Talk:Rezo

Real name
His real name is known. --Fidgetspinnerrambling (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * , WP:BLPPRIVACY: 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)
 * NOZ is a real German newspaper. So far the newspaper did not have to reject this information. A YouTube personality is not a private, but a public person. --Fidgetspinnerrambling (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You should read more carefully: widely. Just one source is not widely. And the subject said in interviews that he doesn't want that media are publishing his real name. Clear case. --KurtR (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Rezo does not wish his identity to be public:
 * "Rezo will Missverständnisse ausräumen. Das Treffen findet in einem Hotelzimmer statt. Er will nicht, dass man weiß, wo er wohnt. Und wie. Rezo sagt, er habe Angst, "dass ein Spinner bei mir zu Hause die Scheiben einschmeißt." In der WhatsApp-Gruppe seines Abiturjahrgangs hat er darum gebeten, dass niemand mit der großen Zeitung sprechen möge, die gerade sein Privatleben auskundschafte. &#91;...&#93; Das Treffen findet in einem Hotelzimmer statt. Er will nicht, dass man weiß, wo er wohnt. Und wie. Rezo sagt, er habe Angst, "dass ein Spinner bei mir zu Hause die Scheiben einschmeißt." In der WhatsApp-Gruppe seines Abiturjahrgangs hat er darum gebeten, dass niemand mit der großen Zeitung sprechen möge, die gerade sein Privatleben auskundschafte."
 * "Doch in Wahrheit will Rezo komplett anonym bleiben. Er hat Angst, dass ihm „ein Spinner“ die Scheiben einschmeißt. Seinen echten Namen verrät er nicht, um sein Alter macht er ein Geheimnis."
 * Links and first quote (because of paywall) copied from de:Talk:Rezo. The German article is currently semi-protected specifically to prevent re-adding the name that apparently was even revision-deleted over there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Quote trimmed ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * His name has been spread through every newspaper: . His real name --Hippocastanum (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's the single one newspaper we have been talking about. Read the discussion above. Your second link does not link any specific person to any specific name; mentioning it here together with the name is a violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * His real can be proofed correctly. 2020, there is no reason anymore to hide it. There are scientific papers, articles in newspapers etc. Below a list of sources to proof his real name correctly: 1. https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/hj8d4/ 2. https://www.cmgt.uni-leipzig.de/fileadmin/downloads/Projects/projects_pdf/Whitepaper_Ethikkodex_Influencer-Kommunikation_Universitaet_Leipzig.pdf 3. https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/akademie/15736.pdf 4. https://www.blm.de/infothek/publikationen/magazin_tendenz/tendenz-12020---das-magazin-d/influencer_tendenz120.cfm 5. https://imsw.de/2019/09/was-erlauben-rezo/ (maybe not neutral) 6. https://www.publicomag.com/2019/06/pfingstwochenrueckblick-die-loecher-in-den-socken-sind-robert-habecks-stigmata/ 7. https://schweizermonat.ch/apocalypse-maybe-later/ This could be continued, but i think, thats enough to proof the real name... Its widely spread in scientific papers about Rezo. To revert the edit just with the comment "no proof" is ridiculous.

