This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
His real name is known. (Redacted) -- Fidgetspinnerrambling ( talk) 12:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public.Emphasis mine. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 16:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Didelda ( talk) 09:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I would like to stress and re-open this topic again because I think that it is a mistake to de-anonymize Rezo in this article. I admit, that I was asked to have a look at it by Rezo directly; we did not know each other before and I was adressed as a long-term wikipedian active in de.wp since 2003 ( de:Benutzer.Achim Raschka). I analysed this topic based of what is here and what I got as background information and I am aware of En.Wiki is not De.Wiki ... (please also be aware that I am not a native english speaker when you read the following).
O.k.: As far as I can see we have the following situation - Rezo is (in Germany) a well-known youtube influencer normally working on typical influencer topics like music, tik-tok, other stuff. He was widely unknown to the general public until he made a first very critical video named "Die Zerstörung der CD" (translation: "The destruction of the christ-democratic party") on his channel bringing up a lot of well-sourced critical points against the CD government in Germany to get people not to elect the CDU at the next elections. This video was recognized all over the country and was name an earthquake in the political discussion - Rezo got known to nearly everyone and was discussed in all newspapers, news portal and in the public (even people in my age of ~50 years of age with no connection to the youtube cloud discussed his video). It brought a lot of sympathy, but also a lot of hate mainly from conservatives and - harder - also right-winged. Since this video and a follow-up on the press responses everyone in Germany knows Rezo - and he got into the focus of a lot of hate speech and open threads. People tried to find out personal details on hin, his life, his family and some newspapers found out a name they connect to him as real name. In the following people connected him on different ways, some visited him and tried to get into his apartment and Rezo now is permanently watched and secured by the police and had to change his apartment several times - this is documented by a letter from the police headquarters of his hometown Rezo sent me and that he also has sent to the oversighters of the en.wp. Based on this he asked for urgently deletion of the name from this article due to fear for himself and friends and family.
I am aware that the decision to keep his name was based on sources that are available. In de.wp and also in en.wp we have guidelines on the privacy of Persons described in articles: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of personal information and using primary sources claims Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. - this is not the caes here: The real name is not widely published and there also are no sources hat inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. In contrast although there was a huge coverage in press and other sources on Rezo in the last months you hardly can find any press named him by his real name. There are only very few sources that claim the name as that of Rezo that are used in this article. To be honest: The english wikipedia is the only page with high page view naming Rezo with a real name - and based on this the page is an anchor for a future (and already started) spread of the name in the internet.
The decision was based on the scientific nature of the sources. In the discussion six sources were given by a one-purpose editor:
So from these no single academic or governmental source is available and the only ones that give a name are opinion articles where no source for the name was given or they directly claim to be based on leaks.
This leads to the three sources given in the article:
All three cited sources are from the archives and seem to be not available in the internet instead of these archive links. Only one of those seem to be a scientific paper, both others are not. In all cases the name of Rezo is mentioned without source and without making plausible that it is mentioned with his knowledge or acceptance - I would doubt this so from my analysis both possible requirements for open the name to the public are not given. As said in the beginning: I understand the reasons to do so but I doubt that it is the right decision for this article with this background and the implemented risks for the described person. There is no widespread knowledge on the name and there is no reason to think that Rezo does not object to make his name public - at the opposite: he clearly do object this and therefor from my opinion the name has to be deleted and oversighted again - as soon as possible.
I hope there is a chance to re-open the discussion, @ TonyBallioni:, @ Primefac: and @ ToBeFree: - with best regards from the Rhine river in Germany -- Achim Raschka ( talk) 19:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
When readers, for example in the live help chat, ask for the removal or correction of allegedly incorrect (yet "verifiable") Wikipedia statements, my usual approach is to explain that Wikipedia is a tertiary source relying mostly on secondary sources. When they insist that the cited statements are incorrect, the usual answer is "Please contact the sources; when they correct it, we can follow their correction". We do not only rely on editorial oversight, we also rely on the decency of cited sources to publish or implement corrections when errors are discovered. In this regard, the age of the source can be important and make the difference between a reliable and an unreliable source.
When discussing outing attempts on Wikipedia, we have a strict policy not to confirm nor deny the accuracy of the published information. We especially do not treat a wish for oversight as a confirmation of accuracy. Reading "we can infer it’s his name given how much he wants it removed" in an oversight-related discussion does not feel right.
When a reliable source publishes an updated version of an article, it would be original research, specifically synthesis of published material, to interpret this in any other way than "The replaced/removed content is no longer usable for verifiability; Wikipedia statements based on it should be updated/removed". Describing it as "source manipulation" or a specific person's "campaign" is an unverifiable personal opinion.
