This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee. | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
|
I'll pre-answer a probable question: "Why did you throw your hat in right near the deadline?" I've considered running for ArbCom again every year, and was seriously considering it again for next year, but was going to sit this one out. I had assumed that the pandemic would result in various editors having a lot more time on their hands, and thus expected a large number of candidates, but when I thought to check I found very few (fewer than available seats). I've observed ArbCom becomes "non-optimally functional" when short of active and non-recused Arbs, so it seemed pertinent to volunteer this year instead of waiting. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
PS: As I've also noted in my replies to some questions that another motivation for going in this year instead of waiting is the unusual number of Arbs and candidates who agree with me that WP:AC/DS is broken and that it at very least needs serious revision. I see an unusual opportunity for an interested caucus of Arbs to make real progress on this for a change. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC); rev'd 19:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
PPS: On the main 2020 election talk page, Thryduulf asked basically whether late-appearing candidates had some kind of strategic rationale. I can only speak for myself, but the answer is no. Indeed, I'm aware from similar earlier discussions that being a late-arriving candidate actually prejudices some editors to vote negatively for one reason or another. If I had looked in at the candidate page earlier and seen even fewer candidates, I would have stepped up much sooner. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
If I may brainstorm a little on potential ways to actually implement "Admonishments and/or final warnings should be much more frequent, and actually enforced" – it may require a combo approach like:
Those are just a few off-the-cuff ideas.
How to tackle the "unblockables" problem in earnest will require more detailed community and internal-to-ArbCom discussion, especially since the root of this problem, the "manufacture" of it, is not a fault in ArbCom rules or interpretation, but within community behavior and human nature: cult of personality, admin "brotherhood" factionalism, wikiproject factionalism like "gang" protection of in-group members, WP's aggregate userbase biases making it "okay" to grossly violate policies in pursuit of a popular socio-political viewpoint, etc. It varies by the type of "unblockable" at issue, and there are at least three varieties discussed in the RfC thread. I would say there are five, based specificially on: high-trust permissions (admin/crat), personality (wiki-social popularity), time/quantity of constructive contribution, quality of constructive contribution, and focus of constructive contribution. Plus there's a subclass, the "unbannable" who has been blocked many times but is always back; this is actually much more common that the truly "unblockable". Another subclass the "un-desysopppable".
I'll integrate something I said in my response to Kudpung's Q2: Community noticeboards would benefit from imposition of more posting rules, perhaps adapted from AE which is kind of half-way between RFARB/ARCA rigidity and ANI free-for-all. The generating of several kinds of "unblockables" would likely be short-circuited by community noticeboards no longer permitting endless evidence-free and usually consequence-free ranting. There is already precedent for this; e.g., ANEW already has long had a variety of stringent rules about evidence and what a proper report is and how to format it, and like AE has a history of BOOMERANG being easy to trigger there, while even AN leans much further this direction than ANI or various more specific noticeboards like NORN and NPOVN. A strong structural change to ANI and other "too open" noticeboards would also help solve the "dramaboarding as a spectator and team sport" problem, of abusing these venues as a form of addictive entertainment instead of dispute resolution. This is a long-standing NOTSOCIAL / NOTGAME / NOTFORUM / NOTBATTLEGROUND issue that the community doesn't know how to tackle.
PS: There's also an inverse problem not really addressed by that mega-RfC at all: "too-blockables". Certain sorts of editors are clearly more likely to be blocked or otherwise sanctioned based on what topics they edit, what viewpoints they express, even what kind of work they focus on, as well as for being newish and without much of a track record, among other "criteria". That's a whole different can of worms, though (and A7V2 has already asked a separate question about this). Another obvious-not-obvious point: we should not take this RfC as a mandate to accept "finally getting to going after" supposed unblockables simply because they've been seen that way. Any case brought must raise an ongoing problem/recent incident, not attempt to just relitigate old news. This is also a
double-jeopardy matter; the fact that the community declined to sanction, or effectively-enough sanction, in reaction to an old incident is already a done deal. Cf. the principle that remedies must be preventative not just punitive.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 01:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Unlike any other venue on the Internet, every Wikipedia user has the scope to be a 'governance obsessive' - and it's an activity some of them relish as seen by the speed in which some newbies post the 'I wanna be an admin someday' userbox to their user pages. ANI, the corps of a sysops, and the Arbitration Committtee are peppered with amateur litigators (fortunately there are sometimes some professional lawyers on the Committees) who like to feel important and will gladly issue a purely punitive remedy that has little to do with prevention. For some strata of users this is even without a course of appeal to the Arbcom or a body of even higher instance - a true Supreme Court which would rule not only on the relevant policies, but also fully (re)examine the evidence and facts of a case. Indeed, one of the problems of Arbcom is that any number of members are able to recuse themselves or be on a leave of absence where the remaining active arbitrators are barely a serious quorum.
