26

♦ moderators have the ability to ban users from suggesting edits. On one of the other sites I moderate, I encountered a user of which I don't believe that user will ever make constructive edits (but if I'm mistaken, there's always an option to lift the ban) - this is based on a recent edit they made which did nothing but remove useful content, and their (deleted) posts here on Meta.SE.

Normally, I'd suspend for a year or so (the maximum for regular suspensions), but for science, I tried what happens when I ban them for a rather large number of days. The UI let me enter this high number, but once I clicked 'OK', nothing happened, and the browser console indicated an internal server error (HTTP 500) occurred, without any details (as it should with an internal error). From additional testing, the error occurs when the end of the proposed ban is beyond December 31st, 9999.

There should be some client-side (and/or server-side) validation to indicate to the moderator that they should enter a lower number. As @Machavity noted in the comments, right now, if I don't check the results on the user page, I don't know the suspension failed. If we're not suppose to ban users from suggesting edits for longer than x days or y years, that's fine with me, though as @Sonic points out in chat, longer suspensions may have their purpose. Anyway, that should be reflected in the UI.

14
  • The user is now suspended for 365 days - that works.
    – Glorfindel Mod
    Commented Mar 13, 2023 at 19:41
  • 7
    @Starshipisgoforlaunch The mod UX has a "button" for banning users who don't have full edit privs from suggesting edits. The UX is overly simple and just asks you how many days. Putting in a number the system won't accept shouldn't have a silent failure, lest the mod think that the user is suspended from suggested edits when they're not
    – Machavity
    Commented Mar 13, 2023 at 19:44
  • 7
    @Starshipisgoforlaunch I can imagine that - it's hard to interact with questions about (♦) moderator tools if you aren't one. I felt that way a couple of years ago. In that case, it's best to do ... nothing? I've tried to edit my question to provide more context, but since my bug report is addressed to the developers of the system, ideally that shouldn't be necessary ...
    – Glorfindel Mod
    Commented Mar 13, 2023 at 19:46
  • 9
    @Starshipisgoforlaunch I think you might be the confused one here. Glorfindel wants to prevent this user from suggesting bad edits as long as possible. Unsurprisingly the max seems to be 365 days. He put in a large number (there's nothing to suggest that's not acceptable) and the system just... didn't do anything. He put in 365 and it worked.
    – Machavity
    Commented Mar 13, 2023 at 19:48
  • 3
    @Starshipisgoforlaunch we're both users with good intentions, just different privilege levels. I know which actions are reversible, so I'd never test something if I know it can't be undone quickly, or I would rather test it on an alternative account of mine.
    – Glorfindel Mod
    Commented Mar 13, 2023 at 19:50
  • 1
    In other words, your criticism about "not testing banning" doesn't really apply here. You'd be amazed how many things we've had to use trial and error to determine system limits on. Without guide rails, the system seems to allow any number, but you have to know what you're looking for to know it didn't accept it
    – Machavity
    Commented Mar 13, 2023 at 19:50
  • 1
    @Machavity Technically he tried to ban them for almost 6 million years but close enough.
    – Warcupine
    Commented Mar 13, 2023 at 19:50
  • @Warcupine If you know how to do it, the UX will let you enter some surprisingly large numbers
    – Machavity
    Commented Mar 13, 2023 at 19:53
  • @Starshipisgoforlaunch I was just poking fun at Machavity putting the error code for Glorfindel's first attempt number instead of the maximum value of the int32 field that he presumably attempted.
    – Warcupine
    Commented Mar 13, 2023 at 19:55
  • While I'm in favor of a "punishment should fit the crime" system (users who make bad edits but who make constructive posts should be prevented from editing only), I don't see the point of a lengthy editing suspension. The user could simply gain the reputation required to make binding edits and thus be exempt from the ban (except for tag wiki edits, unless the ban was for bad tag wiki edits), if they were close to the reputation required to gain it. Commented Mar 13, 2023 at 20:06
  • 7
    @SonictheAnonymousHedgehog trust me, this user will never gain that much reputation unless they are ... reborn? I'm fine if the system doesn't let me ban users from suggesting edits longer than 365 days, but it should be clear about that.
    – Glorfindel Mod
    Commented Mar 13, 2023 at 20:14
  • Did you try Int16.MaxValue? (smallint)
    – rene
    Commented Mar 13, 2023 at 20:20
  • 8
    @rene not yet, but after some additional testing, I'm convinced it's a Y10K problem.
    – Glorfindel Mod
    Commented Mar 13, 2023 at 20:30
  • 1
    I'm intrigued by a user with the eager desire to edit, presumably in their own mind to improve posts, yet with so little skill that the only way to stop them causing damage is to ban them forever. That is quite a unique 'skill' set. ;)
    – Tetsujin
    Commented Mar 14, 2023 at 14:12

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .