Bug overview description.
Favorites are automatically moved to the superior post when the inferior is flagged.
False flag caused favorites to be moved to superior post, resetting inferior post's favcount.

Example,
post #1292648 (Active inferior, score:96 fav:2)

post #1294202 (Supposed superior, score:35 fav:337)

What part(s) of the site page(s) are affected?
Parent/Child posts favorite count.
https://e621.net/post?tags=fav%3A<username>

What is the expected behavior?
I guess favorites revert back to their original(inferior) posts?

What actual behavior is given instead?
Favorites are kept on superior post.

Time of incident (if applicable).
11:00 AM UTC
Saturday, August 5, 2017

Can you reproduce the bug every time?
Most probably yes.

What steps did you take to replicate this bug?
Flag an inferior post to a superior post then (have staff) remove flag.

Errors or other messages returned (if any).
None.

Pretty sure this is not a bug, but simply how feature has been implemented. When deleting post, staff has option to transfer the favorites. After this is done there's no option to reverse this process as all favorites are thrown into same list with other already exsisting favorites on new post.

Of course it is still possible to move all favorites to other post instead, but pretty sure I do not want to transfer favorites from questionable post to explicit one.

This is one of those things that shouldn't had happened as deletion on my part was mistake. To my defence, deleted post immidiately looked inferior (thanks to being much more compressed JPG), was from tumblr _1280 url, changed part was not immidiately visible on 1080p screen and post was flagged for deletion by the uploader of both versions. So I went with trust and assumption instead of wasting time on zooming pixels.

Also deletion was from explicit to questionable, so there shouldn't be issues with users suddenly getting explicit content on their favorites and post being two days old shouldn't effect favorites in long run more than this. So not sure how much resources there should be put on "fixing" it.

so -1

Oh, so that means that this isn't supposed to be a bug in the first place. Human error I guess?

Not looking for a fix to it, but there should be a way/failsafe to rollback errors like these.