Talk:Product Safety and Integrity/Anti-abuse signals/Suggested Investigations
Add topicSome questions
[edit]Dear @SGrabarczuk (WMF), deal all. Thank you for this information and for telling us about this new tool. I do have several questions:
- Has the community been notified? Or only the CUs?
- What exactly are we supposed to do with this table ? Having multiple accounts is not forbidden, only misusing of these accounts is. Does that mean that we (CUs), having access to this list of Suggested Investigations, are supposed to examine the contributions of the listed accounts to see if there is abuse / overlap / pov pushing etc? This was not our duty before.
- If we do this, the minimum help would be to include in the table a direct link to sigma.toolforge.org and other intersection tools.
- Are we allowed to publicly reveal suspicious cases to the community, for them to examine the contributions of the accounts, before we use the CU tools?
- The tab where we can select the number of lines does not work (the table always shows only 10 lines)
Thank you for your thoughts. --Lewisiscrazy (talk) 08:18, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks @Lewisiscrazy for all the questions. As you may have read on the project page, there's a confidentiality aspect to the details of the project, so we'll only give a partial answer here, and share more details via email.
- The purpose of this tool is to help CheckUsers identify potentially abusive accounts that might not be visible through regular patterns or reports. It only surfaces accounts that may warrant a closer look. The call is yours – our idea is definitely not to recommend decisively what should be checked.
- Thanks for your suggestion to link to other tools. We can consider adding direct links if that would make your work easier.
- We have fixed the bug with the special page where the bottom selector for the number of lines did not work (T405613: Suggested investigations: The CodexTablePager limit selector at the bottom of the pager does not work). If you still encounter this issue, let us know.
- Thanks! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Suggestions
[edit]Is there a private way community members can suggest potential signals for this tool? ChildrenWillListen (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, you could file a WMF-NDA task and tag it with CheckUser-SuggestedInvestigations. Thanks! KHarlan (WMF) (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- KHarlan (WMF) - Clicking on that link takes me to a "Access Denied: Restricted Edit Configuration" notice and with "You do not have permission to view this object" as the error message. :-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 22:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Suggestions to add to the tool
[edit]This tool is a wonderful start to something that will become powerful in helping checkusers investigate sockpuppetry and violations of policy. I'd like to see a few additional "statuses" be added in order for CUs to better facilitate suggestions as well as provide more detailed results that will almost-certainly become useful (if not now, then someday):
- 'New' (meaning that nobody has looked at it yet)
- 'Open' (meaning that someone has looked at it, added notes, left it for another CU to look at, etc.)
- 'In Progress' or 'Under Review...' (absolutely should be added - for obvious reasons)
- 'Awaiting 2O' or 'Awaiting input' (this could coincide possibly with 'open')
- 'Closed (no actions taken)'
- 'Closed (actions taken)'
There's likely additional statuses that could be added that would also be very helpful and useful, but these are the ones that I came up with on the top of my head while I was looking through and using Special:SuggestedInvestigations for the first time. :-) Does anyone else have input on this? What do you think? (If responding, please ping me so that I'm notified) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 05:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)