If a question is closed and then locked, it becomes very difficult for a person to dispute the closure by requesting the opinions of other moderators. While this could be abused, I'm more concerned that it's a problem even when used in good faith. Not every decision is perfect, no matter how unbiased.

Naturally, I have one of my own questions as an example, or else this would not have come to my attention. I'm not sure why it was closed or locked, as it was essentially vetted (in the comments) by the highest reputation member on this stack.

How well is the ideomotor effect understood and defined?

That the question is off-topic seems debate worthy to me. It may not be, which is fine, but immediate locking prevents that debate, which is a bad direction to go in.


Historical locks are used for questions that have lasting value except being off-topic because the site scope changed.

What is a historical lock, and what is it used for?

A historical lock preserves older content that was very popular when it was originally posted, but is now off-topic or otherwise out of scope for the site it is posted on.

The only recourse you have for historically locked posts is to bring the argument on meta.

What is a “locked” post?

If you have a justifiable reason that a post should be unlocked, you should flag it for moderator attention using the "flag" link underneath the post.


Note that the above does not apply to posts that are locked due to historical significance, in which there is no option to flag.

I encourage you to open a new question (on Meta) with the specific reasoning on why that particular post needs unlocking and opening -- in general, though, historical locks are a rare, yet completely legitimate, Stack Exchange feature.

  • It's worthy of note that there was over a year's gap between the question being asked and it being locked. Jun 10 '16 at 14:34

You must log in to answer this question.

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