Add more detailed manual label classification to paper

article/proceedings.tex

@@ -895,6 +895,64 @@ Apart from filter typologies that can be derived directly from the DB schema (av
 Based on the GT methodology, we scrutinised all filters, with their patterns, comments and actions.
 We found 3 big groups of filters that we named ``vandalism'', ``good faith'' and ``maintenance''.
 
+Filters manual tags evaluation
+
+Following filter categories have been identified (sometimes, a filter was labeled with more than one tag):
+
+- Vandalism
+  - hoaxing
+  - silly vandalism (e.g. repeating characters, inserting swear words)
+  - spam
+  - sockpuppetry
+  - long term abuse
+  - harassment/personal attacks
+    - doxxing
+    - impersonation
+  - trolling
+  - copyright violation
+
+  Labeled along the vandalism typology (check above)
+  - link vandalism
+  - abuse of tags
+  - username vandalism
+  - image vandalism
+  - avoidant vandalism
+  - talk page vandalism
+  - page move vandalism
+  - template vandalism
+  - vandalbots
+
+  Kind of similar:
+  - seo
+  - stockbroker vandalism
+  - biased pov
+  - self promotion
+  - conflict of interest
+
+Inbetween
+- edit warring
+- political controversy
+- politically/religiously motivated hate
+
+- Good faith
+  - bad style ("unencyclopedic edits" e.g. citing a blog or mentioning a hypothetical future album release)
+  - lazyness
+
+
+- Maintenance
+  - bugs
+  - wiki policy (compliance therewith)
+  - test filters
+
+
+A lot of filters are disabled/deleted bc:
+* they hit too many false positives
+* they were implemented to target specific incidents and these vandalism attempts stopped
+* they were tested and merged into other filters
+* there were too few hits and the conditions were too expensive
+
+Multiple filters have the comment "let's see whether this hits something", which brings us to the conclusion that edit filter editors have the right and do implement filters they consider necessary
+
 %TODO: develop and include memos
 
 \section{Discussion}