In T195728#4235431, @Aklapper wrote:

I neither expect upstream developers to implement this

Because?

If you decline this task, then don't complain about it, as you did.

@Johnywhy: Please check your tone here. No need to shoot the messenger.

Because?

Because that is my understanding of upstream development's priorities. See https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabcontrib/article/feature_requests/ and especially the "Understanding the Upstream" section. You are free to request such a feature in upstream.

If you decline this task, then don't complain about it, as you did.

I did not "complain"; I kindly asked you to consider a different workflow. Not every potential problem that is based on human behavior needs a technical solution.

Your "human problem"-- excessive status messages-- is the byproduct of my preferred workflow. That preferred workflow is a benefit for me.

Excessive status messages are caused by technology. This is technology that we're using, and its design causes a human problem for you, while providing a benefit to me.

You're asking me to throw out a benefit to myself for your convenience. You're asking me to change my flow due to a flaw in this user-interface. You're asking me to endure more effort, and to prevent readers from having access to my latest version, so that you won't have to see status updates. You're asking me to not use the technology as it's designed to be used.

That's inappropriate. Making the technology work better for BOTH of us is a better fix. If you don't like the way the technology works, change the technology.

For example, if the purpose is to indicate to reader "did this post change since the last time i viewed the page", that could be communicated with a simple visual flag. In addition, the timestamp of the last edit could be displayed, with a link to switch to (or expand) the full history.

Putting status updates someplace besides the comment flow doesn't "obscure" history, anymore than wiki page history is "obscured" by putting it in a separate view (as MediaWiki does), instead of cluttering wikipages with change updates.

Currently, status update messages on Phabricator obscure actual comments, as you observed. I think it's an uncommon, and awkward, design for discussion software.

If a poster tried to obscure their own changes from other readers, that would be obfuscation. But that's not what's being suggested here. If a reader applies my CSS, above, to hide other people's status updates, that is not obfuscation.

In T195728#4235893, @Aklapper wrote:

See https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabcontrib/article/feature_requests/ and especially the "Understanding the Upstream" section. You are free to request such a feature in upstream.

They mention paying customers. I assume MediaWiki is a paying customer of phacility. Correct? As such, i suggest you or MediaWiki submit a feature request to phacility for less-obtrusive status updates, rather than asking me to stop using the software as it's designed.

I've submitted a request to Phacility. Have you?
https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/request-less-obtrusive-status-updates/1530

discourse.phabricator-community.org uses the very same status-update that i suggested above for phabricator:

I've submitted a request to Phacility.

Thanks for that!

Have you?

I did not and do not plan to, as everyone can request whatever they'd like to upstream.

@Johnywhy: Please do not re-subscribe me to a task after I have unsubscribed myself from a task. Thanks.

In T195728#4238149, @Aklapper wrote:

Please do not re-subscribe me to a task after I have unsubscribed myself from a task.

I didn't. However, if I quote your comment, then apparently Phabricator re-subscribes you. Not my fault. That's another case of you asking me to go out of my way, and perform extra manual effort for your convenience. Again you're asking me not to use the software as it's designed. Your options are: ask Phabricator devs to remove that behavior. And/or remove your comments so no one can quote them.

[offtopic] T96464: Upon edit, a task description which mentions a Phab user (re)adds that Phab user to CC/Subscribers field

In T195728#4238739, @Aklapper wrote:

[offtopic] T96464: Upon edit, a task description which mentions a Phab user (re)adds that Phab user to CC/Subscribers field

yep, like i said.

Please stop CC'ing me by quoting my name. Thanks.

In T195728#4239408, Aklapper wrote:

Please stop CC'ing me by quoting my name. Thanks.

the thread you linked states:
Quoting or otherwise mentioning another user in a comment might be more common, but task editing is more important and users shouldn't be scared of improving tasks for the fear of stalking unwilling users.

[[ https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T76993 | This thread ]]states:
We've only seen negative feedback about this behavior from one install, but use it frequently on this install and believe it is a useful feature overall, even if it isn't always perfect. As a general rule, we don't make upstream changes which only benefit one install. But if this feature is unusually disruptive on your install, the cost of maintaining that patch might be smaller than the cost of having the feature.

it's unclear what the status of this behavior is, but it sounds like it not going to be changed.
i removed the @ when i mentioned AKlapper, hopefully that will help.

@Aklapper, Phabricator Support informed me:

Aklapper can now Mute the conversation, which should stop this. Also, since he’d removed himself from the subscribers, it shouldn’t auto-add him on mentions.

https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/request-less-obtrusive-status-updates/1530/4?u=johnywhy

Therefore, there's no need to ask me to stop mentioning you. Just mute it. Although, according to Phabricator Support, you shouldn't even have to mute it. They say, above, once you remove yourself, mentions should not re-subscribe you.

If that doesn't work as described by Phabricator Support, please let them know at the thread I linked.

Thx

In T195728#4241966, @Johnywhy wrote:

They say, above, once you remove yourself, mentions should not re-subscribe you.

@Johnywhy: That is unfortunately incorrect. Again: Please do not re-subscribe me to this task. Thanks.

I tried to unsubscribe you just now, but it appears i don't have that power. Sorry about that.

Tried to unsubscribe you by removing the mention, but doubt that will work either. Sorry about that.

@Aklapper phabricator dev says muting is stronger than mentions.
https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/request-less-obtrusive-status-updates/1530/15