Wikipedia talk:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/User Mute features

More consensus needed
This was #127 in the 2016 community wishlist, with only 14 support votes. Before any development takes place, there needs to be more consensus that this is needed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for comment. The Phabricator ticket shows the history of the work done on the Notification blacklist. The work was started first by a volunteer last year, and later worked on by WMF staff, and recently jointly at the Hackathon.  We'll document this timeline better on wiki so that it is more obvious without going to Phabricator. As a new team we are just now adapting prioritization lists, best practices, and engaging in discussion with the wikimedia movement regularly about our work. In the future there will be more advanced notice of our potential work and ample opportunity for engagement about it. But because of the variety of stakeholder for the Anti-harassment tools team's work, we are unlikely use a vote on wiki as the sole way to prioritize our work.


 * On English Wikipedia, look for announcements and discussions on the Village pump and Wikipedia talk:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia SPoore (WMF) (talk), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Changes we are making to the blacklist before release & Release strategy and post-release analysis
Hello;

I've posted #Changes we are making to the blacklist before release and #Release strategy and post-release analysis for those interested. Feedback appreciated. — TBolliger (WMF) (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Rename from 'Blacklist' to 'Muted users'
Hello everyone. Before this leaves beta and released as a feature, we're reconsidering the name. 'Blacklist' feels too aggressive and provocative so we'd like to rename the feature. We're thinking the verb would be to 'Mute.' The section in preferences would be labeled 'Muted users'. Thoughts? Alternative suggestions? — Trevor Bolliger, WMF Product Manager 🗨  20:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Not a fan...
I'm not a fan of this system. People who harass other tend to get blocked, Fast. so I don't think it's neccessary. However: "If Bananas reverts an edit made by Apples, Apples will not receive the notification." is a good enough reason to shun it. Kleuske (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Kleuske, I'm interested in understanding why that you think that it should be shunned? Giving an individual user tools to mute another user is a common feature of many website sites. Why do you think that it is not a good feature for Wikimedia wikis? SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of the OP is that it aligns with a common view in the community that things should be done in the open (transparently) except for extreme cases, and that "instruction creep" should be resisted. The mute feature is not instruction creep, but I guess the idea is that it is another layer when what should happen is that the harasser gets blocked, or possibly just a final warning. The "good enough reason to shun it" comment is saying that if Apples is watching an article and makes an edit to the article, Apples should be notified if anyone reverts their edit, including if the reverter is Bananas. My opinion is that most commentators at, for example WP:ANI, do not have experience of harassment and have not thought through what might be done to resist it. At ANI, if Bananas did little of benefit to the encyclopedia and poked Apple with low-level nonsense, it is likely something would be done—Bananas would get a final warning with an indefinite block to follow if ignored. However, if Bananas occasionally did useful things, even it was only updating statistics in wrestling articles, ANI could easily give no useful outcome. Blatant harassment will get a block, but it is much harder to work out the underlying cause of low-level needling to decide which editor should be blocked. I know some cases which would have benefitted from the mute feature—thanks for its development! Not getting a notification if Bananas reverts Apples might be unwanted by some, but people are not all the same, and it is best if Apples can continue working without poking from Bananas. If Apples is concerned about particular articles on their watchlist they will still see the edit. Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A further problem here is that a newbie definition of harassment is most certainly not the wikipedia definition
 * Newbie "Stop harassing me Roxy!!!"
 * Roxy "I'm not harassing you, I'm asking you to stop using primary sources"
 * Newbie ++MUTE++
 * I'm not looking forward to this being implemented. -Roxy the dog. bark 08:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Concur with this. It's a behavioural tendency that is very common on fora that have some type of personal block list: the people who use it most liberally are those who are most in need of listening to constructive advice. Providing a tool to enable personal WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT enforcement seems like a recipe for increased miscommunication, rancor, and blowups. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ""If Bananas reverts an edit made by Apples, Apples will not receive the notification.". If edits of mine get reverted, I need to know in order to respond. At the very least to learn why it got reverted, what got reverted and who reverted it and (perhaps) discuss it. I've seen features like this wreak havoc on other platforms, create echo-chambers and be generally divisive: Steve Shives blocking people on twitter is the perfect example. Again, not a fan. If anyone is harassing someone else, we've got ways of dealing with that.
 * "Out in the open"? Hell, yes. A Wikipedia full of muted editors is not an environment that stimulates discussion and collaboration.
 * "Blatant harassment will get a block, but it is much harder to work out the underlying cause of low-level needling to decide which editor should be blocked" Low-level needling is not something we need a feature for and it seems to me that if it got to ANI, it's not low-level. besides, the things that do not get resolved are usually the complicated stuff (where it's hard to make out who did what to whom), not one editor pestering another. Those are usually dealt with swiftly.
 * I should have been more clear, though... It's a good enough reason for me to shun it. Other editors can make up their own minds. Kleuske (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A further problem here is that a newbie definition of harassment is most certainly not the wikipedia definition
 * Newbie "Stop harassing me Roxy!!!"
 * Roxy "I'm not harassing you, I'm asking you to stop using primary sources"
 * Newbie ++MUTE++
 * I'm not looking forward to this being implemented. -Roxy the dog. bark 08:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And this is exactly how it is bound to be [ab]used. I do have to wonder if this has been properly thought through at all. -- Begoon 10:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Kleuske, Roxy the dog, and Begoon,


 * I'm replying here but will also make a longer more detailed reply in a more prominent location where we can talk more about the specific scenarios mentioned.


 * The Anti-harassment tools teams did research about the different ways that an user can stop communication to them on internet platforms. It shows that there are different types and levels of stopping communication.


 * One type is a feature that allows one user to prohibits all communication from another user. Depending on the website it may or may not be temporary. Another type is to allow adjustments to the level or type of communication that individuals receive. This would be temporary and can include adjustments to who and how they receive notifications from a single user or a category of users. Another option that allows for temporarily stopping all direct communications from select users or categories of users might be possible, too.


 * The user mute notifications feature that the Anti-harassment tools team implemented falls in the lowest level of stopping communications between users. Direct communication through on all types of pages (main article space, talk, etc), edit summaries, and by email is still completely available. One user still has the ability to locate and read contributions made by another user. Watchlist notifications are not effected if they are turned on.


 * The only method of communication that is stopped by user mute notifications is notifications which is an optional feature. The purpose of notifications is to trigger a message on wiki or by email about an edit or other action (thanking, reverting, etc) to draw attention to the edit or action. The edit and action are still visible on wiki whether or not someone mutes it.


 * Since notifications are an extra method of communication, they are not reliable for important on wiki workflows (like notifications for deletions) and dispute resolution processes. A direct message on a user talk page is required.


 * Even having all notification turned off does not significantly interfere with someones ability to leave good advice for an user. If an user is ignoring good advice and mutes you, it is would have been unlikely for you to change their mind. Because in the unfortunate event that a new user reacts so badly to your clean up work or talk page post explaining policy that they mute you, your communication has already broken down to the point that more communication by you is unlikely to change their mind.


 * Additionally, we need to recognize that I Did not hear that can be over used by some users who are aggressive in the way that they monitor articles and quickly revert with snarky messages and leave rudely worded WP:IDHT posts. It should be perfectly acceptable for someone to use the user mute feature to ignore bullying while trying to resolve the matter in other ways.


 * Thoughts? SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * So, this feature doesn't actually mute my advice to newbies. Have I understood you correctly? It just stops notifications of my advice to newbies if I ping them on an article talkpage or their own talkpage? A pointless feature, yes? -Roxy the dog. bark 12:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Roxy the dog., to clarify, it is true that user mute will stop notifications from a ping made from an article talk page. But a post to the user's own talk page still sends notifications. Since notifications to the user talk page are part of workflows for some important processes like deletions discussions, conflict resolutions, etc. it was not included. SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello all. A few points to consider. 1) Prior to the introduction of mute, no user must use notifications or receive email. Everyone can turn one or both off. Prior to mute, anyone including new users could turn off notifications if they didn't like getting any or all types of the messages. So, if a new user wants to stop getting notified about your reverts they can do that now by unchecking the box in preferences. Now instead of disabling all notifications, users will able to select muting individual users. This approach has the potential to increase notifications not lessen them. 2) New editors are often confused by rules and need explanations about policy left on their user talk page. Experienced editors also need to have feedback about their edits and user talk pages are available to notify them about important discussions they need to see. User talk pages unaffected by mute. 3) It is true that entrenched user conflicts, harassment, personal attacks, and other conduct issues need to be addressed through other long term method. But short term, muting the the offending user can give much needed relief while the situation is under review. 4) The Anti-harassment tools team is looking for feedback about how the mute features can be improved. A review/evaluation of the notifications mute feature is planned. We need your feedback after use to point out problems and best examples of successful use. 5) To date, little research has been done about the various types of user conflict and harassment on English Wikipedia. The Anti-harassment tools team is investigating Administrators Noticeboards and doing user interviews to gain a better understanding about the issues. When these results are shared, the English Wikipedia community can better prioritize the solutions to address conflict and harassment. SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We're "reviewing" and "discussing" it now, Sydney. How about the WMF breaking its habit of just imposing stuff ahead of consensus just to see what happens? -- Begoon - Community Member 20:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi all. I am glad to see this is in process and gathering attention. While the community can bring up things it would like the community and WMF to work on, these tools and policies for anti-harassment can be tricky.
 * Let me just put a hypothetical scenario out here: People who are harassed often are not going to be putting themselves out there more. They might become more reserved. Historically, people who have been harassed have been questioned, judged, and sometimes their experience diminished (not just on-wiki, but in society as a whole). For someone to voice their support and need for these tools, I can see how it would not be well received. I mean, just look at this conversation. And because canvassing is a thing, people who dislike something can bring attention to it and the minority who need the tools, they're being shut down and shut out by the majority who don't see this as an issue at all.
 * Finally, if someone comes to my door, I don't have to answer it. I can block calls on my phone. I can block people in my email. So, who is being hurt by users being able to make choices on their own accounts about muting people?
 * Is collaboration being hurt? Likely not. Let me explain why. If Apples is annoyed by Bananas, then Apples might not want to participate as often on Wiki-projects. Apples doesn't want to turn off all notifications, which could impact collaboration. If Apples can mute Bananas, contributing is fun again!
 * Just because you don't need this tool, does not mean others don't need it. Jackiekoerner (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * +1. Not all tools are for all users, and those most likely to use this tool are least likely to engage on a contentious discussion page like this one (it's the rare editor being harassed who will proactively look for more new contentious public discussions to join!). I'm looking forward to seeing what is learned from this new feature as it begins to be used by real life editors in practice. Cheers! Siko (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Allow by group
A small number of editors are subject to long-term harassment. I know of cases where the just-released mute features would be insufficient since a harasser can create dozens of throw-away accounts and use them to annoy their target. How about adding an option to allow only notifications from users with a specified user access level. For example, Apples could allow notifications only by users with the WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED (30 days/500 edits) right. This request is particularly important for the under-development EmailUser Mute. Johnuniq (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See here. I suspect this would be next in the development queue. MER-C 03:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Johnuniq, yes, this is one of the additional options being considered, especially for EmailUser mute. It is my favorite improvement that we've discussed so far because I think that it could significantly decrease the amount of throwaway accounts doing harassment by email. SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As one who has received hundreds of abusive mails through the wikipedia mail system, I would strongly encourage the implementation of this. Personally, I have long ago unticked "Enable email from other users" because of abuse. This feature is much more needed than this "mute" feature. Huldra (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment from AN
I was asked to add a comment I made at AN here, so:

I do see a certain potential for this "feature" to become a new source of petty bickering over "who muted who, and how would I know that if I wasn't informed?" though. Also, if a genuinely harassed user might, in future be told to "just mute them" instead of having possibly valid concerns dealt with properly, then that would not be a good thing. -- Begoon 10:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Concur with Begoon. We do not need features that hamper communication.  Tide  rolls  14:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Prior to User mute notification, everyone can turn off notifications of various types in User Preferences. An user would not know whether or not all pings are turned off or only for them unless it was disclosed to them. So, there is no guarantee that a notification reaches anyone. That is the reason that User talk page notifications must be used for important notifications.


 * Also, when two users don't get along with each other, early on, the advice is often given to one or both "to ignore each other and just go about your work." The User mute feature makes this more possible. It is a tool to decrease negative interactions without going through a long drawn out discussion on wiki that results in interactions bans. Not a perfect solution (few are), but an useful tool in some circumstances. SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I won't revisit the whole debacle of the change in notification features, Sydney, but I wasn't/am not a fan of those either. Again, they impede communication.  I've learned over the years not to put a lot of energy in arguing points opposite Meta and WMF positions.  I just had to speak my conscience. Done now.  Tide  rolls  15:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sydney, I don't really see how that response addresses my specific concerns, sorry. I also share ' feelings about the general [in]utility of expressing disagreement with WMF imposed decisions. It's frustrating, and I truly wish that wasn't so. -- Begoon 00:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Implementation
There's no community consensus for implementing this at this point. Please do not do so until one exists. -- Begoon 11:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. -Roxy the dog. bark 13:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Doug Weller  talk 17:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It needs a much wider discussion. I don't see any problem with the email part; the notifications muting has a number of possible issues as mentioned above. Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I’m sorry that folks haven’t heard about the Notifications Mute feature until today. We announced that we were working on it and asked for feedback in several places, including on the Village pump: (see Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 55) and we didn’t really get a lot of response. We also talked about it a lot at Wikimania earlier this month and didn’t hear any negative reactions to the idea then. But this Mute feature is our team’s first feature, and we’re still figuring out the best way to reach folks who are interested in our work.

We think this feature is important for people who are feeling harassed and bothered by another editor, who’s pinging them in multiple places just for the sake of getting under their skin. This isn’t an uncommon case on Wikipedia, probably everybody’s experienced it at least a little bit at some point. We see the feature as an option that people can use to lower the volume in those situations. It doesn’t set up an impenetrable wall, or make the other person’s messages disappear. If somebody needs to talk to them about their editing behavior, they can post on the user talk page, and that still generates the regular notifications. So we don’t really see this as a huge barrier to communication.

Some people here have said that if an editor is bugging you, then you can go to an admin and get them swiftly blocked. That’s just not what we’ve seen on wiki, and that’s not what we’ve heard from the user interviews that we’ve done. Getting somebody blocked is a fairly drawn-out and serious process. Also, the intention here is to lower the volume on an interaction before it turns into a blockable event. It’s a tool that people can use for temporary relief when they just want to get some work done in another part of the wiki, without being constantly pinged to unrelated pages because somebody’s upset with them.

I understand that folks are concerned that people will use this feature as a tool to create more drama. That’s possible, but that feels like something that we could look at when it actually happens. The feature is currently released and available for people to use, and it doesn’t feel like the potential of people bickering over it is more important than the value that it can provide for the people who want to use it, especially if it helps retain users who might otherwise quit editing entirely or disable all of their notifications. What do you think? — Trevor Bolliger, WMF Product Manager 🗨  18:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * So, TBolliger, how would you deal with what will be a typical situation, handily highlighted in green, above? Edit, and on re-reading your post, your announcement of this is hardly designed to inform, is it?-Roxy the dog. bark 18:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * In that situation, you would post on the newbie's user talk page, and have the conversation about using primary sources. The newbie will still get notifications about their own user talk. This feature doesn't cut you off from communication with other editors; it's just fine control over which notifications you want to see. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * And, to nobody's surprise, the WMF response is "we hear what you say but we're doing it anyway". That approach has always worked out well. -- Begoon 20:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Begoon, Trevor's post today and my previous update did not make it clear that the feature was implemented on August 28th on all wikis that have echo notification. I'm sorry that we did not make that clear earlier in the discussion. SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello all, I would like to chime in with a few more considerations and invite you to engage with the Anti-harassment tools team because we are interested in more feedback on the feature.

These are some of the social aspects of the tool that were taken into account when designing the mute feature. I'm sure that there is room for additional considerations and welcome your additions.:
 * Q. Most importantly, would a new user mute for the notifications feature change any key workflows or policy enforcement practices?
 * A. No, because echo notifications is an optional feature and not required to be turned or used by any user. Other methods of notification are required for dispute resolution processes or other important types of notifications.
 * Q. Will the selective use of the mute feature increase the overall use of notifications.
 * A. Maybe. We don't know for sure. But if we can stop people turning off the notification from all users to avoid unproductive notifications from an individual person than that would increase overall use.


 * Q. Can a reduction in unproductive notification make Wikipedia a more welcoming environment? Can the new mute feature be used to address negative interactions between users early in a conflict and prevent escalation?
 * A. Maybe. Increased availability of user preferences could help mitigate some types of conflicts that come from differences in style of communication. It adds more ability to control interactions that an user finds particularly annoying.
 * Q. Will a mute feature introduce potential opportunites for abuse or conflict?
 * A. Yes, my personal observation over 11 years shows that virually all types of features can and will be abused. And many can be used to escalate conflict. We need to monitor and make changes as needed. Some changes that were already made are a) The list of muted users was changed to private so it would not be seen as a public enemies list. b) The feature was renamed to mute instead of blacklist which has a strong negative connetation.


 * Q. Will the user mute feature decrease collaboration?
 * A. Probablly not. The feature is different from blocking features on other websites that permenentally and totally stop all communications paths between individuals on the platform. But we are watching and want to find good methods to measure the effect it has.


 * Q. What are the unintended consquences of the user mute feature?
 * A. We don't know yet. But we are interested in learning about them so the feature can be improved to eliminate them if possible. We've taken note of the several situations mention on this page and would like to talk them through further to better understand the conserns.

We are interested in hearing your thoughts about how we can gauge whether the feature is making Wikipedia more welcoming and collaborative community. SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Other websites have it
But most of those other websites probably tend to be recreational discussion forums, not collaborative workspaces. "Ignoring another user and going about your work" is fine if you're talking about your favorite sports teams on Reddit, but here that's called edit warring and is an easy way to get blocked. Most of the time it seems that more discussion is in order than less.

I think most of the problems with collegiality are driven by daily territorial disputes over the articles more than by personal dislike. The latter develops out of the former. It may be nice at first to be able to ignore abrasive personalities on the other side...but if you do this it is likely to hamper your own ability to influence the article, which is why anyone is really here. And in aggregate, this might make it harder for POV-tribes to have dialog with each other. That won't improve content quality or make the place more collegial. I'm glad that the WMF is looking at experiences of other websites to see how to improve the editing environment, but Wikipedia's unique mission means that not everything will transfer. Geogene (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * made this point well, above: "Providing a tool to enable personal WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT enforcement seems like a recipe for increased miscommunication, rancor, and blowups." -- Begoon 23:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that the WMF is looking at the experiences of other websites, but it is pretty disheartening to see they don't realize that a tool that's appropriate in one context might be inappropriate in another. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * With that said, it does seem like most of the (extremely valid) criticisms above are directed specifically at the notification mute. Email mute sounds like a good idea to me. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia did ok when all notifications were muted because they weren't implemented yet. ApLundell (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The below was split off to a new section briefly, it has now been re-merged per comments below clarifying the focus.
 * While other web sites that have muting features may not have the kind of collaborative workspaces that we have on Wikipedia, they are not all merely recreational disucssion forums either. Serious topics are discussed on sites like Medium, for example. A good essay that Anil Dash posted on there, "The Immoral Myths of Online Abuse", brings up points relevant to this issue. Funcrunch (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding the essay, Funcrunch. We're interested in learning from outside voices in additions to members of the wikimedia movement. SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Specifically, what points do you find relevant to this discussion? Geogene (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In particular (and in reference to this entire talk page, not just this subsection): Point 4 ("False: Most people say 'abuse' when they just mean criticism"), Point 8 ("False: Abuse can be fixed without dedicated resources"), and the bottom line ("We are accountable for the communities we create"). Funcrunch (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Since none of that is relevant to the points I raised at the top of the subsection, would you consider moving your remarks to the relevant subsection(s) ? Geogene (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree that none of it is relevant, so no. Funcrunch (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Moved. Geogene (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate you moving my comments when I specifically declined your invitation to "consider moving your remarks". My comments were not just about Medium. Funcrunch (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Moving this to its own section changed the meaning and apparent intent of Funcrunch's comment. ApLundell (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting logic. The argument you've put forward is that an editor who is being harassed should not have the ability to mute their harasser, because you see a "danger in ignoring abrasive personalities on the other side" which could impede our collaborative project. But at the same time, in this collaborative discussion you've moved another editor's direct response to your comment, when they civilly offered a different perspective from your own, which both refactored their comment (against their request) and sidelined an "other side" in this discussion. I'm moving it back, let's keep discussion on the same topic together here, per Funcrunch's clarification. Siko (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Exceptions
I think this series of features makes sense in its core. There is already the option to achieve this - logging out - and that is a choice we don't want people to make. There are a few thoughts though: effeietsanders 20:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw suggestions to add mute functionality by a third party. It sounds like something you may want to make available for arbcom (who typically have more leeway in coming up with alternative solutions). I would suggest to put an expiration date on such third party mutes. In that case you may also want to add the option to mute someone to large groups of users.
 * It would make sense to me to allow communities to make exceptions to the mute-option. For example, I can very well imagine that there are certain officials that they don't want to be muted (again, for example arbcom members), because they may have important messages to deliver - even if they don't want to hear it. It's a fringe case though, I'd be totally fine to handle that through Phabricator on a case-by-case basis.
 * Is it possible to make mute a global thing, rather than local?


 * Hello thank you for your suggestions and question. In addition to mute we're also thinking of ways to support different editing restrictions. An admin or ArbCom mandated Mute may very well fall into this bucket. I've added it as "required muting." Could you please clarify what you mean by "In that case you may also want to add the option to mute someone to large groups of users." — are you suggesting Bananas would not receive notifications if group muted, or would not be able to send notifications?


 * Yes, I agree that there may need to be some users who are exceptioned from being Muted. This could be done by a permission level or on a user-by-user level. We're open to building either if the need presents itself.


