In T331058#9244456, @KStoller-WMF wrote:

• Only named users should be able to access Special:Mute. Anons and temporary users should see an error.
• Special:Mute/<username> should display an error if <username> is not a named user's name (e.g. if it is an IP, temp user, nonexistent user, or empty)
• Named users should see a "Mute preferences" link in their side menu on pages that have a 'relevant user' (e.g. Special:Contributions/<someuser>, Special:Block/<someuser>, etc) - but only if <someuser> is a named user. Temp and anon users should not see this link.

@Etonkovidova now that T344647: Named users should be able to Mute a temp account is complete, will you test this?

Re-checked on cswiki betalabs. Below are the results of testing. Also added this task's cases to T341839: [QA task] IP masking - temp users testing in production.

• Only named users should be able to access Special:Mute. Anons and temporary users should see an error.
• Special:Mute/<username> should display an error if <username> is not a named user's name (e.g. if it is an IP, temp user, nonexistent user, or empty)
• Named users should see a "Mute preferences" link in their side menu on pages that have a 'relevant user' (e.g. Special:Contributions/<someuser>, Special:Block/<someuser>, etc) - but only if <someuser> is a named user. Temp and anon users should not see this link.

In T331058#9130228, @Samwalton9-WMF wrote:

In T331058#9129465, @RHo wrote:

In T331058#9128363, @Umherirrender wrote:

In T331058#9127613, @RHo wrote:

I'm confused because it seems from my testing and screenshots and the comment from @Umherrirrender that is *is* possible to mute IP editors currently. Based on the current behaviour and the use case for people wanting to be able to mute folks who don't have a named account, would it make sense to proceed with T344647: Named users should be able to Mute a temp account ?

I have not written that it is possible to mute temp accounts. Maybe my text was not accurate, here a more accurate text:
You have muted named accounts with the prefix "IP ...", there is a small list of them under https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:ListaUsuarios/IP or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers/IP

Sorry if it was unclear, That's what I meant, that it seems it is possible to mute iPs.

What @Umherirrender is trying to explain is that what you've muted there are actually registered accounts (not IPs) whose usernames confusingly start with the text IP , for example IP 127.0.0.1 is a registered account. If you try to simply type 127.0.0.1 into that form, it will not autocomplete because you cannot mute IPs. IPs do not start with IP , their 'username' is simply the IP itself.

These are all just registered accounts with "127.0.0.1" in the username, and I cannot save the field with just the IP:

In T331058#9129465, @RHo wrote:

In T331058#9128363, @Umherirrender wrote:

In T331058#9127613, @RHo wrote:

I'm confused because it seems from my testing and screenshots and the comment from @Umherrirrender that is *is* possible to mute IP editors currently. Based on the current behaviour and the use case for people wanting to be able to mute folks who don't have a named account, would it make sense to proceed with T344647: Named users should be able to Mute a temp account ?

I have not written that it is possible to mute temp accounts. Maybe my text was not accurate, here a more accurate text:
You have muted named accounts with the prefix "IP ...", there is a small list of them under https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:ListaUsuarios/IP or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers/IP

Sorry if it was unclear, That's what I meant, that it seems it is possible to mute iPs.

In T331058#9128363, @Umherirrender wrote:

In T331058#9127613, @RHo wrote:

I'm confused because it seems from my testing and screenshots and the comment from @Umherrirrender that is *is* possible to mute IP editors currently. Based on the current behaviour and the use case for people wanting to be able to mute folks who don't have a named account, would it make sense to proceed with T344647: Named users should be able to Mute a temp account ?

I have not written that it is possible to mute temp accounts. Maybe my text was not accurate, here a more accurate text:
You have muted named accounts with the prefix "IP ...", there is a small list of them under https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:ListaUsuarios/IP or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers/IP

In T331058#9127613, @RHo wrote:

I'm confused because it seems from my testing and screenshots and the comment from @Umherrirrender that is *is* possible to mute IP editors currently. Based on the current behaviour and the use case for people wanting to be able to mute folks who don't have a named account, would it make sense to proceed with T344647: Named users should be able to Mute a temp account ?

In T331058#9121025, @RHo wrote:

In T331058#9120988, @Niharika wrote:

In T331058#9107125, @RHo wrote:

Hiya, my 2 cents is that I agree that temp accounts should not be have the ability to mute others, but I am not sure why named users shouldn't be able to mute a temp account if it so happens that a temp account is someone they do not wish to have contact, per the use cases of this feature.

