What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 131 Stack Exchange communities.

waiwai933 ran into this on English.SE, and I've confirmed - attempting to suspend a user for longer than 999 days results in a message being sent, but the user left unsuspended.

Steps to reproduce

  1. Select "contact user privately (includes suspension)" from a user's mod menu
  2. Select a template
  3. Check the "also suspend this user" checkbox
  4. Enter 2555 in the "for ____ days" entryfield
  5. Press the "Notify and Suspend" button.
  6. Observe that a message has been sent and the user's account annotated, but not suspended.

Expected behavior

The obvious behavior would be to suspend the user for the specified number of days. However, if there is a limitation on suspension length, this should be noted in the UI and enforced in a less confusing manner: display an error, or at very least, prevent the form from being submitted until a valid number is entered.

Ranting

Tim Stone notes in comments that this bug has been posted before, and sure enough, this does appear to be describing the same behavior. However, I would like to emphasize the confusing, potentially-harmful nature of sending a message to the user being suspended while failing to actually suspend them: if unnoticed, this could be rather counter-productive.

If deletion is the desired action for users who are violating the ToS and have no expectation of being allowed back on the site in any reasonable amount of time, then this should also be noted in the UI.

share|improve this question
1  
possible duplicate of Silent failure during account suspension –  Tim Stone Aug 4 '11 at 15:55
    
@Tim True, although that one ignored the error case and got status-declined for other reasons –  Michael Mrozek Aug 4 '11 at 15:58
3  
@MichaelMrozek Yeah, I don't really understand why the actual issue was overlooked just because of the action being taken. –  Tim Stone Aug 4 '11 at 16:05
18  
Can't duplicate. Please add a diamond after my user name so I can verify bug. –  Adam Davis Aug 4 '11 at 16:30
1  
Someone needed to be suspended for three years!?! –  dmckee Aug 4 '11 at 16:52
3  
@dmckee: 7 years. To hit that magical non-ToS-violating age, y'know? –  Shog9 Aug 4 '11 at 16:54
1  
Ah. That's clever. –  dmckee Aug 4 '11 at 16:55
1  
@Adam: I'll duplicate for you, and you can still be a part of the testing. ;) –  Bill the Lizard Aug 4 '11 at 17:35
    
@Bill Sounds good! I'll await my ban email for 3,000 days. Just make sure to test before Marc fixes it... –  Adam Davis Aug 4 '11 at 17:46
2  
@Shog - you should do 2556 days - there's a leap year in there. –  JNK Aug 4 '11 at 19:03
1  
@JNK: Actually, there are 2 leap years in the next 7 years. So it would be 2557 days. –  user162697 Aug 4 '11 at 21:46
    
@siva - SQL Server 2008 r2 disagrees: SELECT DATEADD(day, 2556, GETDATE()) –  JNK Aug 4 '11 at 23:10
3  
Regardless of 2556, you now have 5000 days available to you - so if a foetus starts using the site, you can ban them until they can do so without violate the terms. But hey... kudos to that foetus. –  Marc Gravell Aug 5 '11 at 13:38
    
@Shog9 you found a six year old? Somehow I doubt that... did Jeff leave his computer unlocked near his kid or something? –  nhinkle Aug 5 '11 at 15:22
2  
@Shog9 it wouldn't amaze me to find out Jon's lad has been trying to help fix the internet –  Marc Gravell Aug 5 '11 at 21:47

1 Answer 1

up vote 13 down vote accepted

I will fix this later today. Thanks.

share|improve this answer
    
Verified - 5000 day suspension works, 5001 days produces a descriptive error and does not send a message. Much better - Thanks! –  Shog9 Aug 5 '11 at 17:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .