Userscripts that will let me ignore users

Question

IMPORTANT - Read before using...

This script is not meant to be a solution for bad behavior on Stack Exchange sites. If you feel somebody is violating the rules of this site, please contact the team via the "contact" link.

---

Update (Jan 19, 2023):

A user in the comments requested an updated version. Here's an approach which masks comments belonging to specified user IDs:

(function() {
    'use strict';

    const ids = [-1, 284996, 216691];
    const selector = ids.map(( id ) => `[data-comment-owner-id="${id}"]`);
    const styles = `
        ${selector.map( s => `${s} .comment-copy > *`)} {
            color: transparent;
            background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.15);
        }
    `;

    document.head.appendChild(
        document.createElement("style")
    ).innerHTML = styles;

    function maskComments () {
        document.querySelectorAll(selector.join(',')).forEach(createMask);
    }

    function createMask ( element ) {
        const commentCopy = element.querySelector(".comment-copy");
        for ( const child of commentCopy.childNodes ) {
            if ( child.nodeName === "#text" && child.nodeValue !== " " ) {
                const fragment = document.createDocumentFragment();
                for ( const token of child.nodeValue.split(" ") ) {
                    const span = document.createElement("span");
                    span.textContent = token;
                    fragment.append(span, " ");
                }
                commentCopy.replaceChild( fragment, child );
            }
        }
    }

    maskComments();

})();

This approach preserves the actual comments (which can be revealed via selection) while masking their content. Here's an example:

---

Remove any instance of a particular user or group of users from your Stack Overflow experience with this Greasemonkey script. Just place their names in the userids array and listen as the noise decreases.

Updates:

• Tuesday, July 14, 2009

  The script would remove any questions that were edited by anybody within your ignore-users list. This has been fixed. Additionally, avatars representing your ignored-users will be replaced with random avatars. Any remaining references to any names in your ignore-list will be replaced with 'unknown (Google),' a common title for unrecognizable users on Stack Overflow. Script was not operating properly on community-wiki posts.

---

Submit your improvements...

var userids = ['Username 1', 'Username 2'];

(function() {
    function GM_wait() {
        if(typeof unsafeWindow.jQuery == 'undefined') {
            window.setTimeout(GM_wait,100);
        }
        else {
            $ = unsafeWindow.jQuery; letsJQuery();
        }
    }
    GM_wait();
    function letsJQuery() {
        $.each(userids, function() {

            $(".post-signature:contains('"+this+"')").remove();

            $("div.answer").each(function() {
                var paCount = $(this).find(".post-signature").length;
                if (paCount == 0) { $(this).remove(); }
                if (paCount == 1 && ($(this).find(".post-signature:contains('community wiki')").length == 1)) { $(this).remove(); }
            });

            $("a.comment-user:contains('"+this+"')").closest("tr.comment").remove();
            $("a[rel='canonical']:contains('"+this+"')").html("unknown (Google)");

            var randHash = "";
            for(var i = 0; i < 4; i++) { randHash += Math.floor(Math.random()*0x100000000).toString(16); }

            $(".user-gravatar32>a[href*='"+this.replace(/\s/g,"-").toLowerCase()+"']>img")
              .attr("src", "http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/"+randHash+"?s=32&d=identicon&r=PG");
        });
    }
    $(window).ajaxComplete(function() {
        letsJQuery();
    });
})();

Answer 1

I believe this XKCD comic below demonstrates perfectly why some of us need this script:

And even more relevant is the alttext: "What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"

Answer 2

I actually find this thread pretty offensive. I would express myself by voting "offensive", but unfortunately my ♦ means that it would delete the entire post — which isn't my intention.

Posting a script to ignore somebody by name is clearly inappropriate.

Choosing to use a script to ignore any set of users is frankly blinkered; you destroy the entire context of the things you are interested in. I won't try to stop you... but... why?

Re the point (comments) about empowering "folks who can't do anything about other users"; that is ridiculous. You are all empowered; use the "flags", or e-mail the team. However, you will understand that when an intervention is required, it won't be done in theatre for your viewing pleasure. That doesn't mean that things are ignored.

Also; we all know who the target of your ire is. I've been catching up on a few hours of missed posts, and frankly his actions are not the worst of today — quite far from it. None of us are angels, but let's stay in reality.

It is also possible, upon raising a flag, that the moderators will reserve the right to assess the situation and decide that no action is appropriate at the moment. That is purely a "general policy" comment, and shouldn't be taken as an indication of any specific event (it can't be: I wasn't directly involved in today's fun).

