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