to take with fascist regimes, Neville.

Jon

I think your apparent equivalence of the Nazi threat in the late 1930s to the condition that wikipedia now finds itself in is rather telling. Do you really believe that a conflict that cost the lives of tens of millions can really be put in conjunction to a few jumped up dickheads having their beloved "admin tools" taken away from them?

Some fights are worth fighting, but sometimes there's no need to fight, just sit back and watch.

And he said unto them, the Kinkdum of Jimbo is like the tiny bastard seed, that cast upon a humongous heap of manure sprouts and spreads, becoming as a mighty plantation that fouls the air and casts darkness over the earth below.

Jon

There's a balance to be struck. And arguably, the current means of removing an administrator have become too lenient. The Arbitration Committee is more than capable of handling actual administrator abuse. That isn't to say that the Arbitration Committee is competent, effective, or even necessary, but if there is actual and demonstrable abuse of the administrator position, this most recent Arbitration Committee and the group from 2009 have both made it clear they are capable and willing to remove bad administrators. This situation is the result of an evolution; the same things could not be said in 2008 or probably any year before that.

Succinctly, it makes very little sense to focus time or energy on a community de-adminship procedure when one simply isn't needed. But, hey, how else are you giving to fill an otherwise bland week?

It's been pointed out many times here that if Wikipediots were even remotely sincere about their Non-Elitism BS they would have strict term limits for all management positions — but of course we all know they are not even remotely sincere about that.

Jon

Some are, some aren't; as I've said before, because WR is where problems are raised, it has a systemic bias towards covering the bad apples. When I was a WP admin I always argued in favor of a maximum two-year term for all management positions, and resigned as soon as I reached that limit, and I can't be the only one.

What a self serving hypocrite. If you trust the "wisdom of the community" why don't at least give liberal terms of recall for your own privileges?

Let me say quite categorically.

I am not interested in non-elitism. If you want to write an encyclopedia, you want the best.

I am not interested in democracy. If you want to write an encyclopedia, you want what works not what's popular.

That doesn't mean I'm interested in propping up a cabal. I do think admins being more accountable would be a good thing - providing they are accountable to suitably proven and experienced people. I also think a mechanism to make it easier to remove substandard admins is not a bad idea.

However, I oppose this because it will bring out the worst in the anti-authoritarian democratic drama-mongers in wikipedia, and will do NOTHING to remove bad admins, since the only admins it will remove are ones so bad they are currently removed.

Am I "selfish" in opposing this? No - because even if I care about the possibility of being desysopped (and I don't) there is no chance that I would get desysopped by such a process, wheras I would inevitably have my (and the community's) time wasted by being dragged through it.

Again, in the grand scheme of things, who gets to be an admin on wikipedia is irrelevant. Removing a few dozen bad eggs is also fairly irrelevant. It may improve the gaming experience of a few people here, but it does nothing to make Wikipedia a better, or less harmful, product for the reader or the subject.

This is another piece irrelevant MORPG playing by WP and WR alike.

Did you put yourself back up for rfa? There is also the matter of whether some people even want to stay on being admin after a point, but for one reason or another just carry on. Adminship for a set term could be a much better sell than the status quo. I question everyone who wants to be an admin at the moment, as the company is so bad, the job is so disrespected, yet the rewards are such an arsenal. I don't they should dish out all those block tools straight away - maybe after a period

CDA on analysis has proved to be a waste of time as far as I'm concerned. Admin have to practically bugger someone online to get into trouble on a day to day basis, and the amount of cranky admin (which must be getting to breaking point now), will make CDAs mayhem in practice. Far too many admin routinely behave like surly teenagers (with as little regard for Policy they can get away with), and there is no reason they wont carry it on at a CDA, either in support of an admin of use to them, or in opposition to an admin who's pissed them off. That can't be good for wikipedia, whatever you think about it - admin just pop up, and no rules can stop them from doing what they want. It's the poor quality of administrators overall (not per individual), combined with the huge freedom they have, that makes CDA impossible to implement.

The good thing about CDA proposal is that it was just about serious enough to get people voting from across the board (including a Crat). It can't be easily ridiculed (iffy though it was as a proposal), and it will prove that there is a serious desire for change. If momentum is kept up after it fails, people could use it to force attention upon Rfa and the adminship term issue (and some kind of 'admin review' too, esp for some utter fruitcakes who have been winging it for years). Wikipedians have to fight for it though - in many respects they've got the wikipedia they deserve.




36 bad eggs - care to name them? Name and shame.

The point is that the advertised philosophy grossly misrepresents the actual practice.

Jon Awbrey

That would be a good idea ...

Use the Foundations multi-millions to employ professional and qualified editors to clean up the front end. Verified user name accounts only. All janitorial admins have to be re-elected every year. No more than 3 terms each. Any one not coming forward for review automatically, nor being employed professional editors, have their janitor status withdrawn from them.

