We have had multiple instances of the following process recently.
- An on-topic question is migrated to us (cs.SE).
- We close as "unclear" because it lacks detail and/or effort, telling the user that the question may be reopened when they improve the question (standard operating procedure).
The question is put "on hold".
- The user can not edit because the question is now locked and opens a new question.
This is obviously bad behaviour: a (new) user trying to conform with site policy get a firm stick between the legs. Also, the migrating site gets told "please don't migrate stuff like this" even though the question could be salvaged.
I found that rejected migrations are locked automatically for some reasons (1, 2) that are not invalid. I think that only migrated questions closed as "offtopic" should be rejected, or we should be able to choose whether to reject, but I guess the situation in these regards is
As a compromise, I propose that migrations be not rejected until their status changes from "on hold" to "closed" (or it is deleted). That leaves the asker some time to improve their question and does not send wrong signals to the migrating site prematurely.
This still sends bad signals if the user does not improve their post, but I guess we'll have to take that hit unless we only reject migrations if they are closed as offtopic.