In an edit/close war do moderators have the ability to shut off those functions to non-moderators?

It hardly seems right for a question to be locked because it gets in a close war but deserves to be open (let's pretend there's a large group of people who all of a sudden dislike Java questions). The question is perfectly good and valid, but now no one can vote or answer on it because it was the recipient of undue attention.

Would this be a useful feature for moderators to have?


From the (previous version of the) FAQ question What is a Locked Post?:

A question or answer which is locked can no longer be edited, voted or commented upon. If a question is locked, new answers can still be added to that question, and any of the (unlocked) answers can still be edited and voted upon. Locked posts can later be unlocked by privileged users.

Locking doesn't prevent new answers. It might be nice to lock only closing, or only editing - but I don't think there's many cases where this would be of much benefit.. Locking the post for a while should give everyone time to calm down a bit (which is pretty much the point of locking)

  • Deleting my (incorrect) answer, upvoting yours!
    – Shog9
    Jul 9 '09 at 18:26

You must log in to answer this question.

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