I'd like to get @SPoore's thoughts on this.

@dbarratt the current steps reflect a combination of the conditions when it is normal practice (acceptable) to suppress a user account name and lists, and the usual workflows. that are used.

We need to get feedback from functionaries to see if changing the workflow would introduce errors or make the workflows more complicated.

I suppose the question is... what is the goal when a functionary comes to this page? Is it to block the user and maybe suppress them? or do they know they want to suppress them from the onset? My assumption is the latter.

@SPoore What's the best place to ask for feedback about this? Maybe we can add an explicit question about this on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_health_initiative/Blocking_tools_and_improvements/Feedback so when we get feedback from people clicking the _Feedback_ link on Special:Block, they can see this?

@Niharika that sound like a good idea. Also, each of the test wikis has a page that describes pb and the questions that we are trying to answer with the testing. The talk page this page is likely to be where we will get the most feedback.

hi y'all – this is a drive-by comment to share – what I think is – an incident that stems from the underlying issue this ticket seems intended to address. More context below...

Background

1. On 30 October, @Parkywiki noticed blocked and intentionally offensive usernames were appearing within the Reply and New Discussion Tools' username suggestion lists (read: the dropdown that appears when someone types @ to at-mention another person in either tool). See T294713.
2. To help prevent this from happening again, the Editing-team implemented a fix to permanently exclude blocked usernames from appearing within the Reply and New Discussion Tools' username suggestion lists (T294783) and filed an upstream ticket (T295211) to add a user's block status to the Allusers API (this is the API these tools use to populate their username suggestion lists).
3. In doing "2.", the Editing Team came to wonder whether the process/interface for hiding users could be improved to further minimize the likelihood that offensive usernames appear within unsuspecting interfaces, like DiscussionTools, thus why I've come to comment on this task.

cc @matmarex @Niharika @Esanders

I clarified the description to note that the option is shown, but disabled, so that you can't select it. Prior to T212391 it was not shown at all, rather than disabled. For reference, it looks approximately like this:

[screenshot from my testing wiki, the form might have different options in production]