XF 1.5 give moderator access to user admin tools without making them an admin?

[TUG]

We have just realized that our moderators no longer have any rights to edit/ban/lookup info on users like admins do.

while I realize this is likely by design, is there no other way to provide access to these tools to moderators short of making them admins?


specifically I am discussing the completely different window that is available to mods vs admins when you click "EDIT" from the MODERATOR TOOLS drop down menu on a users profile.

 

[Mike]

To give a use access to admin tools, they'd explicitly need to be made an administrator. The moderator user editing system is indeed intentionally limiting.

In terms of banning, our general recommended approach is to use warnings/warning actions to trigger bans by moderators.

 

[TUG]

thank you for the reply, this is frustrating as its the first real "Step back" in functionality we have seen since upgrading from vbulletin.

There is a vast chasm of difference between making changes to a user account, and having access to the rest of the admin functions available within vbulletin. Is there truly no way to separate these rights?

 

[Steve F]

You can grant just the permission to manage users when adding them as an administrator.

 

[TUG]

maybe im a bit confused, but doesnt placing someone in the administrator group give them access to a myriad of admin rights and roles? we actually have admins (myself included) and a good number of moderators for a site this large...they are separate for a reason...but all moderators had previously had the ability to modify and see user account info in vb.

 

[Steve F]

They would only have the permissions you set when creating the admin. Editing users should really be an admin duty though and myself would require the moderators to report any changes needed.

 

[Alpha1]

They would only have the permissions you set when creating the admin. Editing users should really be an admin duty though and myself would require the moderators to report any changes needed.

Moderating new users in the Moderated Users queue should be a moderator permission. It however requires admin permission to Manage Users and Moderators.

Which means that to allow a moderator to moderate new users, they need to have permissions to administer who is a moderator. To me this doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[TUG]

would this then remove them from their regular moderator permissions of managing threads/content etc?

our mods dont regularly change user info, but they do regularly ban folks (spammers/scammers/duplicate users pretending to be different people).

in many cases the moderators use the user details to investigate and ferret out these fake/duplicate users...and thus the reason for having access to that info.

 

[eggplant_casserole]

Pretty sure Moderator Essentials would do what you're looking for.

Without that, though, I personally set up warnings specifically for banning - e.g. "Ban - 1 week" - 100 points, "Ban - 1 month" - 200 points, "Ban - permanent" - 300 points. Then set up corresponding warning actions to issue the ban.

 

[the]

.

In terms of banning, our general recommended approach is to use warnings/warning actions to trigger bans by moderators.

That shows the ban as never ending though, even if the warning points expires in 5 days.

Thoughts on addressing that?

 

[Mike]

I assume you're talking about banning while at/above the points threshold. It's a permanent ban internally, but it will unban as needed. It will show the unban date to the user when they visit.

 

[the]

I assume you're talking about banning while at/above the points threshold. It's a permanent ban internally, but it will unban as needed. It will show the unban date to the user when they visit.

Strange.
I set a ban over a points threshold.
On the user end, it shows a permanent ban.

You are saying that is not standard expected behavior?

 

[Mike]

Correct. If the ban is "triggered" (which is the case when it's based on points) and it appears to be a permanent ban, we change the end date when it's displayed to the banned user. This isn't something I've heard of problems with. Only thing I could think of is that the user was already banned, though I believe there's even code to handle that.