SMcCandlish has some excellent ideas how all these issues could be addressed but this is not the venue to do so. Not being an admin may well unfortunately prevent a successful bid for a seat on the Committee, but I would heartily encourage him to take the incentive to initiate formal discussion towards the badly needed reforms. None of it will bother me personally, but Wikipedia isn't going to close down any time soon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
Ds/alert}}
; or B) have that template (with correct topical parameter) automatically delivered by bot to any editor who non-trivially edits in a DS-covered topic area, so that awareness is ensured and the template cannot be mistaken for a threat from another editor trying to get the upper-hand, or an allegation of wrongdoing by an admin without any actual evidence. The RfC concluded with over 50% support, and the vast majority of opposition (probably over 90% of it) was based simply in the assumption that the community cannot tell ArbCom what to do with its own templates, which both missed the point and is not actually true (the community sets ArbCom policy). The community could force ArbCom to change this stuff but won't, due to
FUD about ArbCom's bureaucracy. ArbCom, though, can itself make such changes, so it appears more practical to get ArbCom to change it from within. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 20:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)I can't mind-read the full intent of the question, of course. Maybe it includes a notion like "How can you assess a desysopping case if you've never been in admin shoes?" I already have and use most of the advanced permissions that have been "unbundled" from admin, including the high-risk (of badly breaking things) template-editor and (in potential community drama) page-mover. The effective fact is that INVOLVED, ADMINCOND, and related policies apply "and then some" to their use, because of their admin origin and community expectations about their use, and because the threshold for having these bits taken away is much lower (anything that smacks of abuse can be cause for WP:AN to revoke such a permission without much of a hearing). Admins are not, as a matter of procedure and rules, treated differently by ArbCom than other parties (though this RfC seems to have reached the conclusion that they have sometimes received subjective favoritism in whether a case would be accepted or a remedy applied). ArbCom is already notoriously difficult to persuade to even consider a potential desysopping, so there is no need for it to be more protective of admins. Indeed, there's a fairly common everday-editor view that ArbCom is basically a board of admins mainly there to shield other admins and help them sanction everyone else. I don't believe that's a correct assessment, but it's an "optics" and community-faith problem nonetheless, with the really obvious (and easily-fixed) cause, of ArbCom usually being only admins.
If anything, the fact that most Arbs are admins, and most admins reduce their content focus and just-an-editor interaction with others, as they get increasingly involved in administrative roles (and a few Arbs have further become like "career politicians", doing ArbCom over and over and over despite it consuming most of their available wiki-time), suggests that the Committee needs more non-admins for balance. Cf. frequent RfA opposition on the basis that a candidate doesn't do enough content work and spends too much time in dramaboards; it's the exact same concern applied to a different role candidacy. Maybe the better question for the community is, "How do we feel that ArbCom can properly discharge its project-protective roles when most of its members have less and less connection over time to the work of and issues faced by everyday editors achieving the project's actual encyclopedia-building mission?" See also WMF's eventual decision (years ago under community pressure) that it needed community-selected board members (and see recent outrage from editors that a draft revision of that bylaw would no longer require the community-selected ones to be the majority). It's essentially the same representativeness concern, just shifted upward a meta-level. ArbCom is in fact really weird for usually not containing any non-admins, and I hope to help crack the artificial ceiling open a bit more, to the community's and project's benefit.
