# How are “disputes about content of a question” resolved, while the particular question is locked, disabling submission of answers or comments there?

My question stands in general, as stated in the title:
How are "disputes about content of a question" resolved, while the particular question is locked, disabling submission of comments or answers there?

More specificly, my question arises regarding the question What would happen if some signal could move faster than light?
Since commenting there is presently disabled I submit my corresponding comment draft (and related question) hereby:

@dmckee dmckee: "locked by dmckee [ https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/520/dmckee ] yesterday [Jun 14, 2014] This post has been locked while disputes about its content are being resolved. For more info visit meta [ https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ ]." -- Would you please point out the specific page or forum where "disputes about its [this question's] content" would be resolved in public? (Having visited https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/ I've been unable to recognize any recent relevant discussion there; and I'm curious which "disputes about content" couldn't take place here [ What would happen if some signal could move faster than light? ], as usual, by means of answers and/or comments.)

That question and others were repeatedly edited to include a "Thank you" in violation of the guidelines in the help center section on behavior expected of users despite polite correction by other users and moderators. They were locked simply to prevent repetition of the behavior while things have some time to cool off.

Frequent and pointless edits bump old material to the front page, and while we understand and respect the desire to be polite, posts are treated as archival material rather than on-going live interactions. Thanks are expressed by accepting and up-voting useful replies.

• dmckee: Thanks for the explanation. I had been mislead by the description while disputes about its content are being resolved into thinking that the content of the question was being disputed as it presently appears (and indeed, pretty much as it appeared when I submitted an answer to it a while back). If it had been worded instead while disputes about a delayed modification are being resolved, together with a link to the corresponding "guidelines" page, I might have understood the lock reason right away. (Also: I still like to learn how a resolution might be found with @user31782.) – user12262 Jun 15 '14 at 20:46
• We're limited to three fixed lock messages that have to cover many cases. The text of the one used here is simply the closest match of the bunch to this particular situation. I don't think it is likely to be edited. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Jun 15 '14 at 20:50

I speak with no moderatorial authority, but it seems to me the question has been locked because of repeated edits and rollbacks. Specifically OP of question 100442 keep trying to add a "thank you" line. This is certainly polite, but we take it for granted everyone is grateful for any help received and thank yous in advance just clutter up questions so they are routinely removed.

Assuming the removal of the thank you isn't a show stopper I would guess it can be removed and the question unlocked.

• John Rennie: "[...] it seems to me the question has been locked because of repeated edits and rollbacks." -- Indeed, thanks for noting that. (I hadn't looked at the revision history of the specific question before asking here about the general policy.) "Specifically you keep trying to add a "thank you" line." -- Let me point out that those apparently offensive edits were made not by me, but by @user31782. (It might help that user, among others, to let him/her know that it is admissible to express thanks by accepting an answer ...) – user12262 Jun 15 '14 at 20:25
• @user12262 The user in question knows this perfectly well as he has been active on the site for a considerable period of time and has accepted answers on a number of questions. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Jun 15 '14 at 20:39
• @user12262: oops, sorry. I must admit I hadn't looked at the account names and assumed you were asking about your own question. Please accept my apologies for this! – John Rennie Jun 16 '14 at 5:46
• John Rennie: "Please accept my apologies for this!" -- Sure; thanks. – user12262 Jun 17 '14 at 3:40