Thread locked for Review

[Avaris]

Though this has been sparked by a specific thread*, it's a more general question.

Where a thread veers off topic or into areas that potentially violate forum rules, it is occasionally 'Locked for Review'. This implies that a decision will be reached at some point on whether the thread will continue or not, and that an updated decision will be made in due course. However, a search of the forum reveals threads marked as 'Locked for Review' and with no subsequent comment going back as far as 2007, implying that on occasion no further decision is made.

I appreciate that this may be a deliberate act: if a thread isn't going to be reopened and has dropped off the front page, who is going to read the edited comment? However I would personally appreciate knowing that a thread is permanently out of bounds, and at what point it should be assumed that a thread is locked permanently.

I guess my question is, how long should a 'review' take? And at what point (if any) is it reasonable to ask the locking moderator to make a final decision?

*Moving Dead Bodies for a Living, which has been closed for about a week now despite offending posts having been scrubbed

[Tengu_temp]

Speaking from personal experience: when a thread is locked for review, it's safe to assume it will never re-open. Exceptions from this rule are rare.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Speaking from personal experience: when a thread is locked for review, it's safe to assume it will never re-open. Exceptions from this rule are rare.

The question is still relevant, though, and I too would like an answer on this, because some of these threads are probably now permanently out of bounds (under the rule of not restarting a locked thread), but others might just have been locked for off-topic or other issues, and might be possible to restart them - but we can't know, without a ruling.

Grey Wolf

[Avaris]

Further to what Grey Wolf says, if it is indeed the case that a thread 'Locked for Review' is permanently locked, I for one would appreciate this being made clearer, either by setting out the process followed when a thread is locked in the forum rules, or by refraining from saying 'locked for review' when it would be more appropriate to simply state it as permanently closed.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: There is no fixed amount of time it takes to review a thread. Often, a review that results in a decision to leave a thread permanently locked will result in an updated locking post. Sometimes, though, that doesn't happen, because as noted, it's dropped off the first couple pages, isn't coming back, and it's best to let sleeping dogs lie. A new post brings it back to the top of the forum and editing an existing post is unlikely to be read. Sometimes it's an oversight, though.

There are, of course, things people would like to know, but that doesn't mean we tell them. We don't discuss others' Warnings/Infractions, and, likewise, we don't necessarily make public announcements about where a thread went wrong. Sorry, you're just not going to get that information.

If a topic of a thread comes up again someday, at a minimum longer than the thread necromancy cut off, and it doesn't appear to be an attempt to restart a locked thread, that's probably okay. But err on the side of caution. If you're purposely restarting a locked thread, don't do that.

If you have question about a specific act of moderation, please PM the moderator who took the action (if discernible) or me.