Another possible meaning in your question is "If you're not an admin, why should we think you understand policy well?". My previous answers to questions above have gotten into my policy analysis, shepherding, and interpretation work in some detail. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
A latent sub-question in this is: When does a conduct dispute become a conduct dispute for ArbCom? That's generally only after community DR mechanisms have already been exhausted (or cannot apply, e.g. because the conduct disruption is transgressing ArbCom-imposed restrictions, because it involves a desysop request, etc.). Another embedded query of sorts is: When is an RS-related dispute in particular not a conduct dispute despite conduct issues being raised? In short, when the dispute is primarily about content (source reliability, source existence, whether the source actually verifies the claim, etc.), and the behavioral complaints are incidental. (Or confused/specious, e.g. "won't stop citing sources I consider unreliable" is not a behavior dispute). However, it is often the case that protracted conflicts will result in content and conduct issues both arising sufficiently that they're independently disruptive and must be addressed. This requires they be handled separately, e.g. the one at RSN or NORN and the other at ANI or ultimately an ArbCom venue. Sometimes back-to-back or even concurrently. E.g., I'm strongly reminded of various "your ethnicity/religion/country/etc. versus mine" ugliness, the sordid "e-cigs" saga, modern American politics edit-and-flame wars, etc., which have all involved numerous content noticeboards and multiple behavioral noticeboardings and ArbCom, often involving the same parties. It can be a slow and even frustrating process, but it is one of our separation-of-powers safeguards against things like an institutional "viewpoint cabal" and so on. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Some candidates got this question, and I didn't. But I found it fascinating, so I'm stealing it. >;-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Conjoined twins (CTs) come in all sorts. I believe those of the Chang and Eng Bunker type, who are near-totally independent, would have to be considered separate editors, with a need to take turns at different accounts while editing (or use separate laptops simultaneously, or something to that effect). However, there are also CTs who directly share brain matter, fused at the head, and who do not always have entirely separate consciousness (often one is overwhelmingly dominant). We would often likely conclude to treat them as a single editor. In this specific hypothetical case, there's evidence of both independent and coordinated cognition, so I think it would come down to a specific determination about that case, with consideration given to the impact of various possible outcomes on the editor[s].
If their normal operation mode while writing really were an indistinct "commingled-I", then they could probably be permitted to retain a single account, but be barred from using it to present Abby-says-versus-Brittany-says dual input, which would definitely be two people using the same account, and confusing to other editors, to WP:CLOSE consensus assessments, etc. I.e., to keep a single account, they would need to privately come to a personal consensus on what to say before posting it, or remain silent on the matter, any time their commingled-I were to separate more clearly producing dissonance between them.
If their normal mode while writing were in a two-distinct-minds vein, they should use different accounts, but also be instructed not to use them to vote-stack by twice presenting one of their occasional commingled-I viewpoints as if it were two individuals separately coming to the same conclusion (whichever one first posted the commingled-I stance would be the only one to say it). It would be fine for both accounts to !vote in an RfC or whatever, whether they agreed or not, as long as they where independently reasoned (though probably mutually well-discussed) decisions.
There would of course be no way to absolutely enforce either of these, or even be 100% certain their self-reported descriptions of their mental separateness/coordination were accurate. But either version of these approaches would be a way to adapt policy to suit their unusual circumstance and keep them as editors/an editor in good standing. They would be the community taking in good faith how their mind[s] work, and them in turn agreeing in good faith not to game the system. Since the Hensels do have separate brains and spinal columns, and their coordination is thus a learned (albeit ingrained from infancy, developmentally-shaping) adaptation, I would expect that the second approach (separate accounts) would be the result, even if I think the opposite would likely result in many cases of CTs with fused skulls and direct brain/cognition overlap. PS: This is all assuming the community did not just update the policy to say something about this; I'm presuming ArbCom has been left to interpret and try to apply existing policy. PPS: I would normally have had some misgivings about discussing the Hensels in this way, but they have made public speculation about and understanding of their CT experience central to their actual lives, though various TV shows, etc., that they have long participated in. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee. | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
|
I'll pre-answer a probable question: "Why did you throw your hat in right near the deadline?" I've considered running for ArbCom again every year, and was seriously considering it again for next year, but was going to sit this one out. I had assumed that the pandemic would result in various editors having a lot more time on their hands, and thus expected a large number of candidates, but when I thought to check I found very few (fewer than available seats). I've observed ArbCom becomes "non-optimally functional" when short of active and non-recused Arbs, so it seemed pertinent to volunteer this year instead of waiting. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
PS: As I've also noted in my replies to some questions that another motivation for going in this year instead of waiting is the unusual number of Arbs and candidates who agree with me that WP:AC/DS is broken and that it at very least needs serious revision. I see an unusual opportunity for an interested caucus of Arbs to make real progress on this for a change. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC); rev'd 19:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
PPS: On the main 2020 election talk page, Thryduulf asked basically whether late-appearing candidates had some kind of strategic rationale. I can only speak for myself, but the answer is no. Indeed, I'm aware from similar earlier discussions that being a late-arriving candidate actually prejudices some editors to vote negatively for one reason or another. If I had looked in at the candidate page earlier and seen even fewer candidates, I would have stepped up much sooner. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
If I may brainstorm a little on potential ways to actually implement "Admonishments and/or final warnings should be much more frequent, and actually enforced" – it may require a combo approach like:
Those are just a few off-the-cuff ideas.
How to tackle the "unblockables" problem in earnest will require more detailed community and internal-to-ArbCom discussion, especially since the root of this problem, the "manufacture" of it, is not a fault in ArbCom rules or interpretation, but within community behavior and human nature: cult of personality, admin "brotherhood" factionalism, wikiproject factionalism like "gang" protection of in-group members, WP's aggregate userbase biases making it "okay" to grossly violate policies in pursuit of a popular socio-political viewpoint, etc. It varies by the type of "unblockable" at issue, and there are at least three varieties discussed in the RfC thread. I would say there are five, based specificially on: high-trust permissions (admin/crat), personality (wiki-social popularity), time/quantity of constructive contribution, quality of constructive contribution, and focus of constructive contribution. Plus there's a subclass, the "unbannable" who has been blocked many times but is always back; this is actually much more common that the truly "unblockable". Another subclass the "un-desysopppable".
I'll integrate something I said in my response to Kudpung's Q2: Community noticeboards would benefit from imposition of more posting rules, perhaps adapted from AE which is kind of half-way between RFARB/ARCA rigidity and ANI free-for-all. The generating of several kinds of "unblockables" would likely be short-circuited by community noticeboards no longer permitting endless evidence-free and usually consequence-free ranting. There is already precedent for this; e.g., ANEW already has long had a variety of stringent rules about evidence and what a proper report is and how to format it, and like AE has a history of BOOMERANG being easy to trigger there, while even AN leans much further this direction than ANI or various more specific noticeboards like NORN and NPOVN. A strong structural change to ANI and other "too open" noticeboards would also help solve the "dramaboarding as a spectator and team sport" problem, of abusing these venues as a form of addictive entertainment instead of dispute resolution. This is a long-standing NOTSOCIAL / NOTGAME / NOTFORUM / NOTBATTLEGROUND issue that the community doesn't know how to tackle.
PS: There's also an inverse problem not really addressed by that mega-RfC at all: "too-blockables". Certain sorts of editors are clearly more likely to be blocked or otherwise sanctioned based on what topics they edit, what viewpoints they express, even what kind of work they focus on, as well as for being newish and without much of a track record, among other "criteria". That's a whole different can of worms, though (and A7V2 has already asked a separate question about this). Another obvious-not-obvious point: we should not take this RfC as a mandate to accept "finally getting to going after" supposed unblockables simply because they've been seen that way. Any case brought must raise an ongoing problem/recent incident, not attempt to just relitigate old news. This is also a
double-jeopardy matter; the fact that the community declined to sanction, or effectively-enough sanction, in reaction to an old incident is already a done deal. Cf. the principle that remedies must be preventative not just punitive.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 01:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Unlike any other venue on the Internet, every Wikipedia user has the scope to be a 'governance obsessive' - and it's an activity some of them relish as seen by the speed in which some newbies post the 'I wanna be an admin someday' userbox to their user pages. ANI, the corps of a sysops, and the Arbitration Committtee are peppered with amateur litigators (fortunately there are sometimes some professional lawyers on the Committees) who like to feel important and will gladly issue a purely punitive remedy that has little to do with prevention. For some strata of users this is even without a course of appeal to the Arbcom or a body of even higher instance - a true Supreme Court which would rule not only on the relevant policies, but also fully (re)examine the evidence and facts of a case. Indeed, one of the problems of Arbcom is that any number of members are able to recuse themselves or be on a leave of absence where the remaining active arbitrators are barely a serious quorum.