Answer 3

I like playing devil's advocate, so I'm going to raise an issue here for discussion that I don't think has really been covered yet...

Ignoring users via a script like this could be construed as incredibly selfish, since it doesn't really assist the larger community. If there is someone on Stack Overflow behaving in a manner that you truly feel is insulting or damaging to the site as a whole, why wouldn't you take action to inform or contact a moderator?

Using a script to ignore people doesn't stop what they're doing. They are still doing the things you believe are damaging to the site, but you're just pretending they're not. So you're basically letting Stack Overflow get abused, instead of doing the responsible thing and pointing it out.

Shouldn't people who enjoy Stack Overflow be willing to give a little something back in the form of oversight and moderation, even if it means occasionally having to see things that annoy you? Problems generally don't get fixed by just turning a blind eye to them.

Answer 4

I just needed this feature today, yet it doesn't work anymore due to changes on Stack Overflow. So I made some tweaks to fix it:

1. Removed unsafewindow (I'm not sure what it does, but the script works without it)

2. Look for the user to block based on userid instead of username.

   Note that userid could change on different sites, so you may need add multiple entries!

var userids = ['895245'];

(function() {
    'use strict';

    // Your code here...
    function letsJQuery() {
        $.each(userids, function(){

            // Comment
            var hide_comment_user_name = $("a.comment-user[href*='"+this+"']");
            //hide_comment_user_name.closest("li.comment").remove(); // Remove ENTIRE comment section (of this user)

            hide_comment_user_name.html("DELETED");
            hide_comment_user_name.attr("href", "");

            // Answer
            var div_post_signature = $("div.post-signature:has(div.user-details:has(a[href*='"+this+"']))").find("div.user-info");
            //div_post_signature.closest("div.answer").remove(); // Remove ENTIRE answer section (of this user)
            //div_post_signature.remove();                       // Remove Author section

            div_post_signature.removeClass("user-hover"); // Disable popup

            var hide_answer_author_user_name = $(div_post_signature).find("div.user-details").find("a");
            hide_answer_author_user_name.html("DELETED");
            hide_answer_author_user_name.attr("href", "");

            var randHash = ""; // for gravatar
            for(var i = 0; i < 4; i++) { randHash += Math.floor(Math.random()*0x100000000).toString(16); }
            var hide_answer_author_user_avatar = $(div_post_signature).find("div.user-gravatar32").find("a");
            hide_answer_author_user_avatar.attr("href", "");
            hide_answer_author_user_avatar.find("div.gravatar-wrapper-32").find("img").attr("src", "http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/"+randHash+"?s=32&d=identicon&r=PG");

        });
    }
    $(window).ajaxComplete(function() {
        letsJQuery();
    });
})();

Answer 5

I feel it is the place of moderators to punish those who misuse the site and while you have every right to control what appears on your computer screen, I feel that it breaks the point of the site if you are able to block content from specific contributors.

Answer 6

To replace the user's gravatar with a random gravatar:

var randHash = "";
for(var i = 0; i < 4; i++)
  randHash += Math.floor(Math.random()*0x100000000).toString(16);
$(".user-gravatar32>a[href*='"+this.replace(/\s/g,"-").toLowerCase()+"']>img")
  .attr("src", "http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/"+randHash+"?s=32&d=identicon&r=PG");

That of course goes inside the $.each loop.

Answer 7

Here's another variation. It's based on the "Update (Jan 19, 2023)" code in the question, and additionally tries to hide questions from question lists and mask question text if you wind up looking at one anyway. The code could be better, but it's functional.

// ==UserScript==
// @name        StackExchange user block
// @namespace   my-stackexchange-block-user
// @include     https://stackoverflow.com/*
// @include     https://foo.stackexchange.com/*
// @version     1.1
// ==/UserScript==

// Instructions:
//
// UserScript for use with FireMonkey and similar:
// https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/firemonkey/
//
// Edit both the @include headers and the domain_user_ids map.
//
// For more information, see:
// https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3360/ignore-users-script

(function() {
    'use strict';

    const domain_user_ids = {
        'stackoverflow.com': [
            12345678,
            23456789,
            34567890,
        ],
        'foo.stackexchange.com': [
            12345,
            23456,
        ],
        'undefined': []
    };
    if (typeof(domain_user_ids[document.domain]) === 'undefined') {
        return;
    }

    const user_ids = domain_user_ids[document.domain] || [];
    if (!user_ids) {
        return;
    }

