MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Whatever clueful is supposed to mean in this context, we should remember to doublecheck any entries someone tagged as stable if after some time someone turns out at arbitration or otherwise lose this status.
Multiple tagging would be beneficial at all times. The more tags, the stronger the rating on the article. Whether everything needs to be checked in the circumstances that you describe is not clear. It will likely depend on the circumstances of the dispute or loss of status. People tend to behave quite normally until they hit a wall of some kind. I suspect that only later taggings might need to be reviewed, but even then, only if they were the last or only person to tag.
We also need to make sure that whatever we do, this status is given to trustworthy people and and that such a process is scaleable. This is where the biggest problem lies. These two can bother each other. To ensure scalability you need to give the permission to more people, but at some point you run out of trusted editors who are experienced enough to handle this feature.
Multiple tagging could deal with some of that problem. Automatic trust should be preferred after passing clear, sensible and simple qualifications; we don't want the kind of zoo that now prevails at RfA. Some bad actors are bound to get through, but we mustn't be stifled by that possibility.
We need to put careful consideration into this, because if someone turns out to muck up these priviliges it takes a lot of work to undo the damage.
Maybe not as much as you suspect.
Ec