I was moderated at one point on Wikipedia-l.
My experience there was that my responses and my posts never went through, no matter how tame and unoffensive they were.
It's basically like a pet vs. a wild animal - a pet must wait for its owner to feed it, whereas a wild animal gathers its own food. In the same manner, being moderated, you have to wait for the list admin to approve anything you say.
Mark
On 26/09/2007, Monahon, Peter B. Peter.Monahon@uspto.gov wrote:
Earlier: "...I have been put under moderation months ago. I request to be unmoderated...Waerth..."
There are 418 responses to a search for "Waerth" at
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/mmsearch/foundation-l
It is my understanding that moderated posts merely await moderator approval, and if Waerth has sent in anything that is not spam, not vandalism(?) and not off-topic (though meta-topic discussions like this one - discussions about our discussions - are a presumed function for any group), then all the current moderator has to do is to approve that post. I also presume that any moderator who "feels" that a contributor's posts are consistently in accordance with no-spam/no-vandalism/no-off-topic policy, then they can change the poster's membership to unmoderated, then the posts will go through without delay. Correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l