diff --git a/thesis/5-Overview-EN-Wiki.tex b/thesis/5-Overview-EN-Wiki.tex
index 739b0f3ebac1bd2b125f3d2736f34030a25f82fe..6314abfa4c09ed55d1ffaa91f348ad0aa53467bb 100644
--- a/thesis/5-Overview-EN-Wiki.tex
+++ b/thesis/5-Overview-EN-Wiki.tex
@@ -576,8 +576,182 @@ Inbetween
 
 %TODO: develop and include memos
 \subsection{Vandalism}
+\begin{comment}
+# Filters targetting vandalism
+
+The vast majority of edit filters on EN Wikipedia could be said to target (different forms of) vandalism.
+Examples herefor are filters for *juvenile* types of vandalism (inserting swear or obscene words or nonsence sequences of characters into articles), for *hoaxing* or for *link spam*.
+In principle, one can open quite a few subcategories here (also check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism for a "in-house" classification of vandalism types on Wikipedia).
+Some vandalism types seem to be more severe than others (*sock puppetry* or persistant *long term* vandals).
+For these, often times, the implemented filters are **private**.
+This means, only edit filter editors can view the exact filter pattern or the comments of these.
+Although this clashes with the overall *transparency* of the project (is there a guideline subscribing to this value? couldn't find a specific mention), the reasoning here is that otherwise, persistent vandals will be able to check for the pattern of the filter targetting their edits and just find a new way around it~\cite{Wikipedia:EditFilter}.
+There are also private filters targetting personal attack or abuse cases.
+Here, filters are private in order to protect affected person(s)~\cite{Wikipedia:EditFilter}.
+
+The current state is also an "improvement" compared to the initially proposed visibility level of edit filters.
+In the initial version of the EditFilters Page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Edit_filter&oldid=221158142) Andrew Garrett (User:Werdna), the author of the AbuseFilter MediaWiki extention, was suggesting that all filters should be private and only a group of previously approved users should be able to view them.
+
+According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism following (mostly disruptive) behaviours are **not vandalism**:
+- boldly editing
+- copyright violation
+- disruptive editing or stubbornness --> edit warring
+- edit summary omission
+- editing tests by experimenting users: "Such edits, while prohibited, are treated differently from vandalism"
+- harassment or personal attacks: "Personal attacks and harassment are not allowed. While some harassment is also vandalism, such as user page vandalism, or inserting a personal attack into an article, harassment in itself is not vandalism and should be handled differently."
+- Incorrect wiki markup and style
+- lack of understanding of the purpose of wikipedia: "editing it as if it were a different medium—such as a forum or blog—in a way that it appears as unproductive editing or borderline vandalism to experienced users."
+- misinformation, accidental
+- NPOV contraventions (Neutral point of view)
+- nonsense, accidental: "sometimes honest editors may not have expressed themselves correctly (e.g. there may be an error in the syntax, particularly for Wikipedians who use English as a second language)."
+- Policy and guideline pages, good-faith changes to: "If people misjudge consensus, it would not be considered vandalism;"
+- Reversion or removal of unencyclopedic material, or of edits covered under the biographies of living persons policy: "Even factually correct material may not belong on Wikipedia, and removing such content when it is not in line with Wikipedia's standards is not vandalism."
+- Deletion nominations: "Good-faith nominations of articles (or templates, non-article pages, etc) are not vandalism."
+
+Several of these behaviours could actually be conceived as **good faith** edits.
+And, for several of them (as noted in the **good faith memo**), it is not immediately distinguishable whether it's a **good faith** or a **vandalism** edit.
+Ultimately, the "only" difference between the two arises from the motivation/context of the edit.
+
+## Properties/Characteristics
+
+- maliciously intended disruptive editing
+
+motivations:
+- seeking attention
+- misusing the encyclopedia for own purposes (self-promotion, seo..)
+- spreading wrong information
+- defacing topics
+
+## DEF Vandalism, according to Wikipedia
+https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism
+"On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge."
+"The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. There, of course, exist more juvenile forms of vandalism, such as adding irrelevant obscenities or crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses may also constitute vandalism."
+
+## Consequences of vandalism, vandalism management
+https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism
+"Vandalism is prohibited. While editors are encouraged to warn and educate vandals, warnings are by no means a prerequisite for blocking a vandal (although administrators usually only block when multiple warnings have been issued). "
+
+"Upon discovering vandalism, revert such edits, using the undo function or an anti-vandalism tool. Once the vandalism is undone, warn the vandalizing editor. Notify administrators at the vandalism noticeboard of editors who continue to vandalize after multiple warnings, and administrators should intervene to preserve content and prevent further disruption by blocking such editors. Users whose main or sole purpose is clearly vandalism may be blocked indefinitely without warning."
+
+One of the strategies to spot vandalism is "Watching for edits tagged by the abuse filter. However, many tagged edits are legitimate, so they should not be blindly reverted. That is, do not revert without at least reading the edit." //mention of filters!
+
+"Warn the vandal. Access the vandal's talk page and warn them. A simple note explaining the problem with their editing is sufficient. If desired, a series of warning templates exist to simplify the process of warning users, but these templates are not required. These templates include
+
+    Level one: {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} This is a gentle caution regarding unconstructive edits; it encourages new editors to use a sandbox for test edits. This is the mildest warning.
+    Level two: {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} This warning is also fairly mild, though it explicitly uses the word 'vandalism' and links to this Wikipedia policy.
+    Level three: {{subst:uw-vandalism3}} This warning is sterner. It is the first to warn that further disruptive editing or vandalism may lead to a block.
+    Level four: {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} This is the sharpest vandalism warning template, and indicates that any further disruptive editing may lead to a block without warning."
+\end{comment}
 
 \subsection{Good Faith}
+\begin{comment}
+# Good faith edits
+
+Good faith is a term used by the Wikipedia community itself.
+Most prominently in the phrase "Always assume good faith".
+
+As I recently learned, apparently this guideline arose/took such a central position not from the very beginning of the existence of the collaborative encyclopedia.
+It rather arose at a time when, after a significant growth in Wikipedia, it wasn't manageable to govern the project (and most importantly fight emergent vandalism which grew proportionally to the project's growth) manually anymore.
+To counteract vandalism, a number of automated measures was applied.
+These, however, had also unforseen negative consequences: they drove newcomers away~\cite{HalKitRied2011}(quote literature) (since their edits were often classified as "vandalism", because they were not familiar with guidelines / wiki syntax / etc.)
+In an attempt to fix this issue, "Assume good faith" rose to a prominent position among Wikipedia's Guidelines.
+(Specifically, the page was created on March 3rd, 2004 and was originally refering to good faith during edit wars.
+An expansion of the page from December 29th 2004 starts refering to vandalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith&oldid=8915036)
+
+Today, in vandalism comabting (?), there are cautious guidelines and several escalation levels, before an editor is banned. (TODO: elaborate, maybe move to vandalism)
+Users are urged to use the term "vandalism" carefully, since it tends to offend and drive people away.
+("When editors are editing in good faith, mislabeling their edits as vandalism makes them less likely to respond to corrective advice or to engage collaboratively during a disagreement,"~\cite{Wikipedia:Vandalism})
+Not all disruptive behaviour is vandalism, the guidelines suggest~\cite{Wikipedia:Vandalism}.
+
+Examples of "good faith" edits that are non the less disruptive are not complying with Wiki syntax (mostly because of being unfamiliar with it), deleting a page instead of moving it, using improper redirects or publishing test changes.
+
+Edit warring is not vandalism either~\cite{Wikipedia:Vandalism}.
+
+Oftentimes, it isn't a trivial task to distinguish good faith from vandalism edits.
+Based on content of the edit alone, it might be frankly impossible.
+This is also signaled for example on the STiki page ("Uncertainty over malice: It can be tricky to differentiate between vandalism and good-faith edits that are nonetheless unconstructive.")~\cite{Wikipedia:STiki}
+Following the guideline, a patrolling editor (or whoever reads) should asume good faith first and seek a converstation with the disrupting editor. (TODO: where is this suggested?)