 * As for making this global... After a technical investigation (see Phabricator ticket T171624) we realized it would take several months to build a global solution. We still would like to (T167902) but perhaps Global Preferences (T16950) will suffice. — Trevor Bolliger, WMF Product Manager 🗨  22:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the responses. With the option to mute someone to larger groups (arbcom mandated), I meant that Bananas would not be able to send notifications to that group. But it's an edge case - so if that gets complex, I wouldn't worry too much about it.
 * As for the exceptions, if you can commit to make exceptions quickly, if the need presents itself, that would definitely be sufficient. I don't expect a whole lot of cases. (I'm mostly thinking making exceptions to users with certain rights, rather than a set of individuals).
 * I think including this in the Global Preferences would make sense. No need to duplicate that effort indeed. effeietsanders 07:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Where is this Mute feature?
? -Roxy the dog. bark 12:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It's at the bottom of the Notifications tab on Preferences. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now I understand better what is going on, it wont affect me much, if at all. I will still be able to point out to newbies what they are doing wrong. I couldn't care less if they ignore me, because it likely means they'll either get blocked, or pissed off and leave. I'm unwatchlisting this page. I am curious about how much money this exercise is costing though!! I've never seen so many WMF sigs on one page. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Since this is a WMF initiative, it makes sense to me that the WMF employees involved would comment on it. Would it be better for them to remain silent instead of responding to editors' questions and concerns? Funcrunch (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't resist saying that it would be better for them to do something useful for us editors. This isn't it. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Us" editors is all relative. It's great that you don't need to use this tool! I hope I won't ever need it either. But for even just the 14 editors who explicitly took the time to say they wanted it on the community wishlist, I hope it helps meet their needs. Looking forward to learning more about how that works out - kudos to the folks experimenting with new tools to address harassment on our projects. Siko (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're interested in what else our team is working on this year, you can check out the results of this year's Community Wishlist Survey, and the projects described on the Community health initiative on English Wikipedia page. This is one part of a pretty broad series of projects. :) -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Ironic
From comments here and at ANI, and from older discussions, it is rather ironic that one of the most persistent situations of editors not feeling welcome and even feeling chased away is the communication between editors and the WMF, with people not bothering any longer to discuss things with WMF (here, at Meta, Phabricator, ...) for a number of reasons, including the way some people at the WMF tend to "mute" criticism and critics (e.g. by throwing them off phabricator, or by removing requests from the wishlists because they don't fit the pre-defined categories or rules). I don't know if it has made the official "community wishlist", but a completely different approach to project choice, software development, software rollout, and communication with the communities, seems to be a clear wish from a fair number of editors on enwiki (and from what I have seen at least dewiki as well), way ahead off this "mute" feature and the like. Fram (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I get the impression this is quite deviating from the purpose of this conversation. If you have feedback on how the community wishlist is put together, I propose that you put that forward on the appropriate place. I would also suggest however that you add a few citations to your comments, as my hands are itching to type 'citation needed' to some of your statements. effeietsanders 10:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (mute) Fram (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Yay.
Feel my lack of enthusiasm. We need to collaborate and communicate. Will we be able to force editors to un-mute others? 95% of the time, if you have to be muted, you need a wiki-break. L3X1 (distænt write)  03:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there is confusion over what muting entails. Suppose some point is being disputed at an article talk page where several editors are arguing. Muting has no effect on that situation—people can continue arguing with no restriction. If someone changes the article but does not engage in the discussion, anyone can go to the person's talk and ask them to engage at article talk. Notifications have always been an optional feature, so pinging someone has never been sure to work (particularly when many people don't follow the details of adding a new notification with a new signature). Muting is an option so if an editor wants to withdraw from the topic they can do so, without the irritation of being repeatedly pinged by enthusiasts who want to continue despite others having withdrawn. People are different—some welcome the opportunity to slap down opponents, while others just want to withdraw. Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * But you don't mute a discussion, you mute selected editors. Fram (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, a person can mute notifications from one or more individuals. However an editor who wants a certain outcome at an article must participate in discussions on its talk page. I have seen cases where clueless contributors continue pinging people long after they have been driven off. That would not worry me but people are different. Notifications from battleground participants might not rise to the level of getting action at ANI but still cause irritation or discomfort for the recipient. Yes, I have seen it. No, I'm not going to link to examples. Johnuniq (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an auto-time kick? After a certain amount of time, say 3 months, the name will be removed from the mute list? L3X1 (distænt write)  22:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also the mute feature doesn't take care of that person editing your talk page? I muted and then used that account to change the status setting liek I usually do daily, it still displayed the Echo "New Messages" thing yellow. L3X1  (distænt write)  01:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's good. Of course a person is notified if someone posts on their talk. The person has the option of asking the poster to not repeat, and anyone could take a repeat offender to ANI if they insisted on making unwarranted posts. Hassling someone on their talk page often ends with sanctions because the abuse is so obvious. Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Why was this implemented?
WMF people; there was no consensus for this at the 2016 Community Wishlist (14 support, 10 oppose), there were requests here from the very beginning until now either not to implement it or to get a clear consensus first, but you implemented it anyway. Why do you have a community wishlist survey if you don't respect the community wishes anyway and just do whatever you like? This is not something critical that had to be implemented (like the watchlist restriction to max 1000 changes) no matter if people liked it or not. Fram (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The Anti-Harassment Tools team is a sub-team of the WMF’s Community Tech team specifically formed to build tools to mitigate harassment and user misconduct on Wikipedia. Although we’ve found inspiration from Wishlist proposals our work is not prioritized based on Wishlist results.


 * We 100% honestly want and need community input to make sure we’re building real solutions to real problems. We started conversations about this Mute feature back in June across both Meta and ENWP but we should have done more to get more voices involved, including both those who supported and opposed the initial Wishlist proposal and those who’ve never heard of it. We can always do better in bringing more people to the conversation. — Trevor Bolliger, WMF Product Manager 🗨  23:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * ...but in the meantime we implemented it anyway. Right... Fram (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

A scenario
"For example, if User:Apples mutes User:Bananas on English Wikipedia:
 * Bananas can still link to the username of User:Apples on a talk page and successfully save their changes, but Apples will not receive a notification that Bananas mentioned them.
 * Bananas will still receive a 'successful mention' notification, if they've enabled that preference."

Now I can kind of see why - if the system isn't telling B that A has muted them, then the fact that there was no 'successful mention' notification would "give the game away" - so we tell B his mention was successful.

But let's assume there was no real conflict between the 2 fruits, but A has decided to mute B just because he thinks he's had a couple too many trivial pings from him lately.

So, a while later, something really important happens, and B starts pinging A to a page. He does this a few times, each time receiving a 'successful mention' notification, until, confused by the continued lack of response, he goes to A's talk page and says "Hey, I've been pinging you like mad - page X is about to explode!" "Oh, yeah", says A, "sorry, I muted you..."

Poor old B, never thought he'd done anything wrong - thought A was his friend. Now he's shattered and angry.

This is wikipedia - tell me that won't happen... -- Begoon 10:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is also the case if the other user has entirely disabled the 'Mention' preference. Situations like this (among many others) are why user talk page notifications are still delivered. — Trevor Bolliger, WMF Product Manager 🗨  16:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all. In the case where A has disabled all mention notifications he simply tells B "oh, yeah, I turned off pings", and B is not upset at being individually snubbed. Of course, in my scenario, A could lie and say the same thing - but I'm not sure that's an ideal solution, particularly since B may have seen obvious examples of A responding to other people's pings, and now he's not only upset at being muted, but also at being lied to...
 * I'm a bit disappointed you just gave this the standard, glib, "that's why the talk page exists" brush off. Editor interactions are complex and varied, and notifications have become central to the dynamic. The notification system is the best enhancement WMF have provided in my memory, and I'm concerned that you don't reduce its benefits, or create situations where it is seen as a problem rather than a solution. If this is the depth of analysis you guys want to give to concerns about potential issues, after actively asking for feedback, then I'm sorry I wasted everybody's time - although, comparatively, I don't think all that much of yours was wasted. -- Begoon 23:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies in the brevity of my response, I assure you I did take time to think about my response. I acknowledge that such a scenario could happen but I do not believe that it would ever be detrimental to a wikifriendship.
 * While building Notifications Mute we considered how granular the mute should be: per each notification type? per page? should we add a timelimit or auto-expiration? We decided to not build these because they would have greatly increased development time and we didn't feel they were neccesary for the type of problem this feature is intending to solve — low level unwanted communication between two users. We're not against expanding this in the future — I'd love to make Mute work cross-wiki, add more types of interactions to be mutable, and allow for more granular settings.
 * In the short term we could possibly update Your mention of Foobar was sent to be more vague, such as Your mention of Foobar was successful but the existence of the notification still implies a notification was delivered. Or do you think the user should see a Failed Mention notification, which would give the game away and likely cause more drama than it prevents. — Trevor Bolliger, WMF Product Manager 🗨  23:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's difficult for me to answer. Basically I don't like this mute feature at all, I think it's pointless fiddling with something that works very well, with lots of potential to make it work less well and little potential to make it work better - so the tempting, glib response for me would be: this question goes away if we just don't have this feature at all.
 * But I'll try to answer. I don't like the 'secrecy' involved and believe this will always be detrimental and dangerous in our open model. I don't like the fact that a user is unaware they have been muted. I don't like the fact that the system then lies/misleads them by suggesting they are sending successful pings when they are not. I do understand why the implementation does things this way, but to me this irreconcilable dilemma with no good answer says that maybe it's worth considering that there might be a fundamental flaw in the whole concept. That's about as well as I can express my thoughts, and it's probably not very helpful if we're treating the mute feature as a fait accompli which can only be "lived with" or "fixed", so my apologies for that, because I guess, in the end, all I did was find a longer way to say "this question goes away if we just don't have this feature at all". Sorry. -- Begoon 00:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * One final thought, as an addendum: Now that the feature has been introduced, prior to proper, wide community discussion and consensus, and some people are presumably using it, even if discussions here reached the conclusion "ok - it's no good, let's not have it", removing it would obviously be orders of magnitude more problematical than not introducing it would have been. We still do this wrong. Discussion and input is not sought widely enough or early enough to avoid the community being unhappy at feeling things are 'imposed' on them or the WMF being unhappy that development investment and resources have been wasted. We should do this better. -- Begoon 00:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Some notes
As one who edit in the Israel/Palestine area, I'm not unfamiliar with abuse, to put it diplomatically. (My user page is protected for a reason, as I believe admins can see.) I am baffled by this new "tool" ...personally I don't see any use for it.

Yes, I'm registered at several discussion forums, where such "mute" button is usual, and there I use it...quite often. At such places one eventually learn who has something useful to say.....and who doesn't.

But Wikipedia isn't a discussion forum. Well, at least not mainly! If someone calls me a "rabid muslim loving terrorist", (see this) or revert me, I would certainly like to know.

If you want to help harassed editors, what about SUL protect of user page? I have suggested it here. My user page here on en.wp is protected, so it my meta, commons, and I believe de.wp pages.....That only leaves a 100+ wikis for next time my dear old friend get access to a computer again, Huldra (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

