I'm with Thomas Dalton on this. If we allow role accounts then sooner or later we will get edit wars by two different people logged into the same account, disputes about U1 an G7 deletions where one person used an account to create something and another user of the same account then gets upset. But most pertinently, when it comes to additional userrights and even huggle whitelisting we are trusting the person who operates that account. If they then give their password to someone else then we have an unknown person with userrights that they have not earned.

WSC

On 29 April 2012 02:40, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:

On 29 April 2012 02:32, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does that make sense though? With an account called "Starwarrior", say,
> there is no way of knowing who made the edit either.

Sure, you do. It's not the name on the person's birth certificate, but
it's still a name. It tells you about as much as "John Smith" would.
You can hold that account holder responsible for their actions. With a
role account, they can just say it wasn't them.

If you would like another reason then, from 25 May onwards, role
accounts will violate the Terms of Use, section 5, "Password
Security":

"You are responsible for safeguarding your own password and should
never disclose it to any third party."

(http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_%282012%29/en#5._Password_Security)

You can't operate a role account without someone disclosing the
password to a third party. (Well, I guess you could share the password
to an email account and use the "forgot your password" link every time
you wanted to log in, but you would still be violating the spirit of
the rules.)

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org