+Only if the disrupting editor proves to be uncooperating, ignores warnings and continues disruptive behaviour, their edits are to be labelled "vandalism".
+
+## Properties/Characteristics
+
+- mostly done by new editors, not familiar with syntax, norms, guidelines
+- result in:
+  - broken syntax
+  - disregarding established processes (e.g. deleting something without running it through an Articles for Deletion process, etc.)
+  - non encyclopedic edits (e.g. without sources/with improper sourcers; badly styled; or with a skewed point of view)
+
+- there is also the guideline "be bold" (or similar), so one could expect to be able to for example add unwikified text, which is then corrected by somebody else
+
+## Examples
+
+Some of the filters in the "good faith" category target (public comment of the filter):
+- test edits
+- misplaced "#redirect" in articles
+- moves to or from Module namespace
+- Large creations by inexperienced users
+- creation of a new article without any categories
+- new user removing references
+- Adding "example.jpg" to article space
+
+## https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
+"Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were untrue, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. "
+\end{comment}
+
+\subsection{Editors' motivation}
+\begin{comment}
+# Filter according to editor motivation
+
+In some sense, the broader categories "vandalism" and "good faith" have something in common.
+They are both **motivations** out of which the editors act when composing their corresponding edits.
+As already signaled, on grounds of the edit contents alone, it is often not easy to distinguish whether we have to do with a "vandalism" or with a "good faith" edit.
+
+So, very different (contrasting?) motivations may result in identical edits.
+Does it make sense to label filters on these grounds then?
+In ambiguous cases (there are also the relatively inambiguous ones such as the infamous "poop" vandalism), there is no easy way to tell the motivation of the editor (that is, unless a communication with the editor is attempted and it's pointed out that their edits are disruptive and how to go about it in order to make a constructive contribution), neither for edit filter managers nor for us as researchers.
+
+In a way, "vandalism" and "good faith" cover all the possible experiences along the "motivation" axis:
+one of them refers to the edits made out of good and the other to the ones made out of bad intentions.
+
+("The road to hell is paved with good intentions.")
+
+## Open questions
+
+If discerning motivation is difficult, and, we want to achieve different results, depending on the motivation, that lead us to the question whether filtering is the proper mechanism to deal with disruptive edits.
+
+# Memo new users
+
+When comparing the *vandalism* and *good faith* memos, it comes to attention that both type of edits are usually performed by new(ly/recently registered) users (or IP addresses).
+
+A user who just registered an account is most probably inexperienced with Wikipedia, not familiar with all policies and guidelines and perhaps nor with MediaWiki syntax.
+
+It is also quite likely (to be verified against literature!) that majority of vandalism edits come from the same type of newly/recently registered accounts.
+In general, it is highly unlikely that an established Wikipedia editor should at once jeopardise the encyclopedia's purpose and start vandalising.
+\end{coment}
 
 \subsection{Maintenance}
 
+\begin{comment}
+# Filters with maintenance purpose
+
+Some of the encountered edit filters on the EN Wikipedia were targeting neither vandalism nor good faith edits.
+These had rather their focus on (semi-)automating routine (clean up) tasks.
+
+Some of the filters I labeled as "maintenance" were for instance recording cases of broken syntax caused by a faulty browser extention. (filter id!)
+Others were targeting bugs such as.. 
+
+577 -> "VisualEditor bugs: Strange icons"
+345 -> "Extraneous formatting from browser extension"
+313 -> "Skype Toolbar Formatting"
+199 -> "Unflagged Bots"
+505 -> "Tag mobile edits"
+728 -> "Huggle"
+209 -> "arwiki interwiki problem"
+
+The maintenance parent category differs conceptually from the other 2 in so far that filters in it don't target particular **intents** of the editors whose edits are triggering the filter, but rather "side"-occurances that mostly went wrong.
+
+## Bugs
+
+There are some 10 or so filters I manually labeled as targeting "bugs".
+Most of them do log only.
+\end{comment}