There have been examples of successful role accounts in the past - or, at least role accounts that have attempted to edit in a way that is respectful of our policies whilst maintaining information about their company. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:USSTRATCOM_PAO is one from en:wp. Yes, the OTRS idea might be a good way to go about this. But with role accounts for organisations that have an educative mission (especially GLAM sector) I would have thought it would be an important step for us to allow/accept this kind of editing. We want their expertise and direct involvement and if they are going to let their staff edit Wikimedia Commons in office-hours then they will want to have some official recognition of that fact - i.e. a role account. For a cultural organisation to actually make the step of having a staff member edit, officially, as part of their job of increasing awareness (and correct/detailed information) about their institution's collection is an extraordinarily important step. I would argue that we should do whatever we can to make them feel welcome and supported. This is not the same as a PR person trying to 'spin' an article about a corporation - which would be a CoI. This is about someone trying to make the mission of their cultural institution fit with our mission - sharing knowledge of a particular aspect of culture with the rest of the world. Best, -Liam [[witty lama]] On 7/28/09, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata