I had asked a question about the US election on http://politics.stackexchange.com but it was migrated to http://skeptics.stackexchange.com Where it was downvoted, put on hold and rejected. My first question is, it says "on hold" and "migration rejected" but doesn't rejecting the migration mean that it's basically no longer on the site, so how can it be on hold?

Also, on Skeptics, under my profile it shows I lost rep for it. I was thinking if a question is migrated by a community, the votes maybe shouldn't count towards the openers rep (as is the case with community wikis) as it wasn't their decision to migrate it (and if it was rejected then it was a bad fit).

Here is the actual question.


2 Answers 2


Yeah, they do.

Unlike the initial migration, which actually clears any down votes, rejected migrations just get locked semi-permanently. It actually won't even be eventually automatically deleted because locked questions like these are excluded from auto-deletion (the stubs for successful migrations do get deleted though).

This is actually a known problem, with several annoying side-effects. This is why it is absolutely critical that migrations be done only if the question is perfectly on-topic as-is. Otherwise it should just be closed instead.

I totally agree that this question would be a better fit for Skeptics, or at-least part of what it as asking, but as-is that question should not have been migrated. On Skeptics especially, it is common to put questions on-hold until they meet the stringent standards of quality, and putting a question on hold for anything other than marking a duplicate automatically rejects the migration.

As for possibly cleaning up after this mistake, I assume a moderator on the target site could manually delete the rejected migration. I'm not sure how often this is done though.

  • According to this migration stubs are deleted, or did I read this wrong? Or does that just work for the version at site A (origin) and not site B (where it was migrated to initially). Nov 15, 2016 at 7:48
  • 1
    @PatrickHofman Looks like the system must have been changed, and they are now. Corrected. Nov 15, 2016 at 7:51
  • 2
    @PatrickHofman Actually, turns out the stubs that get deleted are the ones left after successful migrations. Rejected stubs stay. Nov 16, 2016 at 23:11

Suppose the question has been migrated from site A to site B. Rejected migration means the following:

  • The question has been closed on site B. (not as duplicate, which doesn't reject migration.)
  • The question still exists on site B, but closed and locked. (users can't answer, vote, comment, or edit.)
  • The question on site A is unlocked. (note that it was never deleted, only locked when migrated.)
  • Any votes cast on any of the sites still exist and still count. (On the relevant site, no cross site reputation.)

So yes, the votes count.

  • And eventually the rejected post will be deleted and rep restored, right? Nov 15, 2016 at 7:37
  • @PatrickHofman yes, think that after a month the "stub" is deleted from site B, so any votes cast there are cleared. Nov 15, 2016 at 7:41
  • I still don't see how the question was both "put on hold" and rejected (and locked so it can't be fixed) skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/35916/…
    – Celeritas
    Nov 15, 2016 at 7:54
  • See the timeline. Nov 15, 2016 at 7:55
  • @Celeritas the "put on hold" is due to a moderator closing it as off topic, that is the case with any question being closed, regardless if it's migrated or not. The rejected and locked are indeed only because it was migrated: since it wasn't originally from that site, the system doesn't think there's point to let users edit it. Instead, it should be fixed in the original site, then it can be migrated again. Nov 15, 2016 at 9:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .