User talk:LFaraone/Privost/Brainstorming

Thoughts
I like it, a tool like this could be incredibly helpful and while I always tend to prefer built in solutions they just aren't always the best option. A couple initial thoughts:
 * Integration into the interface is possible to certain degrees for both a built in (extension or core) or an external tool. I wonder if some of those options should be included (either as part of the larger options or possibly as a separate thought all together. Some of those have pluses and minuses of course (easier to submit is also easier to abuse) but could be useful both for regular users and/or for admins etc to request.
 * I wonder if it would be better to have a tool work for both suppression and for deletion requests in general. I can see an argument either way and I'm not sure if it's worth the extra complexity but it makes sense to try make both easier 'if' it would.
 * I'm having difficulty envisioning great ways to expand on the OTRS workflow... what are you thinking? Things like on call schedules? [I will admit I'm biased against OTRS, it's always frustrated me] Jalexander--WMF 06:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OTRS is mostly there as a straw-man, but suggestions are welcome. I guess we could try to improve the notification emails, send reminders (if the software supports it?) etc. I agree, OTRS has always annoyed me too :) L Faraone  18:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hosting this on labs (or on tool labs) is entirely feasible, but has some caveats that will need some consideration: On the other hand, I'm pretty sure it would be completely inappropriate to host an external tool to manage supression requests anywhere but WMF infrastructure, so this is the only reasonable solution despite complexity. A suggestion on the user side would be to create a gadget to make reporting simpler on-wiki. &mdash; MPelletier (WMF) (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Only oversighters can have access to the tool (as even the existence of a request is potentially private information) – that necessarily includes every maintainer of the tool.
 * Given the possible sensitivity of the tool, it should be subject to security review and careful management of permissions. This is likely to require some attention from the WMF (though I do not expect that to be too onerous).
 * The interface will need to be internationalizable and localizable since the investment of creating this tool will pay off better if it can be used by stewards and oversighters from all projects.
 * Agreed on all counts. L Faraone  18:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, I think Marc has covered most of the bases. Personally, though, I don't find the Oversight workflow to be much of a burden. The CheckUser tool, on the other hand, could really use some work... ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)