User:Didelda (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight: Please only undo any edits after a discussion. I've proofed the name with neutral, scientific papers. Simply writing "No poofs" makes no sense. Please visit the talk page first!User:Didelda (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Obviously should be included. The sourcing is from government and academic sources. It’s no longer private and there is no presumption of privacy. That the subject wants it private doesn’t really come into play since the sourcing indicates it is not and this is a very basic bit of biographical information. I also think this should be restored fairly quickly. People should not be able to censor the publication of their own name simply by objecting if it is as widely published like it is here. We have a duty to our readers at this point to include it as the biography is not complete without it, even if the subject wants it to be. That is to say: names are the single most important part of a biography. Once they are published in multiple reliable sources, which is very clearly the case here, we should include it and the presumption should be in favour of inclusion once that sourcing has been produced. It has been here, and we are not censored. There is absolutely no policy based reason to keep removed. I’m on a wikibreak, but the predilection of notable YouTubers who have gotten scrutiny for their actions opposing reliable sources mentioning their names being cited as a reason for removing is not something I view as valid under en.wiki policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. Its similar to Atze Schröder's article. There, his real name was inserted too, but there aren't any scientific papers, only an article from the BILD-newspaper. In contrast, very reliable and multiple sources may be cited in Rezos case. Therefore his real name should be mentioned all the more! It's a simple and basic biographical information and it isn't private anymore, just search for him on Google Schoolar. Are there different opinions?Didelda (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; it's clear that consensus can change when newer/better sources are provided. I'll self-revert. Primefac (talk) 12:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, this is an interesting recent change. I don't even disagree anymore. and, you're oversighters. Unless it has happened already, would you mind starting a discussion behind the scenes about un-oversighting some of the revisions of this page? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reasonable. Done. Primefac (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Restarted thread moved to a new section. Primefac (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Redux
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 (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: Biographies of living persons 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:
 * 1) https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/hj8d4/ - no real name of Rezo is mentioned
 * 2) https://www.cmgt.uni-leipzig.de/fileadmin/downloads/Projects/projects_pdf/Whitepaper_Ethikkodex_Influencer-Kommunikation_Universitaet_Leipzig.pdf - no page available
 * 3) https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/akademie/15736.pdf - now available at http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/akademie/15736-20200702.pdf and no real name is given.
 * 4) https://www.blm.de/infothek/publikationen/magazin_tendenz/tendenz-12020---das-magazin-d/influencer_tendenz120.cfm - no information on rezo can be found.
 * 5) https://imsw.de/2019/09/was-erlauben-rezo/ - this hardly can be seen as a neutral or scientific source and it only mentioned the name as rumor ("If you want to trust the information that is slowly but surely leaked") - this is not reliable
 * 6) https://www.publicomag.com/2019/06/pfingstwochenrueckblick-die-loecher-in-den-socken-sind-robert-habecks-stigmata/ - also this is an opinion article and not a scientific one; it also does not show where the name is taken from - also in this case I doubt reliability.
 * 7) https://schweizermonat.ch/apocalypse-maybe-later/ - in this article no name is given ....

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.
 * 1) Ziewiecki, Sandra & Schwemmer, Carsten (2019). Die Vernetzung von Influencern – eine Analyse der deutschen YouTube-Szene. 63. 18-28.:  - an archive link, for sure a scientific paper, but it seems that it is not available in the open internet; the real name of Rezo is mentioned one time, without any sources for the name.
 * 2) Dr. Matthias Kurp: ''Digitale Meinungsführer? Bayrische Landeszentrale für neue Medien (bavarian central for new media) - this one is an archive article of the one that is no longer available by the editors (see above); no source for the name is given and it is not visible if the use is built on reliable sources or the leaks mentioned.
 * 3) Nadja Enke (M.A.) & Dr. Nils S. Borchers: ''Ethikkodex Influencer-Kommunikation University of Leipzig 2019 - again an archive link, seems to be a presentation and no scientific paper and it seems that it is not available in the open internet; the real name of Rezo is mentioned one time - without any sources for the name.

I hope there is a chance to re-open the discussion,, and  - with best regards from the Rhine river in Germany -- Achim Raschka (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Greetings from Wuppertal :) Thank you very much for the detailed analysis, the open disclosure and the kind tone. The history of this talk page is likely why I had to ask my cell phone provider to enable Anonymous Call Rejection in 2019.
 * Rezo's alleged name has been removed from at least one reliable source that had been used as an argument for publication. Assuming that this might have happened to multiple sources, a complete re-evaluation of "widely published by reliable sources" is necessary.
 * Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Slightly reworded to clarify that Rezo did not reach out to me and I have no conflict of interest. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this still meets our standards. None of the arguments presented above indicate that the sourcing isn’t reliable or that it shouldn’t be used. Archived links are fine as are paywalled sites. Clearly meets our criteria for inclusion per previous analysis. I also very strongly object to the campaign of one person to hide his name from his biography after it is public. This is one person campaigning against publicly available sources. We don’t allow that. If he hadn’t personally reached out to multiple people, we would have no problem at all with this because it so clearly meets en.wiki policy for inclusion. I know it’s not fun to have your name public if you don’t want it public, but it is. Our job is to provide that to the public in a neutral fashion. I’m not German and don’t have the slightest clue about German politics, so I’m pretty neutral on this topic, but as much as I might feel bad for him, his name as reported by reliable sources needs to be in his biography, and he doesn’t get to control whether or not it is.While I do appreciate the thought put into this and the care for another human being, I don’t think this is a BLP violation. We might make the editorial judgement not to include it, but that’s different than it being against policy. We have another policy WP:NOTCENSORED, which is also applicable in this case. There are probably cultural differences in understanding of privacy, I acknowledge German’s usually have stronger views on privacy matters than many native anglophones, but I honestly don’t see this as truly being private in the sense we’d use it here. I also personally consider a name the most essential part of a biography, which is why I tend to get involved in these discussions. There’s a lot of people who for one reason or another don’t like their name being public even if they are a public person. It’s not fun, but when you put yourself into the public sphere for comment, it’s a risk that can happen. When multiple reliable sources report on it, so do we, and I think that’s been met here by the three sources cited. They’re strong enough to meet our standards, even if paywalled or archived. The fact that he’s been running a campaign to hide his name goes further to why we should accept the archives: we shouldn’t be subject to source manipulation by subjects of the article, which I think is what’s going on here. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear ~ ToBeFree, thank you for rewording and to make clear that there was no reach out to you by rezo.
 * Dear TonyBallioni, I understand your point and will not question your position of neutrality in this case, on the other side I disagree in several points:
 * There is no campaign, there is a understandable request - as written I was asked by him in a direct talk to have a look at it (and I have to add that we were connected via Wikimedia Deutschland). Beside this he may have asked others and also tried to reach out for the en.wp oversighters, but he never ran anything I would name a campaign by now. By now we had a discussion in a very friendly tone and I explained a lot on wikipedia rules and structure. To add concerning Rezo I am also a neutral person but from my thinking I stick to Biographies of living persons and the right of people to stay with a pseudonym even if there name was leaked somehow - this is true for wikipedians the same as for influencers who decided to are active with a pseudonym. As it seems by now I am the only one on this page discussing with my real name.
 * I also personally consider a name the most essential part of a biography - in this case I disagree in case of persons who are only active with a stage name or pseudonym and do not actively disclose their real identy. I understand that in this case we have a different view on what is essential, this is fair enough.
