I'm a bit unsure why the following question was locked: Should the weight of downvotes be increased?

Typically, locked questions display a specific reason for being locked. Strangely, the linked post gave no lock reason, only showing a user and timestamp.

Question locked banner

While the post references Stack Overflow, the question topic seems applicable to the entire Stack Exchange network. From what I can tell, the post didn't fit any of the pre-existing lock reasons.

Why was the question locked? Should the post be unlocked if the discussion is still relevant?

  • 1
    Dude, that was 2011. Six years ago. By a guy who is no longer formally involved with SE. Maybe it doesn't matter?
    – Dan Bron
    Jul 14, 2017 at 20:17
  • 2
    @DanBron Shouldn't the question be unlocked then? It doesn't seem to fit any existing lock reason.
    – Stevoisiak
    Jul 14, 2017 at 20:23
  • 1
    I'm still going with "it doesn't matter". If you want to post an answer, that's useful information worth adding to your question here. If you don't, my "don't care" overdrive kicks in. It's a foible I struggle with on the daily.
    – Dan Bron
    Jul 14, 2017 at 20:25

2 Answers 2


The lock happened just after an anonymous user edited in the [status-planned] tag (replacing the [status-declined] tag Jeff had put on it a year before). So we can only assume Jeff locked the post to prevent any more abusive edits...

There was an old bug (credit to Shadow Wizard for pointing that out), which let anyone rollback a question to a previous revision that had a moderator only tag. The question was previously tagged so the editor simply recreated the post as it was in that previous revision.


We didn't always have lock reasons. That lock is simply too old.

  • 4
    The lock happened just after an anonymous user edited in [status-planned]... did that used to be possible?
    – Cai
    Jul 14, 2017 at 20:47
  • 5
    @Cai yes, there was some old bug allowing users to change moderator tags by rollback. Someone abused it, so Jeff just locked the question. Note there was a status-planned tag there before, so the anonymous visitor rolled back to revision 2, carefully editing everything that changed in, so it looked like they only added the tag. Smart, I must admit. Also, this answers the question here (most likely), better post as new answer. :) Jul 14, 2017 at 21:06
  • @ShadowWizard That's a pretty good answer. Can you post it as an answer?
    – Stevoisiak
    Jul 15, 2017 at 5:14
  • @Steven it was Cai's answer, if he won't post it himself I'll do it soon-ish. :) Jul 15, 2017 at 22:36

You must log in to answer this question.

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