This question was migrated from a different site, then closed as a duplicate. Later on, it was locked for historical significance. The revision history shows it correctly, and the vote arrows and flag option is gone (as expected). However, the lock notice for historical significance doesn't show up. Instead, the "rejected migration" notice shows up, which makes no sense, since closing as duplicate does not reject the migration, and even if it did, the date should be the same as the date of the closure. Instead, the date on the "rejected migration" notice is the same as the (later) date the lock was applied.

migration rejected from stackoverflow.com Oct 18 '13; marked as duplicate Apr 26 '13

It may be that the lock is what triggers the "rejected" notice, and also causes the system to ignore any other lock notice that may have been applied.

While this question was tagged , per the answer, it was only done so because the specific instance I mentioned above was fixed manually. The general bug still exists; there are a number of questions on Server Fault still exhibiting this bug.

Also, this bug has now increased in scope. I've edited the title to more accurately refer to what the bug is actually about. Earlier, only migrated questions closed as duplicates could be "closed without rejecting the migration"; today, migrated questions can also be closed without rejecting the migration for any reason other than duplicate if the migration stub on the origin site was deleted.

  • There was a question on Veganism & Vegetarianism migrated from Pets . The Q was closed as too broad and the same banner showed up as migration rejected and is locked.
    – Nog Shine
    Jan 20, 2018 at 3:52
  • That migration actually was rejected, @Nog.
    – Shog9
    Jan 20, 2018 at 4:08
  • @Shog9 I should probably come clean here - I would genuinely prefer if my question was categorized correctly, and I think status-completed is the wrong category given my update above. Is there a good reason why this is the correct category? Jan 21, 2018 at 3:28

1 Answer 1


Yeah, this is not a supported scenario.

Migration rejection is implemented by way of logic that automatically locks the question when it is closed (for reasons other than "duplicate") or deleted.

The status banner is triggered by the presence of a previous inbound migration and a closed state and a locked state. Of course, any moderator can arrange this same circumstance on any migrated question... But moderators can also clear migration history (and should do exactly that if they plan to do a lot of messing around with the post).

I've cleaned up the post: I don't think it needs either a historical lock or a migration history pointing to a long-deleted question on SO from '09.

  • Shouldn't this be status-declined, then? Jan 20, 2018 at 4:09
  • 1
    The fix for this is always to either clear migration history, unlock, or both. Anyone equipped to cause this scenario can also fix it.
    – Shog9
    Jan 20, 2018 at 4:10
  • Yes, but this isn't completed in the sense that the notices now show up properly, but declined in that you say the above should be done so this edge case doesn't happen (so it won't be fixed). Jan 20, 2018 at 4:11
  • 1
    It's fixed insofar as the question isn't showing the wrong banner. Altering the system to make this bulletproof would involve rewriting data on untold numbers of migrations going back quite a few years - which is why we opted for this mostly-accurate heuristic 4 years ago. This is actually the first complaint I've encountered regarding it, though I expect it's happened once or twice elsewhere.
    – Shog9
    Jan 20, 2018 at 4:13
  • My question was about the general scenario, not this specific case (just an example). Also, why not just not show the rejected notice if it's been closed as a duplicate? Jan 20, 2018 at 4:14
  • Because a sufficiently-determined moderator could still cause the notice to appear incorrectly even with that check in place. Also, the relevant logic is quite complicated enough already. Generally, we trust moderators to fix what they break; this is no exception.
    – Shog9
    Jan 20, 2018 at 4:16
  • Okay, that answers my question there. It also favors the resolution of this question as status-declined. Jan 20, 2018 at 4:17
  • There are a number of such questions on Server Fault; can you look into those? serverfault.com/… Jan 21, 2018 at 0:44
  • 2
    A former moderator went out of his way to break a massive number of questions on Server Fault. That search is just the tip of the iceberg. One of these days, if I'm feeling particularly masochistic, I'll fix those too.
    – Shog9
    Jan 21, 2018 at 2:42
  • Not all of them were done by the same moderator. Also, this increases my feeling that status-completed tag is incorrect, perhaps status-bydesign or status-declined should be added instead. Jan 21, 2018 at 2:43
  • 1
    If you want to do something useful here, run that search on various sites and report broken posts on their respective metas. Changing the notice doesn't fix the actual problem here: those posts should all be merged or unlocked.
    – Shog9
    Jan 21, 2018 at 2:50
  • If mods there see status-completed on this question when I link it for context, they'll just think it's a resolved bug and that it's not a problem. Please change the tag; it will help my case there. Jan 21, 2018 at 2:51
  • 1
    No, it won't. These questions are essentially broken: they can't be edited, answered, reopened, deleted... By the rules of migration, they should be rejected - but they can't be, because they were dup-closed before being locked. That's a crappy situation, and neither futzing with banners nor rearranging tags is going to fix it
    – Shog9
    Jan 21, 2018 at 3:16

You must log in to answer this question.

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