From an editorial point of view, the article's title is, and will likely remain, "Rezo" (the common name). I'd be surprised to hear any objection to this. For the reasons that led to this title choice, I see no benefit in bolding a different name in the lead section. When taking the privacy of the living person into account ( we do), the safety concerns publicly voiced by Rezo outweigh the encyclopedic benefit of publishing an uninteresting ( irrelevant and unduly weighted) piece of information, an alleged alternative name of someone whose notability is entirely based on the reporting about "Rezo". ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 21:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
There are people that keep removing reputable sources and valid information from the article, and now locked it @ Primefac. The original revert said the four (!) sources were all unreliable, which is just some random baseless opinion and a genetic fallacy. 141.95.107.244 ( talk) 18:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Primefac, I appreciate you starting this; I suppose, looking at the history and the talk page, that we might as well try to get it right. You are correct in your assumption that I reverted the IP because they were edit warring over a BLP matter, and I take that very seriously. That they would revert again, with a phony "result of discussion is clear", that's just asinine. If that summary was phony, their comments here also show they are just not aware of how we do sourcing, particularly in BLPs: "genetic fallacy" ("a fallacy of irrelevance in which arguments or information are dismissed or validated based solely on their source of origin rather than their content") does not apply because the very nature of our BLP treatment concerns the source of origin--that is, the reliability of the source, which in this case is a blog, and thus automatically questionable. We are not here to start with the content, as the IP is doing, to see if it fits--our narrative, our ideas, etc. That's not just SYNTH, it's a violation of WP:NPOV and a disregard for the sourcing requirements. FWIW, I'm very comfortable playing the administrator here, because I have no iron in this fire. I saw TonyBallioni contributed to the content discussion earlier; perhaps you'd like to weigh in, Tony? User:ToBeFree? I learned recently that you're German: that's very exciting! And User:Ohnoitsjamie, thanks for your intervention. Drmies ( talk) 15:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
(Redacted) ( redacted ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 02:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)) -- 2001:7C0:600:24:250:56FF:FEBD:21 ( talk) 17:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Moral of the story: Lehre aus Rezo-Debatte: Kramp-Karrenbauer will künftig ihren Sohn um Rat fragen. Nicht der Postillon!!! -- 87.170.192.124 ( talk) 14:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Achim Raschka @ TonyBallioni @ Primefac @ ToBeFree Many print and online-sources have the birthname and are widely published. Even some mentioned above. Scientific journals and magazines and regional and national newspapers:
Vowe, Gerhard (28 July 2020): "Digitalisierung als grundlegender Veränderungsprozess der politischen Kommunikation". In Borucki, Isabelle; Kleinen-von Königslöw, Katharina; Marschall, Stefan; Zerback, Thomas (eds.). Handbuch Politische Kommunikation: p. 5. ISBN 9783658262426.
Ziewiecki, Sandra; Schwemmer, Carsten (December 2019). "Die Vernetzung von Influencern – eine Analyse der deutschen YouTube-Szene". Merz Wissenschaft: Medien + Erziehung. 63 (6): p. 26. ISBN 9783867365666.
Duckwitz, Amelie (2019): "Influencer als digitale Meinungsführer: Wie Influencer in sozialen Medien den politischen Diskurs beeinflussen – und welche Folgen das für die demokratische Öffentlichkeit hat". Friedrich Ebert Foundation: p. 4. ISBN 9783962504076 (first edition).
Kurp, Matthias (2020): "Digitale Meinungsführer?". Tendenz: Das Magazin der Bayerischen Landeszentrale für neue Medien (1): p. 23.
Sales Prado, Simon (18 October 2019): "Rezo". Die Tageszeitung: p. 17.
Bund, Kerstin; Knuth, Hannah (27 December 2019): "Die Macht der wenigen". Die Zeit (1): p. 25.
Posche, Ulrike (18 December 2019): "Ist da wer?". Stern (52): p. 28–37 (audio at 11 minutes 54 seconds).
Gröneweg, Maike (28 May 2019): "Vom Informatiker zum Internet-Star". Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung: p. 25.
Wieser, Diana (30 November 2019): "Das Zauberwort lautet Substanz". Südwest Presse (278): p. 35.
The German Wikipedia says Die Zeit's circulation is 540 000 copies. Stern's is 370 000. Die Tageszeitung's is between 40 000 and 50 000. Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung's is 150 000. Südwest Presse is 250 000. Just this alone means the birthname is published and circulated at least 1 350 000 times. That's over a million sold source copies not including my other sources above or the Internet or more hard to find sources.
Look up the printed sources in a library near you with copies. It says in them that it's Rezo's real name. Newspaper articles with the birthname are also still online in the paywalled Genios-databases and in my links above. But there's no guarantee they'll be available online in the future because they're now posted here and Rezo will likely contact the authors and hosts. And it's obvious they'll be deleted if he asks for it. Because no journalists or scientists would deny a removal of a birthname if they're told there are serious threats against a person and they think they could be responsible if something happens. Wouldn't you? A other reason could be some author's or publication's fear of public humiliation because Rezo attacked journalists with counters when they objected him in press-articles.
