":::Well, no, I don't need to ""ask a math professor"" I am (or have been before I retired), a statistics professor, and you are entirely missing my point. The number of samples you analyzed to draw your conclusions becomes quite irrelevant if the conclusions are shown to be flawed, and when I showed that a group of disparate editors,  obviously not editing in concert with each other, yielded an even higher number of pages in common than the group of editors that you identified as ""extraordinarily cohesive,""  the game was up.  Whatever this tool might measure, if anything, it's not cooperation or working relationships among editors. 

 :::I spent some time this afternoon running combinations of myself with various other editors; since I know  whether I have a working relationship with these other editors,  that knowledge serves as a check to evaluate the usefulness of the tool for determining whether people have a working relationship.  What I found was interesting; I found that when I ran myself in a group of people with whom I share a scientific background and a similar view of the goals of the project and concerns about whether those goals will be achieved, but with whom I have not actually edited or even discussed specific articles, I found that the group of the four of us exhibited a high degree of ""cohesiveness;"" specifically there were 25 pages that the four of us had edited in common, and in ""pairwise comparisons"" I had 121 pages in common with Short Brigade Harvester Boris, 60 in common with MastCell, and 56 in common with Science Apologist, even though I've never edited with any of them, except for a very brief encounter with Science Apologist on What the Bleep Do We Know, in which we disagreed rather strongly. So it's definitely not cooperative or coordinated editing that this tool measures.  In this case, it seems to measure nothing but our independently similar interests and views, since for all intents and purposes we've never edited in the same topic areas.  And at the same time, I found that when I analyzed a group of people with whom I've had a fairly close working relationship editing articles together, I got a much lower number of shared pages.  And when I ran myself with people with whom I have not only never edited, but have never even encountered on discussion or policy pages, and as far as I know do not share interests or views with me (SlimVirgin, Lar) I got numbers similar to the numbers I got when I ran the group of people I did have a working relationship with. In other words, this tool does not validly serve its purported purpose of identifying working relationships among editors, since it doesn't discriminate between editors who work together and editors who don't work together.       

 :::But I've just this moment found a fatal error. I was about to link to the results of the above analyses, but instead of looking up the first link from the previous run, I just ran it again, the same four editors, and got a completely different result.  So, not only do I not know what it is this tool measures; I can't even trust it to run the same group twice and get the same answer.  This is BS; I'm not wasting any more of my time with it.    
      
 "