Moderation log
Page 5 of 9.
-
Coming back to: Over-dilution: when your dose falls below one readable graduation
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 The topic is still readable and linkable, but it no longer appears in the lists because its first post has been superseded and the corrections are twenty posts down.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.
-
About the Other compounds category
Closed at the author's request. They asked for it in the topic and there is no reason to refuse. The solution remains marked and the topic remains readable and searchable.
-
The 2.5 mg starting dose is not a therapeutic dose — why that matters — a second dataset
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.
-
What a purity-only report leaves out
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.
-
Robustness: the parameters worth deliberately varying
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.
-
Tracking a preprint to publication: a worked example
Unlisted pending a response from the author about the batch and method behind the claim in the first post. If those arrive it will be relisted immediately. Under R6 this is the least destructive option available.
-
Tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes: the SURPASS programme, summarised honestly — the long…
Closed. The topic has been superseded by a maintained document that now covers the same ground with citations and a review date. The document links back here and this topic links forward. Neither is deleted.
-
DXA precision and the least significant change for lean mass
Closed under R15. The topic re-litigated a decision already answered in Meta, without new argument. The earlier answer is linked from the first post.
-
Airline travel with a temperature-sensitive injectable — 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.
-
Managing an unplanned gap in supply — what changed since
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.
-
Revisiting: Aggregates and why a purity assay may miss them entirely
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.
-
Second pass at: Journal club: STEP 4 and what a withdrawal design can prove
Two flags, both from members in good standing, both citing the tone rather than the claim. On reading it I agree: the argument was sound and the framing was contemptuous. Hidden under R1 with a note asking for the same point without the last sentence. The author has already reposted it and it is better.
-
Compounds this community declines to help with, and why
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.
-
Micronutrient adequacy at low total intake — does this still hold?
Closed. The topic has been superseded by a maintained document that now covers the same ground with citations and a review date. The document links back here and this topic links forward. Neither is deleted.
-
Second pass at: Journal club: STEP 4 and what a withdrawal design can prove
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.
-
A preprint whose numbers changed substantially at publication
Moved into Safety at the request of a clinician in the topic. That is the correct escalation and it does not require a moderator to agree first.
-
Second pass at: Journal club: STEP 4 and what a withdrawal design can prove
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.
-
Deconvolution of a multiply charged envelope
Auto-closed after the configured interval with no reply. Nothing wrong with the topic; the platform closes quiet topics so that a two-year-old answer does not attract a new question underneath it. Anyone with a follow-up should open a new topic and link back.
-
A preprint whose numbers changed substantially at publication
Silenced for 48 hours. Six replies in one evening escalating a disagreement that another member had already de-escalated twice. Both parties were asked to stop; only one did. The other party's conduct was fine and is not recorded here.
-
Washout: how long is long enough, and for what purpose
Unlisted at the request of two clinicians in the topic, who considered the first post likely to be read as instruction. R11. The subsequent discussion is careful and is worth keeping accessible.
-
What a 2 ppm match establishes, and what it does not
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.
-
Criticising the method without criticising the authors — one year on
Auto-closed after the configured interval with no reply. Nothing wrong with the topic; the platform closes quiet topics so that a two-year-old answer does not attract a new question underneath it. Anyone with a follow-up should open a new topic and link back.
-
Micronutrient status when intake falls substantially
Closed after the last two exchanges stopped being about the question and started being about each other. Both members have been asked to continue in Meta if they want the disagreement adjudicated. The technical content above the line stands and is worth reading.
-
Payment method and the leverage it gives you, ranked
Silence lifted early at the member's request after they acknowledged the R1 problem in Meta and rewrote the post. Recording the reversal because a log that only records punishments is not a log.
-
Payment method and the leverage it gives you, ranked
Silenced for 48 hours. Six replies in one evening escalating a disagreement that another member had already de-escalated twice. Both parties were asked to stop; only one did. The other party's conduct was fine and is not recorded here.