Community norm violations can impair constructive communication and collaboration online. As a defense mechanism, community moderators often address such transgressions by temporarily blocking the perpetrator. Such actions, however, come with the cost of potentially alienating community members. Given this tradeoff, it is essential to understand to what extent, and in which situations, this common moderation practice is effective in reinforcing community rules. In this work, we introduce a computational framework for studying the future behavior of blocked users on Wikipedia. After their block expires, they can take several distinct paths: they can reform and adhere to the rules, but they can also recidivate, or straight-out abandon the community. We reveal that these trajectories are tied to factors rooted both in the characteristics of the blocked individual and in whether they perceived the block to be fair and justified. Based on these insights, we formulate a series of prediction tasks aiming to determine which of these paths a user is likely to take after being blocked for their first offense, and demonstrate the feasibility of these new tasks. Overall, this work builds towards a more nuanced approach to moderation by highlighting the tradeoffs that are in play.
Antisocial behavior Online moderation largely addresses the problem of antisocial behavior, which occurs in the form of harassment @cite_35 , cyberbullying @cite_46 , and general aggression @cite_16 . Approaches to moderating such content include decentralized, community-driven methods @cite_17 , as well as top-down methods relying on designated community managers or moderators @cite_37 . Prior research in this area ranges from understanding the actors involved in antisocial behavior @cite_47 @cite_5 @cite_27 @cite_6 @cite_55 to analyzing its effects @cite_41 to tools for identifying such behavior @cite_22 @cite_1 , and even forecasting future instances @cite_36 @cite_0 . While inspired by this line of work, our present study extends it by focusing on what happens a user is blocked for violating community rules.
@cite_35 @cite_37 @cite_47 @cite_22 @cite_41 @cite_36 @cite_55 @cite_1 @cite_6 @cite_0 @cite_27 @cite_5 @cite_46 @cite_16 @cite_17
2138969065 2588098783 2119769989 2560267416
User contributions in the form of posts, comments, and votes are essential to the success of online communities. However, allowing user participation also invites undesirable behavior such as trolling. In this paper, we characterize antisocial behavior in three large online discussion communities by analyzing users who were banned from these communities. We find that such users tend to concentrate their efforts in a small number of threads, are more likely to post irrelevantly, and are more successful at garnering responses from other users. Studying the evolution of these users from the moment they join a community up to when they get banned, we find that not only do they write worse than other users over time, but they also become increasingly less tolerated by the community. Further, we discover that antisocial behavior is exacerbated when community feedback is overly harsh. Our analysis also reveals distinct groups of users with different levels of antisocial behavior that can change over time. We use these insights to identify antisocial users early on, a task of high practical importance to community maintainers. Online communities have the potential to be supportive, cruel, or anywhere in between. The development of positive norms for interaction can help users build bonds, grow, and learn. Using millions of messages sent in Twitch chatrooms, we explore the effectiveness of methods for encouraging and discouraging specific behaviors, including taking advantage of imitation effects through setting positive examples and using moderation tools to discourage antisocial behaviors. Consistent with aspects of imitation theory and deterrence theory, users imitated examples of behavior that they saw, and more so for behaviors from high status users. Proactive moderation tools, such as chat modes which restricted the ability to post certain content, proved effective at discouraging spam behaviors, while reactive bans were able to discourage a wider variety of behaviors. This work considers the intersection of tools, authority, and types of behaviors, offering a new frame through which to consider the development of moderation strategies. Web 2.0 has led to the development and evolution of web-based communities and applications. These communities provide places for information sharing and collaboration. They also open t he door for inappropriate online activities, such as harassment, i n which some users post messages in a virtual community that are intention- ally offensive to other members of the community. It is a new and challenging task to detect online harassment; currently fe w systems attempt to solve this problem. In this paper, we use a supervised learning approach for dete ct- ing harassment. Our technique employs content features, sentiment features, and contextual features of documents. The experi mental results described herein show that our method achieves significant improvements over several baselines, including Term Frequency- Inverse Document Frequency (TFIDF) approaches. Identifica tion of online harassment is feasible when TFIDF is supplemented with sentiment and contextual feature attributes. A wide range of behavior may be seen as destructive to online communities. Yet behavior that is ‘bad’ in one community may be celebrated in another. The work of community maintenance is therefore strongly contextual, involving complex choices due to differing norms, community cross-membership, and the need to invoke fairness. The experienced, “lived in” work of moderators; how they enact norms and make choices about social maintenance, remains poorly understood. Our study addresses this gap, using a negotiated order lens. We employed netnographic techniques, analyzing online interviews with moderators of sub-communities in Reddit, and records of critical incidents. We find that moderators are intuitive prosecutors who draw on a variety of logics to accomplish their work. Controlling bad behavior, articulating and enforcing norms is, therefore, a collective accomplishment through which moderators make choices, create a jurisprudence record, and reconcile nested community norms in the maintenance of social order.