Wikipedia talk:Edit filter manager

RfC about the status of this page
Should the Edit filter manager page be promoted to a procedural policy? EggRoll97 (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Because the edit filter helper page is a procedural policy, and this page is not, I would have no objections to this. Codename Noreste  🤔  Talk  19:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. The content and guidelines on this page have community consensus and are followed regularly, so promoting this to a policy page is a good idea. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Makes sense - it's comparable in importance, structure and level of consensus to the EFH page which is a procedural policy. Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems reasonable, and this is essentially already followed as such. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 22:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: per everyone supporting above. –  Pharyngeal Implosive7  (talk)  18:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This makes sense. Nobody  ( talk ) 05:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No objections, but I'll add that self-noms should be added as a requirement per Special:PermaLink/1217561114, where discussion clearly reached a consensus to require self-noms for both EFM and EFH requests. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 05:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That seems sensible as well. Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I am wondering why EFM wasn't mentioned in that closing argument. Nobody  ( talk ) 09:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No objections personally, though I'm not sure if found consensus for EFM self-nom requirements in addition to the consensus for EFH self-nom requirements in that discussion. Speaking on my own, when I !voted in that, I wasn't necessarily under the assumption it covered EFMs, but that it was intended to stop third party nominations of EFHs. Uncontroversial none-the-less, though, and the only non-self-nom I can find for EFM is Danny's nomination by SoY. EggRoll97 (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)