Should keep them busy.

And cut out a lot of dead wood.

I hereby declare a Strong Consensus‡ for this principle.

Jon

‡ This means that anyone who dissents will be banned forthwith.

Good job!

No surprises there.
Yet another example of how impossible peaceful reform is with the inmates running the asylum.

Nakon has created this script on the CDA results that auto-updates - http://toolserver.org/~nakon/cda.php The stats are at the top.

The amount of opposing admin (v supporting editors) is striking when you see it in list form I must admit, but if you give them reasons to oppose (as this CDA proposal does) then of course a load of them are going to do just that.

The poll is intended to run for 28 days - I cant image CDA winning, but there could be more drama yet, though no one on the CDA side seems to be great at leading the show. They've allowed the truly cranky TenofAllTrades to place reams of 'The flaws of CDA' at the top of the proposal! Cue numerous "per TenofAll" opposes.

That was truly outrageous.

TenOfAllTrades was the admin I chose to try to find someone who would talk some sense in to William M. Connolley. So when I emailed him with a civil suggestion that he look at the situation and give some good advice to his friend, he flipped out. The result: WMC wasn't restrained by his "friends," he was encouraged. And he still thinks he got a raw deal. I've concluded that they aren't actually friends. They were simply using him.

The real problem is that the community has no idea how to run actual consensus process, which begins with standard deliberative process. I.e., democracy as practiced in peer organizations for centuries. Unless you just want to put on a show, you never, never debate a difficult issue in a full assembly, it's referred to a committee, which hammers out a report, which report can include minority reports. That's then presented to the whole assembly for approval as adequate. Adequate as a report. That approval itself does nothing, but then it can be moved to take action on the report. By this time, if the report has been well done, and if this isn't a political organization where everyone wants to grandstand for the cameras, the process is swift and efficient. Debate opens and there is a motion for Previous Question, which requires a 2/3 vote; it simply means that debate is over, time to vote on the action question. If Previous Question passes, there is then a vote. In the vast majority of organizations, and except for certain special kinds of questions, the majority of those voting carry the day.

(There are also ways for a good facilitator to speed all this up. And the process can iterate. Report comes back, enough people think it isn't adequate, it goes back to committee for review.)

Wikipedia tried to reinvent the wheel, but too much of the community and the founders didn't understand wheels, so they ended up with a square ones. Bumpy ride, eh?

A community the size of Wikipedia must have some kind of representative body, or else decisions will be chaotic and highly inefficient and too often ill-considered. The adhocracy works well for small-scale decisions, usually, more or less, that's why it became so popular. But when it fails, it fails spectacularly.

Don't look at me, man. If I had to clean up this toilet, I'd just shitcan ALL the
sitting admins, and start over.

Mebbe force them to re-run for the job every damn year.

Why don't you consult your Robot's Rules Of Order, and tell us what constitutes a quorum of 12 million members.

Jon

Yeah. Causes no end of trouble.

The encyclopedia anyone can edit.

The sum of all human knowledge.

Hey, I'm a human, and I know something, this is great! I'll write an article about my Favorite Topic.

So I spend a few days figuring out how to use the software enough to make it look decent, or I don't, I just write. After spending a few hours, I take a break for the night.

I come back the next day, and can't find what I did. This damn software must be buggy! Try again, come back the next day, gone again! Oh. I notice the banner at the top that I have messages! So I look, and I see why I can't find my articles. They were deleted.

All right, so I read the guidelines and stuff. And then I try again. And, of course, I find out that the guidelines aren't worth the paper they aren't written on. What really counts is what the active core thinks. And if I think they are wrong, and tell them, I'm likely blocked, quickly. And usually nobody actually helps me. Unless I'm very lucky.

The advertising was deceptive. First of all, anyone can edit, but that doesn't mean that people are equal in rights. For example, if you are an SPA, it probably means that you have knowledge of the subject. And this can get you blocked about faster than anything. Again and again, I see support for restrictions on an editor based primarily on "SPA." This, in fact, is the source of the famous "anti-expert" problem at Wikipedia. You expect an expert on, say, chess, to edit articles on underwear and motorcycles before being allowed to touch chess articles?

It is gets much worse if the opinion of the expert is a minority opinion or is thought of as fringe, whether it is or not. (Sometimes fringe opinion is the most solidly based, academically. Not usually, but sometimes. It's "fringe" among Wikipedia editors, but not among academics, but understanding this would require that the oligarchy actually read the sources and understand them.)

And then there is "sum." Most people read that as "entirety." Wow! What an idea! But that isn't what it means. It means "summary," apparently. The extreme inclusionist position would be "entirety." Few are totally extreme, I'd stop with glossing "human knowledge" as "shared human knowledge." One person isn't enough. But two, yes, if the knowledge is shared -- and, yes, that's where verifiability comes in, but the obsessive Wikipedia standards for verifiability -- it did not start this way! -- completely took the project away from the "sum" concept to a very restricted, academically-oriented "summary," except where it isn't.