I understand Rezo. In part he wants to protect himself and his family. But that shouldn't be the only reason to artificially hide the birthname in Wikipedia when it's already out. And that also shouldn't make Rezo immune to all criticism because he again and again tries to control and manipulate what can be read about him and in Wikipedia especially. Manipulating Internet-sources and getting them unpublished is useless because you can't make the birthname forgotten anymore and you can't destroy over a million printed copies anyway. And I'm sorry but I'll keep calling it manipulating because there's more clear evidence and he pulled even trusted and neutral Internet-archives and Wikipedia into this.
It's not the first time sources about Rezo are manipulated if you look at the German site. Rezo once published a photo of his bachelor-degree with birthyear 1989 and said he's aged 27 in press-interviews. 2 years later this meant the public would consider him as aged 30 soon (probably worse for social-media-business but who knows) so he "changed" his birthyear to 1992 and had to get rid of published sources with the old age. He had a comment of him with his older age deleted from a press interview and the Youtube-video is now 38 seconds shorter then before if you look at the lengths "7:26" and "6:48". Youtube-comments for this video still show that he mentioned his old age before it was cut. It's all explained in the German Wikipedia site. Rezo already jokes in new videos about being in his late 30s now because the emergency plan is probably to just say "I was never serious with my age" or "The fake wasn't my idea and not from me" when someone will complain.
But that's not so bad yet. Bad is that the invented birthyear was mass-published when a new faked photo-source with a 1992-birthyear on his bachelor-degree was put directly in the German Wikipedia. It was believed and stayed very long. If you don't think this Wikipedia-manipulation has a connection to Rezo then compare the file-header of this similar Rezo pressphoto soon before with the faked photo using a Hex-editor. Both photo-file-headers say "Copyright (c) 1998 Hewlett-Packard Company"=likely the same photo-device and provenance=the faked source for Wikipedia likely has a connection to Rezo. Not totally confirmed but who else could and would manipulate the original bigger and raw photo-file to fake this source for use in Wikipedia if not to confirm the new age Rezo himself told soon before and probably wanted widely published? He even showed the fake photo-source in a much-viewed video to probably give it even more attention. This is in the German Wikipedia site. Sources of the photos I mentioned before are [2] [3] and [4] [5]. Just saved here because the German site says Rezo deleted evidence quickly after this was found. And because Rezo deleted all his pre-2019-Tweets some weeks ago. He even contacted Internet-archives and blocked access to proof of this manipulation although it doesn't even contain his birthname. This shows that some source deletions are to hide manipulations. It's not just about the birthname. If you look in the German Wikipedia all sources with the old age are now deleted too and only one archive is still there. This is a try to hide proof and get unwanted stuff deleted by Wikipedia. There's also a account mass-changing influencer-articles and deleting unwanted information in Rezo's text too. It's removing critical comments about Rezo and adding praise with weak sources and Rezo's own sources. [6] [7] [8] [9] Sorry for this long explanation but you have to give an idea of how Rezo sometimes works with sources. He sometimes comes up with the information he wants to spread first and selects and manipulates sources to prove this point. That's cool for Youtube but not for Wikipedia which every one must believe as fact when they read it. Wrong and manipulated information in Wikipedia and blocking Internet-archives to cover up manipulations is inacceptable or not? And I think Internet-archives should be contacted too to let them know what happened. But I looked and they delete even by copyright-owner-complaints and maybe don't care about manipulations and Zensurheberrecht and so on.
I believe Rezo didn't mention all this when he was brought to Achim Raschka by "Wikimedia Deutschland" or when he contacted the sources and Internet-archives to remove Internet-copies with his birthname. Likely this is why Rezo's request was accepted by every one. Every one only had good intensions to protect him and didn't know about the manipulations. Because I'd also delete it if there's a threat and I trust the person tells the truth and the whole story. I think you were tricked and didn't notice what's going on in the background. But this isn't the only reason why deletion of the birthname should be objected. I think that dangerous information must be removed if it's a real threat. But there's no evidence at all to show that releasing Rezo's birthname will get any one in danger. The birthname was in Wikipedia for over 4 months and there aren't reports of any violence. The birthname was in over a million printed copies and no violence happened. Rezo himself said that he got death threats even before he became "famous" in May 2019. Don't understand me wrong please. I am sorry you got harassed ToBeFree and Rezo and I believe that there are very creepy people. That's horrible, there's no excuse for threats and this people should be put in jail. But where there's harassers there's laws. That's what the police is for to take care. Trying to hide evidence and information is a other matter and unconnected.