It also seems to make the temp account less than to IP editors, because you can currently mute IPs:

@RHo where did you get that screenshot from? I am not sure that's correct. I did not find IPs being auto-completed on that field on the wikis and neither do IPs have the "Mute this user" option on their contrlbs pages (old task: T218270). I think muting IPs was requested at some point but we did not develop it. The closest task I found is T207659: Allow 'Muted users' notification preference to support IP ranges.

Hiya, the screenshot is from my logged in account on enwiki. Here's another IP user I muted just now on enwiki and eswiki respectively:

enwiki	eswiki	eswiki with one IP that has not edited shown as error

If it is not actually possible to mute IPs then this should be filed as a bug 'cos it certainly appears that I have now muted the IPs. Note that it is only allowing me to enter IP addresses that have made edits.
IMO the use cases for muting *should* include IP editors and temp accounts, since if this was not possible it may encourage people to intentionally use IP or temp accounts to send spam notifications.

@Tchanders can you please confirm that IPs cannot be muted through the current implementation?

@Tchanders can you please confirm that IPs cannot be muted through the current implementation?

You have muted an account named "IP ...", there is a small list of them under https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:ListaUsuarios/IP or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers/IP

In T331058#9120988, @Niharika wrote:

In T331058#9107125, @RHo wrote:

Hiya, my 2 cents is that I agree that temp accounts should not be have the ability to mute others, but I am not sure why named users shouldn't be able to mute a temp account if it so happens that a temp account is someone they do not wish to have contact, per the use cases of this feature.

It also seems to make the temp account less than to IP editors, because you can currently mute IPs:

@RHo where did you get that screenshot from? I am not sure that's correct. I did not find IPs being auto-completed on that field on the wikis and neither do IPs have the "Mute this user" option on their contrlbs pages (old task: T218270). I think muting IPs was requested at some point but we did not develop it. The closest task I found is T207659: Allow 'Muted users' notification preference to support IP ranges.

In T331058#9107125, @RHo wrote:

Hiya, my 2 cents is that I agree that temp accounts should not be have the ability to mute others, but I am not sure why named users shouldn't be able to mute a temp account if it so happens that a temp account is someone they do not wish to have contact, per the use cases of this feature.

It also seems to make the temp account less than to IP editors, because you can currently mute IPs:

I created a follow up tasks so we can discuss this particular question separately: T344647: Named users should be able to Mute a temp account

Hiya, my 2 cents is that I agree that temp accounts should not be have the ability to mute others, but I am not sure why named users shouldn't be able to mute a temp account if it so happens that a temp account is someone they do not wish to have contact, per the use cases of this feature.

Tested on cswiki beta (IP-masking is enabled there). To capture the current behavior, I checked the specs in the task description and added the results of testing and my comment:

Summarising a conversation that happened on Slack about this while I was out, for the sake of anyone reading this task who can't read that conversation. (All these points were made, not necessarily in this order):

I think for T336713, it would be much better if ApiOptions just worked for temporary users. Also for ULS per T330815#8782858. I don't understand what problem we're solving by denying API options for temporary users.

It should do the same for temporary users.

In T331751#8705471, @Tchanders wrote:

Thanks for this analysis, @AGueyte

We might want to upgrade the extension to:

• block temporary account users (and display their related IPs as seen on T324602)
• block registered users as wished by the community in T17294

These will be a fair amount of work, so I suspect maybe not MVP but perhaps something to work on in the future... What do you think @Niharika?

This looks fine to me. I have captured this in the documentation on office wiki page so we have it at hand when we elaborate it for the communities.

Thanks @Shawn, that's very helpful to know. I've filed T334870: Restore user input widget on Special:Block for restoring the previous input since that seems to answer all of the issues that have been raised.

Hello @Tchanders, for me, as an administrator, in my daily usage of the screen, the main problem is the impossibility to change value once the widget looses focus. The other thing is that the design of the component suggests that we can enter several elements like tags (because of the small cross button), but in fact, you can only enter one element. It is pretty confusing.
As long as one can copy / paste and modify as easily as in a standard input box, any solution should be okay.

@Shawn Thanks. There's some work in progress to change back to the previous input, and there seems to be an appetite to do so from a few people - see patches on T333359.

In T332994#8780051, @Shawn wrote:

Could you please fix it so we can always change the value or is there something to add in our common.js to replace this widget by the original input box ?

Hello @Tchanders and @GMikesell-WMF , in my opinion, the user experience is still bad in comparison to the standard input box. When the widget looses focus, it automatically becomes read only and cannot be used anymore. This is really annoying.

Thanks for the update.

In T327946#8745581, @Dreamy_Jazz wrote:

@Tchanders I noticed that the task description said that:

On all other pages admins and checkusers will be able to reveal all IPs for a given temp account

However, the current code only seems to do this for checkusers. Has there been a change in direction?