I.e., most of the project, but gradually the deletionists exert their muscle here and there, remember KillerOfCruft? He was very popular, even though he was a blatant sock puppet of a banned editor. "Cruft" means something you know and care about, and you have lots of friends who know and care about it, but I don't care about it at all, it's not "encyclopedic."

And then the reality is that articles, when they come to the attention of the wikiwarriors, wash back and forth, wasting huge amounts of labor so that anyone half-sensible goes away, washing their hands of the mess.

Great idea. A bit weak in the implementation. It's a shame. But it could still be fixed. Problem is, most people reject the fix immediately, before they understand it.... same old same old, really.

Once in a while, something different happens.

That would be a good place to start, but no "mebbe" about forcing them to re-run.

An enterprise whose promoters derive benefits from misrepresentation is called a fraud.

Jon Awbrey

Organizations of that size don't have meetings of the entire membership, stoopy-head. So there is no quorum of the "12 million members."

But it's actually possible to define one that would make sense, but it would be defined as "present and voting directly or by proxy," and for some structural changes, there might be an absolute majority requirement, which makes quorum moot. And I won't go there yet.

More normally, large organizations set up representative structures, and "quorum" then refers to the number of representatives "present and voting." And they may also set up an executive committee, which is a much smaller body that has executive power ad-interim, i.e., it can make decisions quickly when needed, but it remains responsible to the larger representative body, which is, in turn, responsible to the membership that elects it.

I said "elect," but elections are not the best way to select a representative body, unless advanced voting systems are used. There is, however, a very simple system that would work with ease with Wikipedia; the article on it was unfortunately deleted by AfD filed by a sock of an editor (since ID's and blocked) who AfD'd everything in sight that might be considered critical of or a replacement for Instant runoff voting. Happened while I was site-banned, and nobody else noticed. I could probably get it back, but -- why bother?

The system is Asset Voting. It's a variation on Delegable proxy, which was also targeted by the same people. But Asset Voting -- not under that name but following the same analogy -- was invented in about 1884 by Lewis Carroll (Charles Dodgson) as a tweak on Single Transferable Vote. In theory, with little fuss and high accuracy, it could elect a fully representative body, limited only by the fact that truly minor groupings of editors would have to compromise with each other in order to gain a seat in the Assembly.

But with present technology, voting could still be universal. It's just representation in deliberation, the ability to "speak to the assembly" and to enter motions, that requires restriction due to scale.

So the quorum would probably be a set number of representatives who must be "present" -- which could mean voting or explicitly abstaining. The number, of course, depends on the size of the assembly chosen.

Who or what determines the size? My suggestion woudl be the Assembly itself: it will determine a size that balances efficiency and representativeness. My guess is that thirty is pushing it.

With pure delegable proxy and a seat in the assembly determined by "proxy rank," thirty could represent more people, but this, then, has variable voting in the assembly.

(With the direct voting I mentioned, each seat in the assembly would represent Q editors, the quota. And if one editor who was among those who assigned their votes in the Asset election -- these are public electors, the election itself can be secret ballot -- had assigned 1 vote to put together the quota for the seat -- decided to cast that vote directly, the vote of the seat would be devalued by 1 vote, i.e., would become (Q-1)/Q vote. But, I'd bet, in practice, those fractional votes would not normally make a difference in decisions, and electors wouldn't cast them usually. Just when they think they know better than the seat they elected, and couldn't convince him or her of it.)

("Elector" means someone who gets votes in the Asset election. In Asset, the electors -- who can also be thought of as "candidates" -- can recast their votes to create a seat. The electors are public voters. The original Asset election is secret ballot. Any candidate who gets Q votes or more is elected, if the candidate chooses to serve. The candidate then may have excess votes to distribute. It's a trick that gets around various impossibility theorems afflicting voting systems, by being not a "voting system" as they are usually defined. It's actually a deliberative process, not pure aggregation.)

Probably more than Jon wanted to see, but, hey, he asked.

Yes. Now what?

Which is precisely why organizations like that do not insult the intelligence of the public by using the word "consensus" to describes the results.

Jon

Interesting analysis:

Supporters: Average Edit Count - 19420 | Average Account Registration Date - 24 Jan 2007
Opposers: Average Edit Count - 23203 | Average Account Registration Date - 12 Aug 2006
Neutrals: Average Edit Count - 20559 | Average Account Registration Date - 13 Feb 2007

Given that the great majority of supporters and neutrals are non-admins but fewer than 50% of the opposers it is amazing that the average edit counts are that close. Is there someone with a huge total of edits in there distorting the picture?

The script is definitely buggy, unless I was demoted (in which case I wonder why I still have a delete button), so I wouldn't try to analyze its results just yet.

Or maybe the script believes Durova and thinks I'm a steward?