Is the "content dispute" notice adequate?

Question

Background

Yesterday I asked about the processes involved in handling a contentious situation in EL&U that had spiralled out of control. High-rep users were able to see the deleted posts that I was asking about, but users with less than 10,000 rep don't have this level of access.

The answers given were sufficient to address my concerns about process. However, there were two other quite specific issues that I'd raised, and I want to explore them independently of the actions taken. This is the first of those two issues.

Issue

This answer by Barge Simpson has been locked, and the revision history shows why this was the appropriate action to take. The "content dispute" notice added to the post says:

This post has been locked while disputes about its content are being resolved. For more info visit meta.

Question

Is the wording and/or link inadequate in suggesting that "more info" can be found on this meta site?

IMHO, if it's supposed to mean that you can find out what locking involves, or how disputes are resolved, then it should point to this information directly rather than just referring the person to meta and leaving them to try to find this information using the search function. I've spent nearly an hour reading through the Help Centre and searching in EL&U Meta, and it seems there's almost no "info" about locked posts, other than this meta answer which usefully and concisely explains the difference between locking and closing a post.

Another view is that "for more info visit meta" is intended as an invitation to (1) ask a question on meta re why the post has been locked, or (2) check on meta to see if someone else has asked this. This indeed was the position taken in the answer to a similar question on SO Meta regarding an identical content dispute notice (except that the "info" link was to SO Meta rather than EL&U Meta). All I can say is that if this is the intention of the link to the respective meta site, the wording fails to convey this, and could easily be interpreted as misleading or dismissive.

Suggestions

1. The wording of the "content dispute" notice needs revision to make it more transparent what the link to Meta is intended for.
2. It would be useful to add an extra line or two in the Help Centre regarding content disputes.
3. Perhaps an EL&U Meta post could bring together the available information about locked posts and resolving content disputes, so that the content dispute notice then links directly to that post.

Answer 1

Your question is whether the following message is adequate:

This post has been locked while disputes about its content are being resolved. For more info visit meta.

No, it isn't adequate - at least, not yet. The natural sense of the message is that the link would bring the reader to some information about the dispute. Instead, it simply brings the reader to the Meta site. I say not yet because, with questions like this, sufficient information may accumulate to satisfy the natural sense of the message, at least with respect to publicly available information.

I agree that the message would be more helpful if it linked to even generic information about locking and disputes. Natural curiosity would prefer that the invitation was to ask a question on Meta, but I support Stack Exchange's policy of protecting privacy and holding real personal reputation (as opposed to rep points) in high regard.