11

A moderator on one site requests migration and the post comes to the destination site. The destination site rejects the migration, but in the process, the migrated question received plenty of votes in the destination site. These votes should NOT contribute to system post ban calculation on the destination site, positively or negatively.

Rationale:

  1. Migration is rejected. It's as if migration never happened. Therefore, the votes on those questions should not account for post ban calculations.

  2. Migration is usually not initiated by asker, but by moderators. It's unfair to punish the asker for something completely out of their control.

  3. Migration is usually not initiated by asker, but by moderators. It's unfair for the community to reward a banned user out of a post ban, for a rejected migration, since the contribution by the user is rejected.

Example for illustration purposes only: https://webapps.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5212 This example is in no way to be read as part of this proposal or support for the OP of that question or the only case present. This is just a illustration of a real life example, in which this scenario occurred.

11
  • 6
    In general, I agree - but your proposal might garner more support if you explained why you think this should be the case. For example, consider a case where the OP didn't request the question be moved - it's the people who migrated the question (mods or users) who are the reason the question appeared on the site, so preventing the OP from asking questions there due to the migration seems inappropriately. That being said, you'll also likely need to show that people are actually getting question banned due to this as it seems unlikely to be fixed otherwise.
    – Catija
    Commented Jan 23 at 5:40
  • 2
    While your question isn't about the specific example, you could also argue that question bans on MSE in particular shouldn't consider score since downvotes are used differently on meta, so I'm not actually sure that specific example is particularly good. Another point being that the closure was due to lack of details, not the question being off topic, so one might also argue why the migration was rejected - the answer being that migrations are "dumb" and the only reason a migration isn't rejected when closed is if it's closed as a duplicate. The core issue is that migration is broken.
    – Catija
    Commented Jan 23 at 5:45
  • 3
    Upon closer reading, it seems the user was already q-banned on MSE before the migration and downvotes (and based on the negative score of their visible questions, that doesn't surprise me to hear), so it's possible that rejected migrations already don't count - I don't remember off hand and I'm not sure it's documented anywhere. Failing other examples (and honestly not having heard of this happening previously), I'm not sure this is needed. This, again, argues that maybe MSE needs different rules for question bans more than it does for any change in the migration rules.
    – Catija
    Commented Jan 23 at 5:58
  • 2
    @Catija It seems he was out of question ban exactly when the migration happened. Otherwise migration would be blocked meta.stackexchange.com/questions/102293/…
    – TheMaster
    Commented Jan 23 at 6:01
  • 4
    The last question date was over a year prior, yes... which means the OP would have been able to ask one question - even if that question did well or neutrally, they may have still been banned. I still don't really think it's a "normal" situation. In my experience, most migrated questions are the first (and often only) question a user posts on a site. Even if they're closed and downvoted, that's not enough to get someone a question ban. The only reason this is happening is because the user has a history of poorly-received MSE questions.
    – Catija
    Commented Jan 23 at 6:06
  • 2
    To be clear, in addition to thinking migrations are broken, I'm also a huge proponent of overhauling the q-ban system both on MSE and across the network and I think there are big changes that could be made that would lead to better experiences and address this specific situation... I'm just not convinced you've pinned down the true cause and identified what needs to be changed with your request. :)
    – Catija
    Commented Jan 23 at 6:07
  • 3
    Related: Q-bans on MSE has been amended various times- meta.stackexchange.com/questions/179093/… Either way this is a really fair request - punishing the asker for circumstances out of his control is really unfair - regardless of previous history of that asker. @Catija Fixing true causes may take a lot of time and effort and consensus... Low hanging fruits such as these are much easier to implement and they're really fair and can get consensus easier.
    – TheMaster
    Commented Jan 23 at 6:08
  • 4
    It's not really low hanging fruit if it's only ever happened once, though. Low-hanging fruit still needs to be fruit. The easiest way to fix this is for the OP to request the question be deleted/disassociated from their MSE profile, which takes a CM a few seconds - I'd personally have been fine with doing that when I was a CM. I also don't know whether the updated version of the question should be closed but that's getting a bit too far afield.
    – Catija
    Commented Jan 23 at 6:12
  • 1
    Wonder if it is possible with a SEDE query to find list of rejected migration questions votes/score on destination sites. That might give a more accurate view of the affected users, since all +/- score would contribute to post-ban calculation.
    – TheMaster
    Commented Jan 23 at 6:27
  • 1
    @Catija I mentioned that as the example. I don't think we should only be worried about post-ban evasion. If a rejected migrated post gets upvoted positively, that should also be not taken into consideration, when calculating post-ban scores. In fact, every rejected migrated question should not contribute to post ban calculation.
    – TheMaster
    Commented Jan 23 at 6:42
  • 2
    @TheMaster Relevant discussion post I just made: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/396263/… Commented Jan 23 at 6:50

0

You must log in to answer this question.