PS: The above suggestion, of only allowing emails from, say users who have WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED (30 days/500 edits), is something I have wanted for years....
 * It's true that mute would not assist editors such as yourself, although being able to mute people under the 500/30 threshold may be helpful. However, there are a cases where a productive editor wants to get on with useful contributions while keeping away from a couple of annoying people and where the annoyances would not get attention at ANI. Mute would help them. Johnuniq (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, if you say so. I just cannot see that this can be of any help to editors in the I/P area, which has the reputation as being one of the worst areas on WP. And I definitely want to see the edits made by users who are under the 500/30 threshold: they can still physically edit most of the article in the I/P area...and they do the most vandalism. It is only my mail I want to be muted for such editors. Huldra (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for giving your input. I sincerely appreciate you providing your suggestions about what would or would not be helpful for you. We hope to provide a suite of features that can be used or not used to the benefit of a particular user. As we learn more about Wikihounding, I'm seeing that there is a subset of editors who would benefit from being able to mute people that engage with them in an unproductive way. Cases brought to AN/I are often not resolved because there is not clear cut evidence that someone is breaking a policy. But there is no doubt that there is unproductive communication happening. Giving someone the option to selectively turn off notifications for one person (instead of all notifications) seems like a good short term solution for someone who wants to get on with their wiki work and is being annoyed or harassed. SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that users should have more control over their personal userspaces (e.g. setting which user groups can edit your userpage) and I strongly agree that we need to reconsider how users can be contacted on wikis where they never/rarely edit (including writing on the userpage.) We have both of these projects in our queue and I wish I could provide a more specific timeline, but we'll likely get to these in mid-2018, unless there is a swell of support and urgency we see for these from the community! — Trevor Bolliger, WMF Product Manager 🗨  23:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, User:TBolliger (WMF), we don't really need more control over our user pages....my user page has been protected since 2014, and so has other user pages in the area.....admins have been very helpful both in cleaning up my user page, and protecting it. (Thank you, thank you, thank you, all admins reading this!!)
 * But we do need a system where by no vandal can just register under any user name, then send emails, without even making a single edit!! That is what we have today, and that is why I don't have my "Enable email from other users" enabled. (Well, it is an improvement: today you can only send, what it is, half a dozen? emails. Around 2010, I regularly had to delete hundreds, and hundreds of emails....But half a dozen email of the type: "I will slit your throat"/"I will gas you to death"....is still half a dozen emails too many.)
 * And while I'm at it, what about that universal SUL protect?
 * Aaaaand, what about protecting my username? As I mentioned here, why can editors make usernames starting with Huldra, of the type Huldra_something_very_nasty?? If WMF people had vandals making username like User:TBolliger_(WMF)_torn_apart_alive_by_hunting_dogs, or User:SPoore_(WMF)_likes_Arab_dick_in_her_ass, how long do you think it would have taken to get this on top of the priority list? Not long, I suspect. But when it is just an ordinary editor like me, it is just not on the radar. Huldra (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I thought by SUL protection you meant user page protection across all Wikimedia projects, including those where you never/rarely edit. This can either be done by the user, local functionary, or global functionary. Am I misunderstanding? If so, could you please help me understand what you mean?
 * As for attacking usernames: we have that idea in our queue and could jump on it as soon as we have a solid idea of how to address this problem. I've started Community health initiative/Mechanisms to prohibit blatant attack usernames on Meta Wiki with some initial thoughts, some background info, and a link to the Phabricator ticket. We definitely think this avenue of harassment needs to be addressed but don't currently have any strong ideas on how to solve this problem.
 * Likewise, email protection is also in our queue and an important problem for us to address. We have Community health initiative/Allow users to restrict which user groups can send them direct emails on Meta Wiki which includes proposals on how to address this problem both on a wiki where a user has made edits and on wikis where a user has never edited. Your thoughts on this proposal, or a recommended alternate approach, would be greatly appreciated on either the article page or talk page. — Trevor Bolliger, WMF Product Manager 🗨  01:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, User:TBolliger (WMF), I was speaking of my page, here on en.wp. You are right: by SUL protection I mean user page protection across all Wikimedia projects, including those where you never/rarely edit.
 * And thank you for starting Community health initiative/Mechanisms to prohibit blatant attack usernames and Community health initiative/Allow users to restrict which user groups can send them direct emails on Meta: I have commented on the talk pages of both of them.
 * And sorry if I have sounded angry and p.....ed off. Thats because I have been angry and p.....ed off. When you suffer level 10 harassment for years, and nothing is done (Except emails from WMF staff saying they are working really hard on solving the issues) ... then see that solutions are  implemented for what I would call level 1, or level 2 harassment....then one feel pretty frustrated, Huldra (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't apologize — these are frustrating experiences and I admire those who can weather it out and keep active on wiki. Our Anti-Harassment Tools team became fully staffed in July of this year so I look forward to continual discussions about features we can develop to address every aspect of harassment. — Trevor Bolliger, WMF Product Manager 🗨  22:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the main reason why you get little applause and a lot of grumbling about this new feature (apart from the general nature of people to keep silent when happy but to post when unhappy of cuorse) is that it looks as if you implemented the least-wanted feature first, instead of tackling the most wanted ones first, and did so in a strange fashion. I haven't seen anyone proclaim "hurrah, I no longer get to see when X reverts me!", even when they can see the benefit of not getting pings or thanks. But pings and thanks are public, and can be used as evidence of harassment or to ask for an interaction ban. Email is a lot more annoying, and an option to disable getting email from some editors (or groups) would seem a lot more useful than this. So the end result is that the WMF again gives the impression of having cursory read the ommunity wishlist and then made their own interpretation of what was wanted first and how, instead of either looking more closely at the feedback or going for further consultation with the community. Fram (talk) 06:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no knowledge of inner workings at the WMF but as a programmer I would have done exactly what happened here, namely start with small changes that can be quickly tested and rolled out. The notifications code is all (I think) relatively new and is likely to already be in good shape and nicely compartmentalized, so changing how it works would involve minimal changes throughout the more than one million lines of code in MediaWiki. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't blame the programmer, I blame the one responsible for the choice. Rolling out a small change is not a problem, picking a small but controversial change as your first change is poor planning, and asking for feedback but implementing it anyway is poor communication. Fram (talk) 08:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Here's the background of why this was prioritized: a non-WMF volunteer started working on this feature earlier this year and it was further worked on at the Wikimedia hack-a-thon in Vienna in May, including a full pass of QA. The two developers on the WMF's Anti-Harassment Tools team started in July and July 2017, and since most of the work was completed, the comments on the Wishlist were positive, and our initial discussion on Meta Wiki was positive/neutral we decided to quickly shephard it out the door rather than have existing work go to waste.
 * Yes, I acknowledge the only comment here on ENWP was requesting more discussion. Sydney and I continued to post about this small feature across multiple pages to no further participation. It was disappointing nobody wanted to discuss this, but we decided this feature was such a inconsequential change that nobody cared enough to spend any time discussing it with us. But now we've learned we didn't do enough — silence does not equal consent.
 * I agree that email harassment is more severe than on-wiki notification harassment, which is why our Anti-Harassment Tools team has built and will soon release the Special:EmailUser Mute feature in the coming weeks. (Which partially got lost amongst this discussion, but was mentioned in Sydney's announcement last month.) We're also gearing up to start a discussion on ENWP and Meta about allowing users to specify which groups should be allowed to email them. You can see our early notes and ideas on Meta Wiki at Community health initiative/Allow users to restrict which user groups can send them direct emails. Join us on that talk page! My team needs feedback before we build things, not after.
 * I hope this clarifies your question about prioritization. Happy to further clarify or discuss anything! — Trevor Bolliger, WMF Product Manager 🗨  01:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your replies. Note that I have no real problem with the tool itself (I will never use it as long as reverts are also hidden, and probably not use it anyway even if that improvement was made), just with the way this was chosen. You say "the comments on the Wishlist were positive", but in reality there were 14 supports and 10 opposes, so in reality the comments on the Wishlist were decidedly mixed and there was no consensus for this wish. Looking at e.g. the phabricator, it seems as if no one ever bothered to check whether this thing was actually supported by the community survey (it was proposed, yes, but not everything that is proposed ha sufficient support), and whether those that supported were even aware that reverts would be included in the mute feature. Fram (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You're correct about the 16/10 split of votes on the wishlist proposal — but I do not believe all oppose votes were of equal weight. Most of the oppose votes were that the feature was unneccesary or would have no benefit, or that this form of harassment doesn't occur and is handled appropriately with an editing sanction. Assumptions got the best of us. We've decided that moving forward, if we build another Wishlist item we will @mention everyone who voted — support, neutral, or oppose — and directly invite them to participate in a discussion so we can clarify these concerns. — Trevor Bolliger, WMF Product Manager 🗨  17:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, if you dismiss votes from people not seeing the need as invalid, then you end up with supports only. That's rather circular reasoning of course, and makes me wonder why you even have a support and oppose section. The same reason you came here for feedback for the rollout, and then rolled it our anyway presumably? You are very polite and swift in your replies, but in the end they don't really amount to a lot, do they? Fram (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This was not prioritized just because of the Wishlist — it was one factor among many others. The readiness of the code was the most significant factor.
 * Since I have your attention, can we talk about the Special:EmailUser Mute feature? The code has been written since Sydney's original post on August 28 and we haven't received any feedback either way about it. I'd like to avoid similar post-release surprise. The spec is here: /User Mute features#Specail:EmailUser Mute and the feature will be live on MediaWiki.org in a few hours. I'll be sure to post an update with a link when it's ready. — Trevor Bolliger, WMF Product Manager 🗨  19:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems like a much, much more useful feature. Fram (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree! I've been asking for this since, oh, I think about 2010..Huldra (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Special:EmailUser Mute feature is live on Meta Wiki
Our second Mute feature is now live on Meta Wiki. This feature allows individual users to provide specific usernames from whom they do not want to receive direct emails. This feature can be found in the 'Email options' sections of the 'User profile' tab of Special:Preferences. It is not be connected to the Notifications Mute list, it is an entirely independent list.

Here's an example of how it works: if User:Carrots prohibits User:Durian from sending them direct emails:
 * Durian will not see the 'Email this user' link in the left navigation when viewing User:Carrots
 * If Durian navigates directly to Special:EmailUser/Carrots they will see the standard error message of "This user has chosen not to receive email from other users" as if Carrots had the entire preference disabled.
 * The Email Mute list does not affect Watchlist. If Durian edits an article on Carrots' watchlist, the edit will appear to Carrots when viewing Special:Watchlist, and Carrots will receive a watchlist email, if they've enabled that preference.
 * The Email Mute list does not affect Notifications emails. The Notifications Mute feature must be used for preventing notifications emails.

➡ See & test the feature on Meta Wiki now. ⬅

Does this meet your expectations? Are there any changes you would like to see before we release this to more wikis? — Trevor Bolliger, WMF Product Manager 🗨  00:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, this is not very helpful. I would like to restrict those who can send me email to Extendedconfirmed users, i.e., those editors who have 30 days history, 500 edits. I cannot do that, under the present, can I? It takes my harasses about 5 seconds to make a new user name.....banning any specific user name will slow them down...about 5 seconds...Huldra (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We are planning to build the ability to control direct emails from user groups very soon, likely next month. You can see our preliminary notes at this page on meta, but we'll be sure to bring the conversation here to English Wikipedia soon. — Trevor Bolliger, WMF Product Manager 🗨  00:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, looking forward to it! Huldra (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Disabling it by admins
In the "Future ideas" section the last point about allowing admins to disable it for users who abuse it. How could a user abuse the "mute" feature? All it does is prevents people getting notifications. I can't really see how that could be abused. Maybe the email blocking could be such as a user sending an abusive email but that feature existed long before the notifications. Personally I track changes using the related changes but I still find the notifications useful and won't disable them but anyone who doesn't want them surely can remove all or some.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)