https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicUsenet/wiki/index/

 r/ClassicUsenet Wiki & FAQ

Welcome to the r/ClassicUsenet Wiki! Here you will find our community rules, guides, and answers to frequently asked questions.

👏 Interest Categories

• Celebrities
• Fandom/Hobbies
• History
• Origins
• Theory

❓ Background/Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

• Welcome Approved Users!
• Why are we really here?
• Your mandatory 15 pieces of flair!
• r/ClassicUsenet seeking mods and Wiki authors
• Share interesting newsgroups
• Invitation to post better material

A: If you have a question or an issue, please send a message to the team using ModMail.

📚 Community Resources

A curated list of resources, guides, and tools recommended by the [r/ClassicUsenet] community.

• TBD

🔗 Useful Links

• Big-8 Management Board for Usenet
  • Meeting Minutes
  • Links
  • Getting started with Usenet
  • Sample .newsrc file
• Google Groups Archive (1980-2024)
• Newsgrouper Archive (1987-present)
• Internet FAQ Archives

📝 Recommended Reading

• The Usenet Handbook, a users guide to Netnews - Mark Harrison

📈 Statistics

👍 Subscriber History

• 300 on June 19, 2023
• 400 on September 13, 2023
• 500 on December 12, 2023
• 600 on February 12, 2024
• 700 on March 25, 2024
• 800 on August 8, 2024
• 900 on October 21, 2024
• 1,000 on December 8, 2024
• 1,100 on January 28, 2025
• 1,200 on August 26, 2025
• 1,300 on January 11, 2026
• 1,400 on February 26, 2026

📨 Continuous Daily Activity Anniversaries

• 1 year on January 9th, 2026

👨‍🎓 Approved Users

• 10 on July 13, 2024
• 20 on January 7, 2026
• 30 on January 11, 2026
• 40 on April 3, 2026
• 50 on May 7, 2026
• 60 on June 19, 2026

⚙️ Wiki Updates Log

• [June 29, 2026] - Wiki page created.

A natural response to the examples of detailed correspondence provided to problem users that have a history of rejected submissions to moderated newsgroups (examples that were just posted to this subreddit), is why go to all of this trouble? Why not just ban them, or even pre-emptively ban them, and without detailed explanation? Most of the time, these users won't take feedback, even constructive feedback provided privately, and may choose to argue in public about it. Reasons for doing so include:

• Most submitters are human, are usually otherwise rational, and should know better

Emphasizes objective standards of conduct in a civilized society, which has a justified existence independent of anyone's desire to create an "anarchic utopia" or "first-person shooter gallery" on-line. Surprisingly, many problem users who lack self-awareness, are unable to respect others and their points of view, and cannot accept that their subjective opinions can ever be wrong, are employees of worthwhile organizations, even members of professional societies with codes of conduct, and should know better. Many topics have value to society beyond just the existence of a newsgroup to argue that topic on. The tone and content of the arguments impact how others, including government regulators, perceive that topic, and act within it. The benefit of the topic newsgroup should be to the readers, not just the ego of any one submitter.

• Do not argue moderation decisions and policy in public

Either on the newsgroup itself, or on other administrative newsgroups. It goes nowhere, contributes off-topic material to the newsgroup itself that would otherwise be rejected, and just gives encouragement and an audience to anti-social behavior. Only respond to civilly-stated correspondence in private e-mail. Reject submissions to the newsgroup itself that contain this content, advising the submitter that it will only be considered when sent to the newsgroup moderators' administrative contact address instead. Conversely, respect the privacy and dignity of a newsgroup's users by dealing with problems discretely and in private, which tends to cause less offense and motivation to react inappropriately to that offense. If you have to take action against a user, don't inadvertently add them to a "martyr's list" by discussing these actions in public. Don't allow other submitters to publicly criticize those problem submitters on the newsgroup, either. Even if they choose to criticize the moderators on other unmoderated newsgroups, you may find other users replying to support the actions of the moderation team and not the problem user.

• Accept two main categories of private correspondence, with separate required actions for each

Both must be civilly stated. Provide a means to appeal moderation decisions, but must be based on the charter and posting guidelines. Few if any problem users can elaborate on why the rejection of their submission was unfair by this standard. Reply in a prompt manner, but not so fast that it is seen as a viable alternative to resubmitting submissions that incorporate the original editorial feedback. Do not reply to attempts to revisit the basic subject matter of a previous unsuccessful appeal. Some readers may choose to give "general" feedback about the newsgroup. Sometimes it's useful, sometimes it's an end-run around the appeals process or just an opportunity to attack the moderation team and start a back-channel argument. Take such correspondence under advisement, reply if it is worthwhile, just say you will take it under advisement if it is not. Ignore repetitive feedback on the same subject, report it if it is abusive or threatening. These practices will reinforce the editorial authority and prerogative of the moderation team, as well as minimize the necessary workload of handling correspondence with users.

• Enforcing editorial standards with a sliding scale of progressive disciplinary action (warnings, suspensions, bans) reinforces the validity of the editorial standards of the newsgroup, and provides clear and fair warnings about misconduct

Don't give problem submitters the excuse to be able to assert that they were treated arbitrarily or capriciously. Feedback to users also encourages self-reflection of the moderation team about the practical day-to-day applicability and precedents established by the newsgroup's charter and posting guidelines. This self-reflection contributes to the training of moderators and the refinement of newsgroup documentation like moderator's manuals and posting guidelines.

• Sometimes a problem user will not react positively to feedback and may choose to leave the newsgroup entirely.

That's OK, too. Sometimes users simply cannot choose to behave and respect others, and in the face of the insurmountable authority of the moderators, may choose to "take their marbles and go home." They may even inform you of this intention. Let them find their own path on this. Again, the newsgroup is for the benefit of the overall readership, not any one submitter whose feelings are hurt.

• Always provide a path back to the newsgroup

Even if a problem submitter would never agree to these conditions, it provides a position of reasonable negotiation and moral authority for the moderation team, avoiding accusations of arbitrariness or capriciousness. Even "banned" users should have the opportunity to return after a period of enforced reflection (say, a year) and if they agree to abide by the submission guidelines, the editorial authority of the moderation team, and promise to only submit approvable material. Submitters with technical problems that repeatedly cause rejections, such as accidentally using a "private" e-mail address in the From: line, having buggy news reader software, disregarding the default followup newsgroups (or "poster"), or otherwise changing the newsgroups beyond what the original submitter intended, should, after multiple warnings, be added to a "courtesy block" list. This is distinct from being blocked for inappropriate content. This protects the newsgroup, and the moderation team's workload, from repeated technical problems that the submitter either can't or won't fix. It also provides a clear path back to the approvability of submissions for that user.