I notice that one moderator has locked a question (from an ongoing contest), and another moderator has unlocked it and edited out part of the notice posted by the first moderator. I don't think this is a good look. Can we encourage the moderators to come to at least an interim agreement as to what to do when they have disagreements about matters that affect all of us, in particular (but not limited to) disagreements about whether to lock certain types of question?
I agree with the general sentiment that public moderator disagreements are very bad. However, in the specific case of requests to temporarily take down questions by people who are clearly cheating, I think that the moderator should delete it and then it should not be undeleted unless moderators come to an agreement. The reason we have moderators is so that they can respond to important situations quickly, and things should be left in a reversible situation while any discussion takes place. In this specific situation the reversible situation is locked or deleted, and open is not reversible. So any needed moderator debate or vote, should happen while the question is deleted.
If you meant this one, I was the one who first locked it and then unlocked it. (To clarify on the man divided: I vaguely remember there being an appropriate thread on Meta about it, but could not find it using the SE search interface. So I locked the question and started preparing a Meta discussion about that fact. But then lo-and-behold one of the "suggested" questions while composing my Meta discussion turned out to be the Meta discussion I was looking for, so I unlocked the question and added a comment instead.)
The subsequent edits, additional answers, delete/undelete, and closure happened over the weekend when I was not available.
If you meant some other one, feel free to ignore what I just wrote.