SMcCandlish has some excellent ideas how all these issues could be addressed but this is not the venue to do so. Not being an admin may well unfortunately prevent a successful bid for a seat on the Committee, but I would heartily encourage him to take the incentive to initiate formal discussion towards the badly needed reforms. None of it will bother me personally, but Wikipedia isn't going to close down any time soon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
Ds/alert}}
; or B) have that template (with correct topical parameter) automatically delivered by bot to any editor who non-trivially edits in a DS-covered topic area, so that awareness is ensured and the template cannot be mistaken for a threat from another editor trying to get the upper-hand, or an allegation of wrongdoing by an admin without any actual evidence. The RfC concluded with over 50% support, and the vast majority of opposition (probably over 90% of it) was based simply in the assumption that the community cannot tell ArbCom what to do with its own templates, which both missed the point and is not actually true (the community sets ArbCom policy). The community could force ArbCom to change this stuff but won't, due to
FUD about ArbCom's bureaucracy. ArbCom, though, can itself make such changes, so it appears more practical to get ArbCom to change it from within. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 20:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)I can't mind-read the full intent of the question, of course. Maybe it includes a notion like "How can you assess a desysopping case if you've never been in admin shoes?" I already have and use most of the advanced permissions that have been "unbundled" from admin, including the high-risk (of badly breaking things) template-editor and (in potential community drama) page-mover. The effective fact is that INVOLVED, ADMINCOND, and related policies apply "and then some" to their use, because of their admin origin and community expectations about their use, and because the threshold for having these bits taken away is much lower (anything that smacks of abuse can be cause for WP:AN to revoke such a permission without much of a hearing). Admins are not, as a matter of procedure and rules, treated differently by ArbCom than other parties (though this RfC seems to have reached the conclusion that they have sometimes received subjective favoritism in whether a case would be accepted or a remedy applied). ArbCom is already notoriously difficult to persuade to even consider a potential desysopping, so there is no need for it to be more protective of admins. Indeed, there's a fairly common everday-editor view that ArbCom is basically a board of admins mainly there to shield other admins and help them sanction everyone else. I don't believe that's a correct assessment, but it's an "optics" and community-faith problem nonetheless, with the really obvious (and easily-fixed) cause, of ArbCom usually being only admins.
If anything, the fact that most Arbs are admins, and most admins reduce their content focus and just-an-editor interaction with others, as they get increasingly involved in administrative roles (and a few Arbs have further become like "career politicians", doing ArbCom over and over and over despite it consuming most of their available wiki-time), suggests that the Committee needs more non-admins for balance. Cf. frequent RfA opposition on the basis that a candidate doesn't do enough content work and spends too much time in dramaboards; it's the exact same concern applied to a different role candidacy. Maybe the better question for the community is, "How do we feel that ArbCom can properly discharge its project-protective roles when most of its members have less and less connection over time to the work of and issues faced by everyday editors achieving the project's actual encyclopedia-building mission?" See also WMF's eventual decision (years ago under community pressure) that it needed community-selected board members (and see recent outrage from editors that a draft revision of that bylaw would no longer require the community-selected ones to be the majority). It's essentially the same representativeness concern, just shifted upward a meta-level. ArbCom is in fact really weird for usually not containing any non-admins, and I hope to help crack the artificial ceiling open a bit more, to the community's and project's benefit.
