Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Otgo

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Otgo (talk · contribs)

[edit]

See en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otgo. Multiple authors claimed, no evidence of permission that I can see. Need proper OTRS verification in accordance with instructions at COM:CONSENT.

GMGtalk 23:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also sock upload: File:Margarete Lauter.jpg GMGtalk 23:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not understand this argument: using separate accounts for different activity is OK in Wikimedia Commons. Ankry (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ankry, did you read the sockpuppet case? He knowingly uploaded a file with false attribution and two of the accounts are blocked here on Commons because of it. You have no reason to believe anything that he has stated and should presume that the licensing has been falsified unless he can prove that he is the copyright holder. Look at photos such as this, this and this. He declared them as his own work but that is obviously false as someone else took the photos and he is one of the subjects. This also probably means that you have been lied to in OTRS surrounding the scrubbed version of the photo that came out of the deletion discussion where he told this baloney. (I have OTRS permission but I see the checkuser queue and not the queue where this was sent.) Do you believe that "Every museum that exhibits works by an artist receives permission from him to reproduce them and the exhibition without restriction"? He's not being truthful in attributions or deletion discussions. If he is going to lie to you with one account then he will lie to you with any of them. Using multiple accounts to deceive causes disruption at Commons.
        ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Berean Hunter: I do not contest the nomination itself. I agree that we can doubt authorship and require the license to be confirmed via OTRS. I just disagree with wording, suggesting that the nomination is purely due to sockpuppetry only, like in LTA case. Ankry (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, First of all, I would like to thank @Ankry: for the constructive thoughts in the discussion. In my view, the allegations made by @Berean Hunter: are extremely disrespectful, inappropriate and destructive for many reasons.
  • OTGO is an artist name and is now a very well-known brand. Whoever damages this name damages my art and my life. For several years my works have been in important collections in many countries around the world. If my collectors learn about the malicious allegations, it will have serious consequences that an administrator who probably works far from culture cannot imagine. I will take action against this if necessary with a lawyer.
  • The accusation of the sock puppets is absurd! The three photographs mentioned show politicians and presidents of Germany and Mongolia with myself. This is for a general understanding who – besides many others – also appreciate my work. The photographs were taken by anonymous visitors in my exhibitions with my camera at the request of those involved. The poor quality of the recordings shows this sufficiently. There are neither professional photographers nor authors who could specify a copyright besides me, because they are «selfies». All other claims have no basis.
  • I ask that neutral persons examine this matter. I hope that the story (malicious claims) will be positively completed as soon as possible. Of course I am available for any further questions.
  • And one more thing: culture is a society of values and must not be undermined by willful attacks by technocrats. My work and myself stand for humane and cultural values and I will always defend them.

  Many thanks and best regards   --Otgo (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)   In case you want to send me an email please send it to: office (at) otgo.info[reply]

@Otgo:
I will take action against this if necessary with a lawyer. I understand your frustration here, but please don't suggest that you will take legal actions over this. Legal threats are considered by most volunteer community members here as uncivil. You had participated in one of Commons' dispute resolution processes; that's great. We don't need to go to court over this, that would be messy for us all.
The accusation of the sock puppets is absurd! I have no opinion about the alleged sockpuppetry on the English Wikipedia, but if you wish to contest this, you would have to contact Wikipedia's functionaries or the EnWP CheckUser OTRS team at checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org.
The photographs were taken by anonymous visitors in my exhibitions with my camera at the request of those involved. You see, that's a problem for us. An artwork's copyright and photograph's copyright are different if the authors of both are not the same. You may hold the artwork's copyright, but you don't hold the photograph's. The latter needs permission from whoever photographed it, and that needs proof, which is why an email to the OTRS team is needed.
If I misunderstood something here, feel free to reply back on this page. Thanks, pandakekok9 02:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the problems discussed here are evident, especially the photos that show the artist himself which are taken by unknown photographers. In other cases, however, i think that we are throwing out the baby with the bath. For instance in this case. The artist has uploaded the picture using his own account, he plausibly claims that it is his own work, hence I don't see any reason for a deletion request here. The discussion should be confined to the really problematic causes and not to the artist's work in general. – Best, --Mussklprozz (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks @Pandakekok9: and @Mussklprozz: ,
I do not want to go into the unnecessary claims and accusations developed from negative interests again. For me, Wikipedia was a "free encyclopedia". Now I see that certain people want to exercise power over others. Not with you, because you comment helpful and constructively. That's why I still have a spark of hope that new generations will contribute.
In the meantime I have checked the photographs and can send Commons the confirmations of the photographers after my research. It would have been much easier and time-saving if an admin or an author had asked "can you please hand in the photographers' confirmations?" That would have been a respectful and helpful approach for cultural workers and others who make a positive effort to enrich Wikipedia with information. There is always something brutal, militant about requests for deletion. This contradicts my idea of society and my understanding of democracy.
Have you ever noticed how many completely uninteresting pictures were and are uploaded to Commons? The question is who believes to decide the quality of photographs and texts. As far as I know the comments and judgments, most authors are neither culturally educated, nor do they have an aesthetic awareness. Indeed, only artists and people trained in art have that. Art has nothing to do with democratic choice, but only with the decision for quality. And this maxim should also apply to Wikipedia.
Thanks again and greetings --Otgo (talk) 06:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result of file check

[edit]

Okay folks, I checked each of the files individually and came to the following results:

tl;dr: I think that all files except the already deleted ones should be kept.

--Mussklprozz (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept / partly deleted: per nomination and OTRS permission. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Otgo&oldid=418766994"