Plurality is the phenomenon of multiple conscious entities existing in a single body and brain. In clinical contexts, this is most associated with dissociative identity disorder, other specified dissociative disorder, and unspecified dissociative disorder. Less discussed, but equally valid, schizophrenia and related conditions such as schizoaffective disorder and schizotypal personality disorder may lead to a form of plurality. Those articles, as well as the article on multiplicity (psychology) give explanations (of varying levels of quality, caveat lector) of the clinical side; this FAQ will largely avoid clinical terms, as its purpose is to explain how plural and multiple systems interact with Wikipedia, not serve as a diagnostic guide.

Multiplicity is a subset of plurality where the conscious entities are fully distinct. Medianness is a subset where the entities view themselves as, in some ways at least, the same person, but are still meaningfully distinct. At least, that's how I'm defining them. Some people use "multiplicity" the way I'm using "plurality", or they draw the line in some other way.

Alter / part / headmate / system member / systemmate / many other terms

An entity who is part of the system.

Blurring / blending

Multiple parts fronting at once—sometimes with the parts understanding who is fronting, sometimes with it unclear even to them.

Front

Control of the body. Can be used as a verb, to front, i.e. to control the body; or as a derived noun, fronter, one who controls the body.

Host / main fronter / many other terms

The entity who generally represents the system in outward interactions. Some may view this as a host, i.e. one entity in whose body the others reside. Some may view them as a main fronter or similar, "just another part" who happens to spend more time at the front than others.

Medianness

See lede section.

Multiplicity

See lede section.

Plurality

See lede section.

Singlet / singular person

Someone who is not plural. Singlet is more common, but this essay uses singular person as some find the former demeaning.

System

The group of entities who share a specific body.

There are many plural terms other than these! I have listed the ones most likely to come up in an on-wiki discussion with a plural person. For more terms, like traumagenic, endogenic, subsystem, protector, and persecutor, see https://did-research.org/—again, caveat lector!

The answers to these questions are based on our (Tamzin's) own life experience as a plural system, interactions with other systems we've been friends with and/or dated, and time spent in online plural spaces. We do not, however, claim to speak for all plural people.

Are plural systems dangerous?

No more than the average person. While some (but not all) systems may have aggressive or violent parts, in practice this energy usually winds up directed toward the system's body, not toward others.

Are plural systems competent to edit Wikipedia?

Many systems will have some parts who are incapable of editing and/or engaging in discussion in a competent manner. It is those systems' responsibility to make sure that they don't edit when those parts are fronting. This is no different than for singular people: Just as a singular person may have to learn to not edit while in a bad mood, or while drunk, or while exhausted, a plural person may have to learn to not edit when certain system members are fronting. In our case, this is quite easy, as the less competent members of our system have zero interest in editing Wikipedia, and may not even be aware Wikipedia exists.

How might plurality affect someone's editing?

Differently for every person, we imagine. Personally, the partial amnesia is the part that causes us the most trouble. We have to keep a close eye on recent discussions or controversial edits, so we don't forget them. Changes in fronter also tend to cause us to flit from one task to another. Our tone may also change a bit between interactions. We try our hardest to minimize the effects of any of these things, keeping in mind our own essay on the topic. No one's ever complained about any of this, so we guess we're doing a good job.

It's important to remember that all editors have challenges they have to work around. When it comes to gauging an editor's contributions to Wikipedia, one should judge them by what they can do in spite of those challenges, not by the challenges themselves. And in a lot of ways, plurality makes us a better editor! For instance, one part of our system tends to hyper-focus on coding. We've been able to code a bot and some complex templates with her at the front. Another part is very good at addressing problems head-on, useful for when we need to give someone their only warning for socking... or to tell someone to stop filing bad SPIs. If we were singular, we're not sure if we'd have either of those skillsets as distinctly.

Should plural systems be held accountable the same as everyone else?

Yes. All editors are entitled to be cut some slack, and the amount they are cut may take into account life circumstances. But at the end of the day all Wikimedians are all accountable for our actions, and saying, "Oh, that was one of my systemmates" is a bit like saying, "Oh, I was up way past my bedtime": It may be useful to explain why a poor decision was made, but it's not an excuse for one.

Can plural systems be trusted with advanced permissions?

The community sure seemed to think so when it made us an admin. We linked in our acceptance statement to User:Tamzin/Disclosures and commitments, which mentions our plurality and links to this essay. Despite that page getting over 1,000 views during the RfA, not one of the record-breaking 458 participants saw our plurality as even worth mentioning. As far as we know, we're the only openly plural admin, but based on some off-the-record conversations we're fairly sure there's others. And having had advanced rights since 2013, while we've certainly made mistakes from time to time we don't think any of them have been because of our plurality. So empirically we'd say yes.

Should plural systems' members use multiple accounts?

For the purposes of WP:SHAREDACCOUNT, a plural system can be considered a single "person", so it's up to the individual editor what to do here. In most cases, creating multiple accounts will cause more confusion than it alleviates. And for many systems, including ours, parts blur together, or even permanently merge together, in ways that make this effectively impossible. For instance, neither of the parts that wrote this sentence existed in their current form when we resumed editing in October of 2020. Should we have created new accounts with each split and abandoned them with each merger? Do we need additional accounts for all combinations of people who could front in a blend? Et cetera.

Should plural systems edit as an "I" or a "we"?

As you can see, we're using "we" here because we're talking explicitly about ourselves as a system, but usually we use "I" on Wikipedia. We try to maintain a collegial atmosphere here, and in real-life business interactions we are an "I", so we are an "I" here too. If someone chooses to edit as "we", that's their choice. As a practical matter, though, this may be confusing, and we would encourage anyone who wishes to do so to create some sort of page in their userspace explaining their plurality, which they can link to the first time they say "we" in a comment.

What should I do if I want to know all about someone's system?

Some systems may choose to publish basic facts about their internal dynamics, parts' names, etc. (We mostly do not, although we made a limited exception once.) Going into excessive detail may tend to violate WP:NOTSOCIAL, though. If you want to know about someone's system, and they have indicated an openness to discussing it, reach out to them off-wiki. If they have not indicated this openness, don't assume it.

Is <type of plurality> really valid?

That's rarely something one needs to consider as a Wikimedian. All editors should be treated with dignity and respect.

What if someone's faking plurality?

This does happen sometimes. But usually the hallmarks of that (attention-seeking behavior and caricaturish mood swings) will be considered disruptive editing anyways, so it's easier to approach things through that lens, than to risk delegitimizing someone's condition.

Wikipedia is not therapy.

That's not a question, and that essay doesn't say what you probably think it says. Did you mean to link to User:Tamzin/Guidance for editors with mental illnesses? :)