Moderation log
Every staff action on the Commons, with the acting member, the rule cited and a written rationale. 205 entries. Nothing is removed from this log.
Very few communities publish this. We do, because a moderation policy nobody can audit is not a policy — it is a mood. If an action here looks wrong to you, the meta category is the place to say so.
-
Insomnia at a dose step: reported experiences — the long version
Moved because the specialists who can answer this read the destination subcategory and not the origin. No criticism of the choice — the categories on this site are not obvious from outside and getting this wrong is expected.
-
What a regulator's shortage notice actually authorises
Hidden under R6. The reply escalated a documented discrepancy on one lot into a general accusation about the supplier. The underlying report is good and is now recorded on the vendor documentation page; the accusation is not supported by it.
-
BPC-157: what the rodent literature actually shows, and what it does not — does this…
Restored. The author supplied the batch number, the test date, the method and the report, which is precisely what R6 asks for. The original hiding was correct on the information available and is wrong now, so the post is back where it was.
-
What would change my mind about repair peptides: a specific answer
Restored after review in Meta. Three members argued that the tone I read as contemptuous was blunt rather than hostile, and on rereading it a day later I agree with them. My error, recorded here.
-
Why side effects reset at each escalation and that is not a failure
Retitled so that the title states the question. The original was a description of a feeling, which is a legitimate way to start a post and a poor way to be found in six months.
-
A revision dispute resolved on the topic rather than in the history
Moved out of the Lounge. This started as an aside and became a genuinely useful technical exchange, which is a good problem to have. It now sits where it will be found.
-
What other technical communities get right that we do not
Reverted and then restored, after the editor supplied the source in the topic. Recording both actions; the original revert was mine and it was too quick.
-
About the Syringes & needles category
Reverted under R9: substantive change to a dosing table with no revision note. The change may well be correct — I have asked the editor to re-apply it with a source and a note, and it will stand if they do.
-
Why oral semaglutide needs an absorption enhancer at all — one year on
Restored. The author supplied the batch number, the test date, the method and the report, which is precisely what R6 asks for. The original hiding was correct on the information available and is wrong now, so the post is back where it was.
-
An appeal that succeeded, with the letter structure — the long version
Moved to the regional subcategory. The answer is country-specific and leaving it in a general category invites people to generalise from it, which is exactly what the regional categories exist to prevent.
-
Follow-up: External review after an internal denial
Flagged four times. The post reproduced a private exchange with a supplier including a personal email address. R12. The analytical content has been quoted back into the topic with the identifiers removed, which is what should have happened first.
-
Why fasting instructions for oral semaglutide are not optional advice
Unlisted rather than closed. The topic is still readable and linkable, but it no longer appears in the lists because its first post has been superseded and the corrections are twenty posts down. A replacement topic with the corrected framing is linked from the top.
-
Comparing documentation quality across the directory, tabulated
Retitled to remove an inaccurate compound name. The topic is about a different molecule than the title claimed, and search results were sending people to the wrong place.
-
Why the timeline is on the right and not the left — what changed since
Hidden on sight without waiting for flags. The post contained a laboratory report with a name and date of birth legible in the image. R12. I have messaged the author with instructions for redacting and reposting; nothing about the content was a problem.
-
Why I now write the concentration on the vial in marker
Hidden under R5. The reply offered to obtain material on another member's behalf. That is the one bright line in the guidelines and it does not matter how helpfully it was meant.
-
Insurance and replacement policies, compared
Hidden after two flags. The reply attributed a member's disagreement to a financial interest rather than engaging with the argument. That is R1, and it is the one thing this site does not negotiate about. The author has been asked to rewrite the substantive half, which was reasonable.
-
Substitution between formats during a shortage — what changed since
Restored after review in Meta. Three members argued that the tone I read as contemptuous was blunt rather than hostile, and on rereading it a day later I agree with them. My error, recorded here.
-
Reconstituting a multi-strength kit without mixing yourself up — what changed since
Hidden under R6. The reply escalated a documented discrepancy on one lot into a general accusation about the supplier. The underlying report is good and is now recorded on the vendor documentation page; the accusation is not supported by it.
-
Reused chromatograms across lots: how to spot it
Silenced for 72 hours after three hidden posts in a week, each citing R1, each after a direct request to change the framing rather than the argument. Silencing is a cooling-off measure and not a ban; posting resumes automatically. The member has been told exactly that.
-
Research-use-only status: what it means legally and practically
Silenced for 24 hours under R15 after reposting a hidden allegation unchanged three times. I have offered to review a rewritten version citing the actual test result, which would be publishable.
-
How shortages have affected compounding permissions
Three community flags on a single reply, all citing an allegation without supporting documentation. The post named a supplier and asserted deliberate substitution with no batch, date, method or document attached. Hidden under R6. I have told the author in the topic that a report containing those four things is welcome and will be restored in place.
-
Secretagogues and glucose tolerance: the mechanistic concern
Retitled and the original title preserved in the first post, at the author's request. Reasonable: they wanted the change and wanted the history visible.
-
Coming back to: Payment method and the leverage it gives you, ranked
Flagged four times. The post reproduced a private exchange with a supplier including a personal email address. R12. The analytical content has been quoted back into the topic with the identifiers removed, which is what should have happened first.
-
What a simple presence test is genuinely useful for
Retitled and the original title preserved in the first post, at the author's request. Reasonable: they wanted the change and wanted the history visible.
-
Why I now write the concentration on the vial in marker
Silenced for 24 hours under R15 after reposting a hidden allegation unchanged three times. I have offered to review a rewritten version citing the actual test result, which would be publishable.