Commons:Civility/de

Shortcuts: COM:CIV • COM:CIVIL • COM:CIVILITY

Diese Seite ist eine Übersetzung einer offiziellen Richtlinie der Wikimedia Commons. Die übersetzte Version kann fehlerhaft oder veraltet sein. Der offizielle Text ist die englische Version.
Diese Seite kurz zusammengefasst:
  • Verhalte dich respektvoll und rücksichtsvoll.
  • Ignoriere die Standpunkte und Schlussfolgerungen deiner Mitbenutzer nicht.
  • Bringe schlüssige und prägnante Argumente vor und unterlasse persönliche Angriffe; ermutige andere, dies ebenfalls zu tun.

Höflichkeit ist Teil des Verhaltenskodex von Commons. Die Richtlinie zur Höflichkeit beschreibt die Standards, die von den Benutzern erwartet werden, und zeigt angemessene Wege auf, wie mit auftretenden Problemen umgegangen werden kann. Einfach ausgedrückt: Benutzer sollten einander stets rücksichtsvoll und respektvoll behandeln. Sie sollten sich darauf konzentrieren, das Projekt zu verbessern und gleichzeitig ein angenehmes Bearbeitungsumfeld zu bewahren, indem sie sich höflich, ruhig und vernünftig verhalten – auch während hitziger Debatten.

Die Verhaltensregeln von Commons gelten für alle Benutzer bei allen Interaktionen auf Commons, einschließlich Diskussionen auf Benutzer- und Diskussionsseiten, in Bearbeitungszusammenfassungen sowie in allen anderen Diskussionen mit oder über andere Commons-Benutzer und Benutzer anderer Projekte.

Zusammenarbeit und Höflichkeit

Höflicher und respektvoller Umgang miteinander ist wichtig.

Meinungsverschiedenheiten sind bei einem Gemeinschaftsprojekt unvermeidlich. Bei der Diskussion dieser Meinungsverschiedenheiten können manche Benutzer unnötig schroff wirken, obwohl sie lediglich versuchen, offen und ehrlich zu sein. Andere Benutzer wirken möglicherweise überempfindlich, wenn ihre Ansichten in Frage gestellt werden. Anonyme schriftliche Äußerungen auf Diskussionsseiten und in Bearbeitungszusammenfassungen geben die Nuancen einer mündlichen Unterhaltung nicht vollständig wieder, was manchmal zu Fehlinterpretationen der Kommentare eines Benutzers führt. Eine unhöfliche Bemerkung kann eine lebhafte Diskussion zu einem persönlichen Streit eskalieren lassen, bei dem es nicht mehr objektiv um das eigentliche Problem geht. Solche Wortgefechte verschwenden unsere Mühen und untergraben ein positives, produktives Arbeitsklima. Löst Meinungsverschiedenheiten durch höfliche Diskussionen; seid anderer Meinung, ohne unangenehm zu werden. Die Diskussion über andere Benutzer sollte sich auf einen höflichen Austausch über deren Handlungen beschränken.

Von den Benutzern wird erwartet, dass sie sich angemessen kooperativ verhalten, persönliche Angriffe unterlassen, sich an die Richtlinien halten und auf Fragen, die in gutem Glauben gestellt werden, eingehen. Versuche, deine Mitbenutzer als angesehene Kollegen zu behandeln, mit denen du gemeinsam an einem wichtigen Projekt arbeitest. Sei besonders offen und geduldig gegenüber neuen Benutzern, die konstruktiv beitragen, und halte jedoch nicht-konstruktive Neulinge höflich davon ab, weiterzumachen.

Unhöflichkeit vermeiden

Unhöflichkeit – oder der Anschein von Unhöflichkeit – entsteht in der Regel aus hitzigen Auseinandersetzungen über Inhalte.