Every one wants Wikipedia to not spread wrong information I think, and it's also not your task to hide correct information which is already out in the public am I right? Because the birthname's right. A connection in my sources above that can't be found out by copying from another source or from Wikipedia proves it too. It's something the journalist must find out. Just if there's doubts about the birthname being true. I'd mention what but there's "Redacted" posts here so I don't know if it's cool. So please check it yourself. I don't know how you decide so I don't post the birthname here.
And I object before the usual Nazis cry around now: That Rezo manipulated some sources doesn't make all automatically lies and all his critics good guys and it doesn't prove that it's all a big conspiracy and George Soros and Bill Gates and Angela Merkel are behind it all and this was all prepared to overthrow the German governments in "super-election-year" 2021 and the Matrix is real and so on bla bla. A other influencer with his actual agency is already connected to corrupt CDU politicians like Philipp Amthor for positive advertising as a unpaid trial of what they can do so it's really more a thing of money doesn't stink. Rezo didn't do criticism about this so he's acting all alone I'm sure. It's just a problem that he can now spread wrong information to a wide audience with politics-influencing and causing controversies because this is what mass-medias report on and what's even treated in school-lessons on medias sometimes. The only thing the evidence above proves is even trusted people like Rezo sometimes manipulate and that someone with bad intensions can use stuff like Wikipedia as a mass-publishing-tool for wrong information if it's not found fast enough. If people understand this it'll maybe be Rezo's biggest achievement.
More parts in Rezo's German Wikipedia text sound like advertising so who knows how much more faked information is in and what must be changed? But this are the sources that prove why the birthname should be mentioned here again and why more attention must be given to changes. A Melderegisterauskunft could be done and the documents showed to confirm his real birthdate if it helps. Please check the evidence before it's deleted or blocked. Sorry for my English. It's not my mother language. And sorry for this long post but I don't think all this should be hidden when discussing Rezo's birthname and birthdate because it's a thing of influence. I think every one should defend against all types of manipulation. If Wikipedia doesn't then every one can just block and manipulate and include sources to govern the texts. Who wants to read this if the best fakers decide what's written and what's right and wrong? In times of crazy Querdenken-groups and right-wing-conspiracy-types and so on the Wikipedia has a big responsibility to not give munition to them. Maybe Rezo can agree to this if he contacts you again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vocnar ( talk • contribs) 10:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Primefac if I understand you you're saying that every one here made a decision and I didn't discuss? That's wrong. I read the old discussion here (online-translated but I read everything) and the name was deleted "as a courtesy" by @ TonyBallioni because internet sources disappeared. The old discussion ended with "I’ll keep checking for sources every few months, and if we get some additional sourcing, can restore it then." Then I found lots of new sources with the name and even started a new discussion with many reasons why it's useless to delete. I also wrote how Rezo manipulates internet sources and his Wikipedia page. I contacted the old discussion members. I was afraid writing the name was unlawful first so I wanted the discussion deleted soon but it was objected by Wikipedia. Now I'm sure it's not against the law because the name is known. But that the new discussion isn't read or answered and the name and all sources for it deleted looks like some Wikipedia manipulations are wanted. Just the right people like Rezo have to manipulate, then it doesn't matter. I'm sure this page will now be cluttered by "random people" with more nonsense like Korean characters to get it locked fast. But all that doesn't change that the name is known and already published millions of times. It all looks like gaming the systems by Rezo. But I understand that the sources are too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vocnar ( talk • contribs) 04:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Hm! I think the arguments are more important then the objection. But I'll write shorter in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vocnar ( talk • contribs) 09:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
There wasn't a understanding to remove the name but a removal out of courtesy by TonyBallioni because all online sources disappeared. Since then many new sources have been found and they're described in detail above. That you're removing scientific sources along with the name is against the rules. But I'll bite and reply to your "arguments":
1) That's only a claim by you. And how vehement you try to delete the name and to paint me as "too emotionally invested" and "not objective" instead of backing up your points is very weak. If you distrust the scientific sources then prove why they're wrong with your own sources. Scientists are more reliable then claims about the name in Wikipedia discussions by you.
2) and 3) German Wikipedia points to the family's old homepage that proves the name in the scientific sources and the connection in the Stern article too. You're hopeless if you still claim it's not the real name. And again you're claiming the opposite of what is fact but show no sources for it. You need sources just as strong proving the opposite! So that's at least 4 scientific sources to disprove the name. And papers with such a high circulation. You have none!
Readding the name with strong sources. Maybe next time Rezo or his friends should think about what they're doing or hide the traces better before they're revealed. Then there's no need to manipulate information! Barbra Streisand? Good day. Vocnar ( talk • contribs) 19:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I have not listed every video he has produced. Only the most notable ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DenzRooster ( talk • contribs) 12:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for response, I will look into it. As a reference, the most viewed videos are these. That viral video from 2016 is on rank 3, but it is the highest from 2016. -- User:DenzRooster 15:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
His real name is known. (Redacted) -- Fidgetspinnerrambling ( talk) 12:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public.Emphasis mine. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 16:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Didelda ( talk) 09:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I would like to stress and re-open this topic again because I think that it is a mistake to de-anonymize Rezo in this article. I admit, that I was asked to have a look at it by Rezo directly; we did not know each other before and I was adressed as a long-term wikipedian active in de.wp since 2003 ( de:Benutzer.Achim Raschka). I analysed this topic based of what is here and what I got as background information and I am aware of En.Wiki is not De.Wiki ... (please also be aware that I am not a native english speaker when you read the following).
O.k.: As far as I can see we have the following situation - Rezo is (in Germany) a well-known youtube influencer normally working on typical influencer topics like music, tik-tok, other stuff. He was widely unknown to the general public until he made a first very critical video named "Die Zerstörung der CD" (translation: "The destruction of the christ-democratic party") on his channel bringing up a lot of well-sourced critical points against the CD government in Germany to get people not to elect the CDU at the next elections. This video was recognized all over the country and was name an earthquake in the political discussion - Rezo got known to nearly everyone and was discussed in all newspapers, news portal and in the public (even people in my age of ~50 years of age with no connection to the youtube cloud discussed his video). It brought a lot of sympathy, but also a lot of hate mainly from conservatives and - harder - also right-winged. Since this video and a follow-up on the press responses everyone in Germany knows Rezo - and he got into the focus of a lot of hate speech and open threads. People tried to find out personal details on hin, his life, his family and some newspapers found out a name they connect to him as real name. In the following people connected him on different ways, some visited him and tried to get into his apartment and Rezo now is permanently watched and secured by the police and had to change his apartment several times - this is documented by a letter from the police headquarters of his hometown Rezo sent me and that he also has sent to the oversighters of the en.wp. Based on this he asked for urgently deletion of the name from this article due to fear for himself and friends and family.
I am aware that the decision to keep his name was based on sources that are available. In de.wp and also in en.wp we have guidelines on the privacy of Persons described in articles: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of personal information and using primary sources claims Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. - this is not the caes here: The real name is not widely published and there also are no sources hat inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. In contrast although there was a huge coverage in press and other sources on Rezo in the last months you hardly can find any press named him by his real name. There are only very few sources that claim the name as that of Rezo that are used in this article. To be honest: The english wikipedia is the only page with high page view naming Rezo with a real name - and based on this the page is an anchor for a future (and already started) spread of the name in the internet.
The decision was based on the scientific nature of the sources. In the discussion six sources were given by a one-purpose editor:
So from these no single academic or governmental source is available and the only ones that give a name are opinion articles where no source for the name was given or they directly claim to be based on leaks.
This leads to the three sources given in the article:
All three cited sources are from the archives and seem to be not available in the internet instead of these archive links. Only one of those seem to be a scientific paper, both others are not. In all cases the name of Rezo is mentioned without source and without making plausible that it is mentioned with his knowledge or acceptance - I would doubt this so from my analysis both possible requirements for open the name to the public are not given. As said in the beginning: I understand the reasons to do so but I doubt that it is the right decision for this article with this background and the implemented risks for the described person. There is no widespread knowledge on the name and there is no reason to think that Rezo does not object to make his name public - at the opposite: he clearly do object this and therefor from my opinion the name has to be deleted and oversighted again - as soon as possible.
I hope there is a chance to re-open the discussion, @ TonyBallioni:, @ Primefac: and @ ToBeFree: - with best regards from the Rhine river in Germany -- Achim Raschka ( talk) 19:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
When readers, for example in the live help chat, ask for the removal or correction of allegedly incorrect (yet "verifiable") Wikipedia statements, my usual approach is to explain that Wikipedia is a tertiary source relying mostly on secondary sources. When they insist that the cited statements are incorrect, the usual answer is "Please contact the sources; when they correct it, we can follow their correction". We do not only rely on editorial oversight, we also rely on the decency of cited sources to publish or implement corrections when errors are discovered. In this regard, the age of the source can be important and make the difference between a reliable and an unreliable source.
When discussing outing attempts on Wikipedia, we have a strict policy not to confirm nor deny the accuracy of the published information. We especially do not treat a wish for oversight as a confirmation of accuracy. Reading "we can infer it’s his name given how much he wants it removed" in an oversight-related discussion does not feel right.
When a reliable source publishes an updated version of an article, it would be original research, specifically synthesis of published material, to interpret this in any other way than "The replaced/removed content is no longer usable for verifiability; Wikipedia statements based on it should be updated/removed". Describing it as "source manipulation" or a specific person's "campaign" is an unverifiable personal opinion.
From an editorial point of view, the article's title is, and will likely remain, "Rezo" (the common name). I'd be surprised to hear any objection to this. For the reasons that led to this title choice, I see no benefit in bolding a different name in the lead section. When taking the privacy of the living person into account ( we do), the safety concerns publicly voiced by Rezo outweigh the encyclopedic benefit of publishing an uninteresting ( irrelevant and unduly weighted) piece of information, an alleged alternative name of someone whose notability is entirely based on the reporting about "Rezo". ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 21:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
There are people that keep removing reputable sources and valid information from the article, and now locked it @ Primefac. The original revert said the four (!) sources were all unreliable, which is just some random baseless opinion and a genetic fallacy. 141.95.107.244 ( talk) 18:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Primefac, I appreciate you starting this; I suppose, looking at the history and the talk page, that we might as well try to get it right. You are correct in your assumption that I reverted the IP because they were edit warring over a BLP matter, and I take that very seriously. That they would revert again, with a phony "result of discussion is clear", that's just asinine. If that summary was phony, their comments here also show they are just not aware of how we do sourcing, particularly in BLPs: "genetic fallacy" ("a fallacy of irrelevance in which arguments or information are dismissed or validated based solely on their source of origin rather than their content") does not apply because the very nature of our BLP treatment concerns the source of origin--that is, the reliability of the source, which in this case is a blog, and thus automatically questionable. We are not here to start with the content, as the IP is doing, to see if it fits--our narrative, our ideas, etc. That's not just SYNTH, it's a violation of WP:NPOV and a disregard for the sourcing requirements. FWIW, I'm very comfortable playing the administrator here, because I have no iron in this fire. I saw TonyBallioni contributed to the content discussion earlier; perhaps you'd like to weigh in, Tony? User:ToBeFree? I learned recently that you're German: that's very exciting! And User:Ohnoitsjamie, thanks for your intervention. Drmies ( talk) 15:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
(Redacted) ( redacted ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 02:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)) -- 2001:7C0:600:24:250:56FF:FEBD:21 ( talk) 17:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Moral of the story: Lehre aus Rezo-Debatte: Kramp-Karrenbauer will künftig ihren Sohn um Rat fragen. Nicht der Postillon!!! -- 87.170.192.124 ( talk) 14:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Achim Raschka @ TonyBallioni @ Primefac @ ToBeFree Many print and online-sources have the birthname and are widely published. Even some mentioned above. Scientific journals and magazines and regional and national newspapers:
Vowe, Gerhard (28 July 2020): "Digitalisierung als grundlegender Veränderungsprozess der politischen Kommunikation". In Borucki, Isabelle; Kleinen-von Königslöw, Katharina; Marschall, Stefan; Zerback, Thomas (eds.). Handbuch Politische Kommunikation: p. 5. ISBN 9783658262426.
Ziewiecki, Sandra; Schwemmer, Carsten (December 2019). "Die Vernetzung von Influencern – eine Analyse der deutschen YouTube-Szene". Merz Wissenschaft: Medien + Erziehung. 63 (6): p. 26. ISBN 9783867365666.
Duckwitz, Amelie (2019): "Influencer als digitale Meinungsführer: Wie Influencer in sozialen Medien den politischen Diskurs beeinflussen – und welche Folgen das für die demokratische Öffentlichkeit hat". Friedrich Ebert Foundation: p. 4. ISBN 9783962504076 (first edition).
Kurp, Matthias (2020): "Digitale Meinungsführer?". Tendenz: Das Magazin der Bayerischen Landeszentrale für neue Medien (1): p. 23.
Sales Prado, Simon (18 October 2019): "Rezo". Die Tageszeitung: p. 17.
Bund, Kerstin; Knuth, Hannah (27 December 2019): "Die Macht der wenigen". Die Zeit (1): p. 25.
Posche, Ulrike (18 December 2019): "Ist da wer?". Stern (52): p. 28–37 (audio at 11 minutes 54 seconds).
Gröneweg, Maike (28 May 2019): "Vom Informatiker zum Internet-Star". Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung: p. 25.
Wieser, Diana (30 November 2019): "Das Zauberwort lautet Substanz". Südwest Presse (278): p. 35.
The German Wikipedia says Die Zeit's circulation is 540 000 copies. Stern's is 370 000. Die Tageszeitung's is between 40 000 and 50 000. Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung's is 150 000. Südwest Presse is 250 000. Just this alone means the birthname is published and circulated at least 1 350 000 times. That's over a million sold source copies not including my other sources above or the Internet or more hard to find sources.
Look up the printed sources in a library near you with copies. It says in them that it's Rezo's real name. Newspaper articles with the birthname are also still online in the paywalled Genios-databases and in my links above. But there's no guarantee they'll be available online in the future because they're now posted here and Rezo will likely contact the authors and hosts. And it's obvious they'll be deleted if he asks for it. Because no journalists or scientists would deny a removal of a birthname if they're told there are serious threats against a person and they think they could be responsible if something happens. Wouldn't you? A other reason could be some author's or publication's fear of public humiliation because Rezo attacked journalists with counters when they objected him in press-articles.
I understand Rezo. In part he wants to protect himself and his family. But that shouldn't be the only reason to artificially hide the birthname in Wikipedia when it's already out. And that also shouldn't make Rezo immune to all criticism because he again and again tries to control and manipulate what can be read about him and in Wikipedia especially. Manipulating Internet-sources and getting them unpublished is useless because you can't make the birthname forgotten anymore and you can't destroy over a million printed copies anyway. And I'm sorry but I'll keep calling it manipulating because there's more clear evidence and he pulled even trusted and neutral Internet-archives and Wikipedia into this.
It's not the first time sources about Rezo are manipulated if you look at the German site. Rezo once published a photo of his bachelor-degree with birthyear 1989 and said he's aged 27 in press-interviews. 2 years later this meant the public would consider him as aged 30 soon (probably worse for social-media-business but who knows) so he "changed" his birthyear to 1992 and had to get rid of published sources with the old age. He had a comment of him with his older age deleted from a press interview and the Youtube-video is now 38 seconds shorter then before if you look at the lengths "7:26" and "6:48". Youtube-comments for this video still show that he mentioned his old age before it was cut. It's all explained in the German Wikipedia site. Rezo already jokes in new videos about being in his late 30s now because the emergency plan is probably to just say "I was never serious with my age" or "The fake wasn't my idea and not from me" when someone will complain.
But that's not so bad yet. Bad is that the invented birthyear was mass-published when a new faked photo-source with a 1992-birthyear on his bachelor-degree was put directly in the German Wikipedia. It was believed and stayed very long. If you don't think this Wikipedia-manipulation has a connection to Rezo then compare the file-header of this similar Rezo pressphoto soon before with the faked photo using a Hex-editor. Both photo-file-headers say "Copyright (c) 1998 Hewlett-Packard Company"=likely the same photo-device and provenance=the faked source for Wikipedia likely has a connection to Rezo. Not totally confirmed but who else could and would manipulate the original bigger and raw photo-file to fake this source for use in Wikipedia if not to confirm the new age Rezo himself told soon before and probably wanted widely published? He even showed the fake photo-source in a much-viewed video to probably give it even more attention. This is in the German Wikipedia site. Sources of the photos I mentioned before are [2] [3] and [4] [5]. Just saved here because the German site says Rezo deleted evidence quickly after this was found. And because Rezo deleted all his pre-2019-Tweets some weeks ago. He even contacted Internet-archives and blocked access to proof of this manipulation although it doesn't even contain his birthname. This shows that some source deletions are to hide manipulations. It's not just about the birthname. If you look in the German Wikipedia all sources with the old age are now deleted too and only one archive is still there. This is a try to hide proof and get unwanted stuff deleted by Wikipedia. There's also a account mass-changing influencer-articles and deleting unwanted information in Rezo's text too. It's removing critical comments about Rezo and adding praise with weak sources and Rezo's own sources. [6] [7] [8] [9] Sorry for this long explanation but you have to give an idea of how Rezo sometimes works with sources. He sometimes comes up with the information he wants to spread first and selects and manipulates sources to prove this point. That's cool for Youtube but not for Wikipedia which every one must believe as fact when they read it. Wrong and manipulated information in Wikipedia and blocking Internet-archives to cover up manipulations is inacceptable or not? And I think Internet-archives should be contacted too to let them know what happened. But I looked and they delete even by copyright-owner-complaints and maybe don't care about manipulations and Zensurheberrecht and so on.
I believe Rezo didn't mention all this when he was brought to Achim Raschka by "Wikimedia Deutschland" or when he contacted the sources and Internet-archives to remove Internet-copies with his birthname. Likely this is why Rezo's request was accepted by every one. Every one only had good intensions to protect him and didn't know about the manipulations. Because I'd also delete it if there's a threat and I trust the person tells the truth and the whole story. I think you were tricked and didn't notice what's going on in the background. But this isn't the only reason why deletion of the birthname should be objected. I think that dangerous information must be removed if it's a real threat. But there's no evidence at all to show that releasing Rezo's birthname will get any one in danger. The birthname was in Wikipedia for over 4 months and there aren't reports of any violence. The birthname was in over a million printed copies and no violence happened. Rezo himself said that he got death threats even before he became "famous" in May 2019. Don't understand me wrong please. I am sorry you got harassed ToBeFree and Rezo and I believe that there are very creepy people. That's horrible, there's no excuse for threats and this people should be put in jail. But where there's harassers there's laws. That's what the police is for to take care. Trying to hide evidence and information is a other matter and unconnected.
Every one wants Wikipedia to not spread wrong information I think, and it's also not your task to hide correct information which is already out in the public am I right? Because the birthname's right. A connection in my sources above that can't be found out by copying from another source or from Wikipedia proves it too. It's something the journalist must find out. Just if there's doubts about the birthname being true. I'd mention what but there's "Redacted" posts here so I don't know if it's cool. So please check it yourself. I don't know how you decide so I don't post the birthname here.
And I object before the usual Nazis cry around now: That Rezo manipulated some sources doesn't make all automatically lies and all his critics good guys and it doesn't prove that it's all a big conspiracy and George Soros and Bill Gates and Angela Merkel are behind it all and this was all prepared to overthrow the German governments in "super-election-year" 2021 and the Matrix is real and so on bla bla. A other influencer with his actual agency is already connected to corrupt CDU politicians like Philipp Amthor for positive advertising as a unpaid trial of what they can do so it's really more a thing of money doesn't stink. Rezo didn't do criticism about this so he's acting all alone I'm sure. It's just a problem that he can now spread wrong information to a wide audience with politics-influencing and causing controversies because this is what mass-medias report on and what's even treated in school-lessons on medias sometimes. The only thing the evidence above proves is even trusted people like Rezo sometimes manipulate and that someone with bad intensions can use stuff like Wikipedia as a mass-publishing-tool for wrong information if it's not found fast enough. If people understand this it'll maybe be Rezo's biggest achievement.
More parts in Rezo's German Wikipedia text sound like advertising so who knows how much more faked information is in and what must be changed? But this are the sources that prove why the birthname should be mentioned here again and why more attention must be given to changes. A Melderegisterauskunft could be done and the documents showed to confirm his real birthdate if it helps. Please check the evidence before it's deleted or blocked. Sorry for my English. It's not my mother language. And sorry for this long post but I don't think all this should be hidden when discussing Rezo's birthname and birthdate because it's a thing of influence. I think every one should defend against all types of manipulation. If Wikipedia doesn't then every one can just block and manipulate and include sources to govern the texts. Who wants to read this if the best fakers decide what's written and what's right and wrong? In times of crazy Querdenken-groups and right-wing-conspiracy-types and so on the Wikipedia has a big responsibility to not give munition to them. Maybe Rezo can agree to this if he contacts you again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vocnar ( talk • contribs) 10:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Primefac if I understand you you're saying that every one here made a decision and I didn't discuss? That's wrong. I read the old discussion here (online-translated but I read everything) and the name was deleted "as a courtesy" by @ TonyBallioni because internet sources disappeared. The old discussion ended with "I’ll keep checking for sources every few months, and if we get some additional sourcing, can restore it then." Then I found lots of new sources with the name and even started a new discussion with many reasons why it's useless to delete. I also wrote how Rezo manipulates internet sources and his Wikipedia page. I contacted the old discussion members. I was afraid writing the name was unlawful first so I wanted the discussion deleted soon but it was objected by Wikipedia. Now I'm sure it's not against the law because the name is known. But that the new discussion isn't read or answered and the name and all sources for it deleted looks like some Wikipedia manipulations are wanted. Just the right people like Rezo have to manipulate, then it doesn't matter. I'm sure this page will now be cluttered by "random people" with more nonsense like Korean characters to get it locked fast. But all that doesn't change that the name is known and already published millions of times. It all looks like gaming the systems by Rezo. But I understand that the sources are too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vocnar ( talk • contribs) 04:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Hm! I think the arguments are more important then the objection. But I'll write shorter in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vocnar ( talk • contribs) 09:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
There wasn't a understanding to remove the name but a removal out of courtesy by TonyBallioni because all online sources disappeared. Since then many new sources have been found and they're described in detail above. That you're removing scientific sources along with the name is against the rules. But I'll bite and reply to your "arguments":
1) That's only a claim by you. And how vehement you try to delete the name and to paint me as "too emotionally invested" and "not objective" instead of backing up your points is very weak. If you distrust the scientific sources then prove why they're wrong with your own sources. Scientists are more reliable then claims about the name in Wikipedia discussions by you.
2) and 3) German Wikipedia points to the family's old homepage that proves the name in the scientific sources and the connection in the Stern article too. You're hopeless if you still claim it's not the real name. And again you're claiming the opposite of what is fact but show no sources for it. You need sources just as strong proving the opposite! So that's at least 4 scientific sources to disprove the name. And papers with such a high circulation. You have none!
Readding the name with strong sources. Maybe next time Rezo or his friends should think about what they're doing or hide the traces better before they're revealed. Then there's no need to manipulate information! Barbra Streisand? Good day. Vocnar ( talk • contribs) 19:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I have not listed every video he has produced. Only the most notable ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DenzRooster ( talk • contribs) 12:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for response, I will look into it. As a reference, the most viewed videos are these. That viral video from 2016 is on rank 3, but it is the highest from 2016. -- User:DenzRooster 15:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)