Another possible meaning in your question is "If you're not an admin, why should we think you understand policy well?". My previous answers to questions above have gotten into my policy analysis, shepherding, and interpretation work in some detail. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
A latent sub-question in this is: When does a conduct dispute become a conduct dispute for ArbCom? That's generally only after community DR mechanisms have already been exhausted (or cannot apply, e.g. because the conduct disruption is transgressing ArbCom-imposed restrictions, because it involves a desysop request, etc.). Another embedded query of sorts is: When is an RS-related dispute in particular not a conduct dispute despite conduct issues being raised? In short, when the dispute is primarily about content (source reliability, source existence, whether the source actually verifies the claim, etc.), and the behavioral complaints are incidental. (Or confused/specious, e.g. "won't stop citing sources I consider unreliable" is not a behavior dispute). However, it is often the case that protracted conflicts will result in content and conduct issues both arising sufficiently that they're independently disruptive and must be addressed. This requires they be handled separately, e.g. the one at RSN or NORN and the other at ANI or ultimately an ArbCom venue. Sometimes back-to-back or even concurrently. E.g., I'm strongly reminded of various "your ethnicity/religion/country/etc. versus mine" ugliness, the sordid "e-cigs" saga, modern American politics edit-and-flame wars, etc., which have all involved numerous content noticeboards and multiple behavioral noticeboardings and ArbCom, often involving the same parties. It can be a slow and even frustrating process, but it is one of our separation-of-powers safeguards against things like an institutional "viewpoint cabal" and so on. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Some candidates got this question, and I didn't. But I found it fascinating, so I'm stealing it. >;-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Conjoined twins (CTs) come in all sorts. I believe those of the Chang and Eng Bunker type, who are near-totally independent, would have to be considered separate editors, with a need to take turns at different accounts while editing (or use separate laptops simultaneously, or something to that effect). However, there are also CTs who directly share brain matter, fused at the head, and who do not always have entirely separate consciousness (often one is overwhelmingly dominant). We would often likely conclude to treat them as a single editor. In this specific hypothetical case, there's evidence of both independent and coordinated cognition, so I think it would come down to a specific determination about that case, with consideration given to the impact of various possible outcomes on the editor[s].
If their normal operation mode while writing really were an indistinct "commingled-I", then they could probably be permitted to retain a single account, but be barred from using it to present Abby-says-versus-Brittany-says dual input, which would definitely be two people using the same account, and confusing to other editors, to WP:CLOSE consensus assessments, etc. I.e., to keep a single account, they would need to privately come to a personal consensus on what to say before posting it, or remain silent on the matter, any time their commingled-I were to separate more clearly producing dissonance between them.
If their normal mode while writing were in a two-distinct-minds vein, they should use different accounts, but also be instructed not to use them to vote-stack by twice presenting one of their occasional commingled-I viewpoints as if it were two individuals separately coming to the same conclusion (whichever one first posted the commingled-I stance would be the only one to say it). It would be fine for both accounts to !vote in an RfC or whatever, whether they agreed or not, as long as they where independently reasoned (though probably mutually well-discussed) decisions.
There would of course be no way to absolutely enforce either of these, or even be 100% certain their self-reported descriptions of their mental separateness/coordination were accurate. But either version of these approaches would be a way to adapt policy to suit their unusual circumstance and keep them as editors/an editor in good standing. They would be the community taking in good faith how their mind[s] work, and them in turn agreeing in good faith not to game the system. Since the Hensels do have separate brains and spinal columns, and their coordination is thus a learned (albeit ingrained from infancy, developmentally-shaping) adaptation, I would expect that the second approach (separate accounts) would be the result, even if I think the opposite would likely result in many cases of CTs with fused skulls and direct brain/cognition overlap. PS: This is all assuming the community did not just update the policy to say something about this; I'm presuming ArbCom has been left to interpret and try to apply existing policy. PPS: I would normally have had some misgivings about discussing the Hensels in this way, but they have made public speculation about and understanding of their CT experience central to their actual lives, though various TV shows, etc., that they have long participated in. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)