  • Erläutere deine Bearbeitung. Unzureichende Erläuterungen zu Bearbeitungen können als unhöflich empfunden werden. Verfasse aussagekräftige Bearbeitungszusammenfassungen und nutze die Diskussionsseite, wenn der Platz in der Bearbeitungszusammenfassung nicht ausreicht oder wenn voraussichtlich eine ausführlichere Diskussion erforderlich ist.
  • Sei vorsichtig mit Vorlagen für Benutzerwarnungen.Sei vorsichtig, wenn du Vorlagennachrichten an Benutzer sendest, mit denen du dich gerade in einem Streit befindest, und gehe auch bei der Verwendung von Vorlagennachrichten für Neulinge mit Bedacht vor. Ziehe in Erwägung, anstelle der Vorlagennachricht oder zusätzlich dazu eine persönliche Nachricht zu verfassen.
  • Versuche, nicht zu intensiv zu werden. Leidenschaft kann als Aggression missverstanden werden, achte also sorgfältig darauf, nicht den Eindruck zu erwecken, du seist zu streng oder herrisch. Niemand lässt sich gerne von einem Benutzer herumkommandieren, der den Anschein erweckt, er sei „überlegen“; niemand mag einen Tyrannen.
  • Vermeide es, Texte zu bearbeiten, wenn du schlechte Laune hast. Das wirkt sich tatsächlich auf die Qualität aus.
  • Mach eine Realitätsprüfung. Gehe 'zwei Schritte zurück, um zu überdenken, was du gerade sagen willst (oder gerade gesagt hast). Sich zu fragen: „Wie würde ich mich fühlen, wenn jemand das zu mir sagen würde?“, reicht oft nicht aus, denn viele Menschen können solche Dinge einfach abtun. Um eine bessere Perspektive zu gewinnen, frag dich: „Wie würde ich mich fühlen, wenn jemand das zu einem Menschen sagen würde, den ich liebe und der es nicht einfach ‚abtun‘ kann?“ Wenn du das inakzeptabel fändest, dann sag es nicht. Und wenn du es bereits gesagt hast, nimm es zurück und entschuldige dich.
  • Sei professionell. Nur weil wir online sind und kein Gehalt beziehen, heißt das noch lange nicht, dass wir uns gegenseitig schlecht behandeln dürfen. Menschen, die in einer Zeitungsredaktion zusammenarbeiten, sollen sich im Newsroom nicht prügeln, nur weil sie sich nicht darüber einig sind, wie etwas formuliert werden soll oder wer gerade an der Reihe ist, Kaffee zu kochen. Genauso wenig dürfen Freiwillige, die im Tierheim arbeiten, sich gegenseitig anschreien, weil jemand Frettchen im Aktenschrank oder die Kornnatter in der Besteckschublade zurückgelassen hat. Tatsächlich gibt es so gut wie keinen Ort, an dem Menschen, die gemeinsam etwas Gutes tun wollen, sich prügeln, anschreien, an den Haaren ziehen oder beschimpfen dürfen; dasselbe Prinzip gilt auch hier.
  • Verzichte auf Beleidigungen. Jemand mag durchaus ein Idiot sein, aber wenn du ihm das sagst, wird das weder seine Intelligenz steigern noch deine Fähigkeit verbessern, mit ihm zu kommunizieren.
  • Vermeide herablassende Äußerungen. Egal, wie frustriert du bist, sag den Leuten auf keinen Fall, sie sollen „endlich erwachsen werden“, und verwende in deinen Nachrichten keine Formulierungen wie „Wenn das hier der Kindergarten wäre …“.
  • Vermeide es, den Kommentar eines anderen Benutzers scheinbar lächerlich zu machen. Selbst wenn du den Kommentar für lächerlich hältst, sieht der Verfasser das höchstwahrscheinlich nicht so, und Spott zu äußern, wird ihn wahrscheinlich nur kränken und verärgern, anstatt zu helfen.
  • Sei vorsichtig mit Bearbeitungszusammenfassungen. Es handelt sich dabei um relativ kurze Kommentare, die daher leicht falsch interpretiert oder zu stark vereinfacht werden können. Sie können nach dem Klicken auf „Änderungen veröffentlichen“ nicht mehr geändert werden und werden oft in Eile verfasst, insbesondere in stressigen Situationen. Denke daran, deine Bearbeitung zu erläutern, insbesondere wenn die Gemüter erhitzt sind; vermeide persönliche Kommentare über Benutzer, mit denen du im Streit liegst; und nutze die Diskussionsseite, um deine Sicht der Dinge näher zu erläutern.

Was man bei der Bearbeitungszusammenfassung beachten sollte und was man vermeiden sollte

Überprüfe deine Bearbeitungszusammenfassungen, bevor du deine Änderungen speicherst. Denke daran, dass du diese später nicht mehr ändern kannst.

Hier findest du eine Liste mit Tipps für Bearbeitungszusammenfassungen:

  • Beschreibe klar und deutlich, was du getan hast, damit andere Bearbeiter deine Änderungen genau beurteilen können.
  • Verwende eine neutrale Sprache.
  • Bleibe ruhig.
  • Mache keine abfälligen Bemerkungen.
  • Mache keine persönlichen Anmerkungen über andere Benutzer.
  • Sei nicht aggressiv.

Unhöflichkeit

„Höflichkeit ist für die menschliche Natur das, was Wärme für Wachs ist.“
—Arthur Schopenhauer[1]

Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. Especially when done in an aggressive manner, these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict. While a few minor incidents of incivility that no one complains about are not necessarily a concern, a continuing pattern of incivility is unacceptable. In cases of repeated harassment or egregious personal attacks, then the offender may be blocked. Even a single act of severe incivility could result in a block, such as a single episode of extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person.

In general, be understanding and non-retaliatory in dealing with incivility. If others are uncivil, do not respond in kind. Consider ignoring isolated examples of incivility, and simply moving forward with the content issue. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comment might be considered uncivil and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue. Bear in mind that the editor may not have thought they were being uncivil; Commons is edited by people from many different backgrounds, and standards vary. Take things to dispute resolution (see below) only if there is an ongoing problem that you cannot resolve.

This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor incident, to repeatedly bring up past incivility after an individual has changed their approach, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, are in themselves potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated.

=== No personal attacks or harassment ===

See also: Commons:Harassment.

Editors are expected to avoid personal attacks and harassment of other Commoners. This applies equally to all Commoners: it is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by an Administrator, as it is to attack any other user. Commons encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks and harassment are contrary to this spirit, damaging to the work of building a free media repository, and may result in blocks.

== Identifying incivility ==

It is sometimes difficult to make a hard-and-fast judgement of what is uncivil and what is not. Editors should take into account factors such as (i) the intensity and context of the language/behaviour; (ii) whether the behaviour has occurred on a single occasion, or is occasional or regular; (iii) whether a request has already been made to stop the behaviour, and whether that request is recent; (iv) whether the behaviour has been provoked; and (v) the extent to which the behaviour of others need to be treated at the same time.

The following behaviours can contribute to an uncivil environment:

1. Direct rudeness

  • (a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions
  • (b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, disability-related, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities
  • (c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety
  • (d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap")

2. Other uncivil behaviours

  • (a) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. All editors are responsible for their own actions in cases of baiting; a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response, and a user who baits is not excused from their actions by the fact that the bait may be taken.
  • (b) harassment, including wikihounding, bullying, personal or legal threats, posting of personal information, repeated email or user space postings
  • (c) sexual harassment
  • (d) lying
  • (e) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them

In addition, lack of care when applying other policies can lead to conflict and stress. For instance, referring to a user's good-faith edits as vandalism may lead to their feeling unfairly attacked. Use your best judgement, and be ready to apologize if you turn out to be wrong.

Assume good faith

The assume good faith (AGF) guideline states that unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, editors should assume that others are trying to help, not hurt the project.

The guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence of intentional wrongdoing. However, do not assume there is more misconduct than evidence supports. Given equally plausible interpretations of the evidence, choose the most positive one.

== Dealing with incivility ==

  1. First of all, consider whether you and the other editor may simply have misunderstood each other. Keep in mind: Commons is a multilingual platform, and many users participate by using machine-translation tools which often lack nuance; or they directly contribute in a foreign language in which they don't fully understand each term. Also keep in mind that Commons is a multicultural platform, where different groups of contributors with large behavioral differences are interacting.
  2. Consider the possibility that despite all advice about "Avoiding incivility" being given above, the other user may just be too stressed to edit politely themselves. Also consider the possibility that something you said or did wrongly provoked a defensive, irritated or fed-up response. Be prepared to apologise for anything which you could / should have done better.
  3. Per the above, do not search for implied incivility in otherwise constructive arguments by others. If you are unsure they might have been uncivil, you might want to clarify yourself and also ask for clarification. (However, be aware that doing so might derail the conversation, possibly against your interest.)
  4. Even if you're offended, be as calm and reasonable as possible in your response. Until there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that the offense was unintended.
  5. Explain, clearly but kindly, exactly what you felt was uncivil. Sometimes it helps to let the other editor know how their edit made you feel. Editors are not mind-readers. ("That made me feel..." is much less likely to incite more anger or resentment than "Your post was...")
  6. Ask them to strike out an uncivil comment, or re-word it calmly and neutrally, if they have not already done so by this point.
  7. No matter how much you're being provoked, resist the temptation to snap back. It never works; it just makes things worse. Strive to become the editor who can't be baited.
  8. If none of this is working, and the other person is not damaging the project or being uncivil or unkind to other editors, either walk away or request dispute resolution from uninvolved editors.
  9. In "emergency" situations, where the other editor needs to be stopped in their tracks to avoid causing serious disruption or needs a fast and strong wake-up call, file a report at the administrator "Users" noticeboard. Bear in mind the risk of being hoist by your own petard if you yourself are guilty of policy violations.

=== Dispute resolution ===

In a case of ongoing incivility, first decide if anything needs to be done. Confronting someone over a minor incident – particularly if it turns out that you misinterpreted what they meant – may produce more stress and drama than the incident itself. Consider your own behaviour, and, if you find you have been uncivil, apologize to them instead.

In escalating order of seriousness, here are the venues you may use for dispute resolution if the relevant page's talk page is insufficient:

  • User talk page. If some action is necessary, first consider discussing it on that user's talk page. Be careful not to escalate the situation, and politely explain your objection. You may also wish to include a diff of the specific uncivil statement. If you are in active dispute with the user, consider offering an olive branch to them instead.
  • The last step – only when other avenues have been tried and failed – is the Administrators' noticeboard for User problems (AN/U). The Administrators' noticeboard is intended to report and discuss severe incidents of misconduct that require intervention by administrators and experienced editors.

Threats of violence (including suicide threats) should be reported immediately – see m:HARM. Legal threats, hateful speech, and other urgent incidents should be reported at the Administrators' noticeboard for User problems page.

=== Removing uncivil comments ===

See also: COM:Oversight.

Where the uncivil comment is yours, any of these options will help to reduce the impact:

  • Where someone is unintentionally offended at your comment, calmly explain what you meant.
  • Strike it out (using <s>HTML strikeout tags</s>), to show, publicly, that you withdraw the comment.
  • Quietly remove it, or rewrite the comment to be more civil – Usually only a good idea if you think better of it before anyone objected to it. If someone has already reacted, you should acknowledge the change in a quick comment after the changed text, for instance, Comment removed by author.
  • Simply apologize. This option never hurts, and can be combined well with any of the others. Even if you feel the thrust of your words is true, or that they are misunderstanding what you meant, you can still apologize.

In the event of rudeness or incivility on the part of another editor, it may be appropriate to discuss the offending words with that editor, and to request that editor to change that specific wording. Some care is necessary, however, so as not to further inflame the situation. It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment. Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism, or if the comment is on your own user talk page. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor.

A special case is outing, that is, revealing about another editor that they have not revealed themselves and probably do not want known, such as their name, phone number or address. These should be immediately reverted, then an oversighter should be contacted to remove the information from the edit history, so that it cannot be found by anyone else later. This applies whether or not the information is correct, as to confirm the information is incorrect by treating it any differently gives the outer useful information. COM:OUTING has full information.

Apologising: It's OK to say sorry

Disputes, and even misunderstandings, can lead to situations in which one party feels injured by the other. There's no loss of face in apologising. We all make mistakes, we all say the odd hurtful thing, we all have bad days and bad moments. If you have a sneaky feeling you owe someone an apology, offer the apology. Apologising does not hurt you.

Remember, though, that you cannot demand an apology from anyone else. It will only get their back up and make it either less likely to happen, or to be totally insincere if you do get an apology. Never be too proud to make the first move when it comes to saying sorry. That kind of "pride" is destructive. An apology provides the opportunity for a fresh start, and can clear the air when one person's perceived incivility has offended another.

Blocking for incivility

Blocking for incivility is possible when incivility causes serious disruption. However, the civility policy is not intended to be used as a weapon and blocking should not be the first option in most cases.

  1. Be sure to take into account all the relevant history. Avoid snap judgments without acquainting yourself with the background to any situation.
  2. Think very hard of the possible merits of all other avenues of approach before you take action. Sanctions for civility violations should only happen when nothing else would do. Poorly considered civility blocks have at times worsened disputes and increased disruption. Remember that sanctions may be more applicable under another heading (disruption, personal attack, tendentious editing, or harassment)
  3. Civility blocks should be for obvious and uncontentious reasons, because an editor has stepped over the line in a manner nearly all editors can see. In cases where you have reason to suspect this would not be the case – cases where there is reason to believe that taking admin action against someone who was uncivil would not be an uncontentious (or nearly so) prospect – it is expected that discussion will be opened on the matter, via COM:ANU, before any admin action is taken. Benefits derived from long or controversial civility blocks should be weighed against the potential for disruption caused by block reviews, and unblock requests.[2]
  4. Users should be clearly warned, in most circumstances, before being blocked for incivility, and should be allowed sufficient time to retract, refactor or explain uncivil comments. Even experienced contributors should not be blocked without warning. Exceptions to this may include users who make egregious violations or threats, or who have received multiple warnings.

This is not to say that blocking for incivility should not or cannot happen, but immediate blocking is generally reserved for cases of major incivility, where incivility rises to the level of clear disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing. As with other blocks, civility blocks should be preventative and not punitive.[3]

== See also ==

== Notes ==

  1. ↑ Grayling, A.C. (2001) The Meaning of Things, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, p. 13
  2. ↑ Administrators should try to follow The Principle of Least Drama: when given a choice between several ways of dealing with a problem, pick the one that generates the least drama.
  3. ↑ "the law and its fulfillment, namely punishment, are directed essentially to the future, not to the past. This distinguishes punishment from revenge, for revenge is motivated by what has happened, and hence by the past as such. All retaliation for wrong by inflicting a pain without any object for the future is revenge, and can have no other purpose than consolation for the suffering one has endured by the sight of the suffering one has caused in another. Such a thing is wickedness and cruelty, and cannot be ethically justified." —Arthur Schopenhauer The World as Will and Representation, Vol. I, § 62.

== Further reading ==