It's obvious that the deletions are getting out-of-hand, and we're losing good answers at a fast rate. How about making a new button lock after a post has been closed, and three or five votes can lock it, thereby protecting it from deletion?

I'd think 3k should be enough to do this, but I'm flexible on the parameters.

EDIT: With this solution now implemented, there probably isn't a huge need for this. I'll leave it up for those who think there is that need.

  • I submit that there's a problem in the opposite direction: things that refuse to stay closed. I'd happily vote to lock instead of voting to delete.
    – Rosinante
    Commented Jul 15, 2010 at 11:22

5 Answers 5


Since the # of delete votes required to delete something is now

3 + ((sum of all votes) / 10)

I'd say posts with a large number of votes (say, 100) are effectively locked because they require 13 deletion votes in a 2 day period to achieve actual deletion.

  • 3
    They really aren't locked. You can still add answers to them. Commented May 25, 2010 at 13:19
  • @George, I'm happy with that, this should keep the deletion avalanche at bay. Commented May 25, 2010 at 15:20
  • I'm not convinced there really is a deletion avalanche...
    – Ether
    Commented May 26, 2010 at 0:59

Since this is currently an admin-only tool, I'd say 5 votes from 10K users would be more appropriate than 3K, but otherwise I'd be totally in favor of this.


I'm fine with this, provided only moderators can unlock a post - otherwise, we'd just end up with lock-wars to compliment the existing close- and delete-wars.

But keep in mind, locking now implicitly closes questions, preventing new answers in addition to edits, votes, etc. This may not be an option many users are comfortable exercising... in which case it would be left to the moderators, just like today.

  • That's exactly what I was thinking of, only mods could unlock. Commented May 24, 2010 at 20:58
  • If a diamond mod unlocks it, can't the pseudo-mods just re-lock it? Or do we need a MEGA LOCK?
    – user27414
    Commented May 24, 2010 at 20:59
  • 1
    How about GLOBAL THERMONUCLEAR LOCK? Commented May 24, 2010 at 21:00
    – user27414
    Commented May 24, 2010 at 21:01
  • 1
    Well, normal users re-locking a post could probably be noticed and corrected fairly easily. Normal users unlocking a post could screw with a lot of the system in place today - locking is used by moderators to prevent modifications to controversial questions, to prevent undeletion of migrated or flagged posts, etc.
    – Shog9
    Commented May 24, 2010 at 21:08

Clearly I'm biased, but I thought this incident ended well.

I'm inclined to leave it to the ♦ Moderators to fix. These kinds of incidents don't happen that often, surely not often enough to warrant a system fix.

Part of the problem is that high-rep users can recast their delete vote on the same question. It should be a one-shot.

  • I'm leaning that way as well, although I could see some value in the system AUTO-locking a popular question should it get closed (thereby preventing deletion and requiring moderator review before a close war could ensue).
    – Shog9
    Commented May 24, 2010 at 21:10
  • Well if you look at all the Meta questions that Greg listed, you'll see that its been building up, and getting worse lately. Commented May 24, 2010 at 21:10
  • @Shog9, they could just set limits if there was enough activity, in fact, I've tried to delete my own questions before and couldn't because of activity, so I know they already have that mechanism in place, just make it work for 10k votes also. Commented May 24, 2010 at 21:11

+1, but I think this should require more than 3K. I would suggest this as a 20K feature.

  • 20K? There isn't anything else on the system that requires 20K rep.
    – user102937
    Commented May 24, 2010 at 20:56
  • 2
    @Robert - that's kind of the idea. Locking a post is pretty serious, so more than 10K seems reasonable. For the record, I have well under 20K on SO.
    – user27414
    Commented May 24, 2010 at 20:58
  • 4
    10k like the other "moderator" priviliges should be fine. In case of problems there are still the ♦ mods. Commented May 24, 2010 at 20:59

You must log in to answer this question.

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