    // Question selector.
    const qselector = user_ids.map((id) => `[data-user-id="${id}"]`).join(',');

    // Question and Answer body text selector and CSS.
    const qauselector = user_ids.map(
        (id) => `.post-layout .post-signature.owner .user-info .user-details a[href^="/users/${id}/"]`
    ).join(',');

    const quastyles = `
        .my-mask, .my-mask * {
            color: transparent !important;
            background: var(--black-075) !important;
        }
    `;

    // Comment selector and generated CSS.
    const cselector1 = user_ids.map((id) => `[data-comment-owner-id="${id}"]`);
    const cselector2 = cselector1.join(',');
    const cstyles = `
        ${cselector1.map(s => `${s} .comment-copy > *`)} {
            color: transparent;
            background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.15);
        }
    `;

    document.head.appendChild(
        document.createElement("style")
    ).innerHTML = quastyles + cstyles;

    function blockUsers() {
        document.querySelectorAll(qselector).forEach(hideQuestions);
        document.querySelectorAll(qauselector).forEach(maskPost);
        document.querySelectorAll(cselector2).forEach(maskComments);
    }

    function hideQuestions(element) {
        // Naively we would simply remove this post:
        // element.closest('.s-post-summary').remove();
        //
        // However S.E. doesn't provide sufficient data in the
        // markup to reliably identify the author of the
        // question (only one user is shown, and it is often the
        // user who last answered or modified the question).
        // Consequently this approach would hide questions asked
        // by other users but answered or edited by blocked
        // users, and would fail to hide 'active' questions from
        // blocked users which have been answered or edited by a
        // non-blocked user.
        //
        // We *can* treat the special case of "0 answers" this
        // way, however.  This is useful, as the "modified"
        // indicator does not differentiate between "user
        // modified the question" and "user modified an answer",
        // whereas this special case is unambiguous in that
        // regard.
        const summary = element.closest('.s-post-summary');
        if (summary.querySelector('.s-post-summary--stats-item[title="0 answers"]')) {
            summary.remove();
            return;
        }
        // My impression is that we would need to start firing
        // off API requests for lists of question IDs from each
        // user in order to reliably detect the correct
        // questions, which is a lot more complicated than this.
        //
        // As a lower-effort workaround, we manipulate only the
        // summaries which state that a blocked user "asked" or
        // "modified" the question.  We keep (display) questions
        // that a blocked user has "answered" on the basis that
        // the question itself may be worth looking at.  If it
        // turns out that a blocked user (maybe the same user)
        // also asked that question then c'est la vie -- the
        // maskPost() function will at least do its part if we
        // visit it.
        let time = element.closest('.s-user-card').querySelector('.s-user-card--time');
        const link = time.querySelector('.s-link');
        if (link) {
            time = link;
        }
        const text = Array.from(time.childNodes).find(n => n.nodeType === Node.TEXT_NODE).textContent.trim();
        if (text === 'asked') {
            summary.remove();
        }
        else if (text === 'modified') {
            // We can't tell whether the blocked user asked or
            // answered this question.  If we are blocking the
            // user for an excessive number of low-quality
            // questions then there's a pretty good chance that
            // they asked the question, but we err on the side
            // of caution and display it -- however we present
            // it as if it were tagged with one of our "ignored"
            // tags in order to de-emphasise it.
            summary.classList.add('s-post-summary__ignored');
        }
    }

    function maskPost(element) {
        // Even if we can't always prevent links to these
        // questions from being displayed, we can at least make
        // it clear that it's not worth reading if we wind up
        // looking at one of them.
        element.closest('.post-layout').querySelector('.s-prose').classList.add('my-mask');
    }

    function maskComments(element) {
        const commentCopy = element.querySelector(".comment-copy");
        for (const child of commentCopy.childNodes) {
            if (child.nodeName === "#text" && child.nodeValue !== " ") {
                const fragment = document.createDocumentFragment();
                for (const token of child.nodeValue.split(" ")) {
                    const span = document.createElement("span");
                    span.textContent = token;
                    fragment.append(span, " ");
                }
                commentCopy.replaceChild(fragment, child);
            }
        }
    }

    // Do the thing.
    blockUsers();
})();

Answer 8

Add the following to subscribe to the global Ajax complete event to handle the comments.

$(window).ajaxComplete(function() {
    letsJQuery();
});