 * Concerning reliable source I already wrote a lot on top. Also in this case I disagree since it is not visible where the name in the documents cited comes from (most probably leaked within the time with high press pressure) and even if it really is the true name of Rezo. Also in this we have other points of view, in this case way more critical, especially since it is not "widely published by reliable sources" (by now I see one and I can imagine to send a letter to the publishers to ask them where they took the name from)
 * As you wrote beside the rules there is another way to handle it: "We might make the editorial judgement not to include it" - although I think that it is very straight on the edge of against our rules and guidelines I personal believe that we have a responsibility in case of biographies of living people in these cases. So although I think this case is being against our policy, I would kindly ask and recommend to consider to make the editorial judgement in this case. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you’re making my point on source manipulation for me: he’s actively trying to suppress sourcing that is reliable and had widely published his name. Our standard isn’t at the time of publication are there sources linkable on the internet. The three sources cited are all reliable and high quality, meeting the BLP policy. The BLP policy also doesn’t create rights. There is no right to remain under a pseudonym if your name has been published in reliable sources. His name (and yes, we can infer it’s his name given how much he wants it removed) has been published in two academic sources and by a government publication—that meets our standard and there’s not in my view a policy reason for removal, especially given the amount of source manipulation that the subject appears to be doing.This comes down us having a basic and in my view essential piece of biographical information that’s been published in at least three sources that would meet our sourcing standard. There’s likely more that could be found if he wasn’t actively trying to get sources to remove it. I don’t think we have an obligation to comply with his request, and as I indicated above, I usually oppose these type of requests if there’s quality sourcing (which is the case here) because of how central a name is to a biography. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a pretty complex issue, but in my view the addition of a person's name to a biography where they are known to viewers entirely pseudonymously is not essential, and we should err on the side of caution by removing the information (though I don't know if oversight is necessary). Yes, there is always a risk of one's real name being uncovered as a public figure, and there isn't a legal responsibility for Wikipedia to remove the information, but the associated exposure can be quite harmful to the subject. Trump–Ukraine scandal, for example, pointedly does not include the name of the whistleblower who many people seem eager to out. I know this example is different in a few ways, notably in terms of exposure in RS, but the effect is similar. (It's also the only one I could think of off the top of my head as a clueless American.) Publication in reliable sources, while they are our bread and butter, shouldn't entirely make the judgment on privacy, especially when most of them have redacted the info after the fact.


 * In terms of policy, WP:BLPNAME says that "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context" (emphasis mine). His name has indeed been "intentionally concealed", not just by Rezo himself but also by two of those RS which originally published his name. The article is mostly about his controversial video, though to be fair there is a paragraph about his other YouTube activities. TonyBallioni says that the name is essential/central to a biography, but I simply disagree; maybe this is reading between the lines, but that last phrase I quoted implies that sometimes names do not give significant context. Indeed, knowing that his name is John Smith doesn't provide any additional context for the reader because almost no sources use it.


 * Even if this doesn't meet WP:BLPNAME because of the "discussed primarily in terms of a single event" part, I think it is following the spirit of policy. BLP says that "[BLPs] must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy", and this falls into that. Ovinus (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We should be clear to distinguish between editorial judgement and the BLP policy. This is in no way a BLP violation and the policy certainly allows for its inclusion (and it definitely doesn’t require suppression.) While I am very strongly of the view that a real name is an essential piece of a biography if known and published in RS, I can understand why people might have a different view or might want to extend a courtesy to a young man and not list it. That’s very different than saying that we ignore what appear to be very strong sources and say this is private when it isn’t— it isn’t private.From an editorial perspective I think there’s a pretty strong argument for keeping. It’s basic and essential biographical information that other free sources appear to be taking down due to the subject campaigning that his name be taken down. In my view it is the single most important part of the entire biography: you need to know the name of the individual you’re talking about, and virtually every biography of historical figures that had pen names will have their actual name: it’s pretty significant. That makes it an asset to the reader, since strong reliable sources have published it and we link to the archive. That, and as I said, it’s a pretty core feature for an individual. I think it impacts our credibility in a negative way when we don’t publish names that RS publish, and don’t really consider a biography complete without one. Again; he put himself into the public domain for comment and reliable sources have commented on his identity. We can report that, and in my view should. He might not like it, but we don’t have to please our subjects. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, it's not a BLP issue solely because it was published in reliable sources? I guess I'm not understanding BLPNAME, because his name has certainly been intentionally concealed, by him and by sources. Or does BLPNAME not have the weight of policy?
 * I respect your opinion on names being intrinsically critical to a biography, though I think historical figures are different in that regard than living people. I disagree that publication in reliable sources is a metric of privacy (or lack thereof). The sources are no longer directly accessible; the only thing containing Rezo's real name when you search up "Rezo real name" and "Rezo richtiger Name" is Wikipedia and clones. Google apparently censors it from its results, but that observation is for DuckDuckGo on All regions and Germany respectively. Ovinus (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Him attempting to conceal his name has no weight here. High quality reliable sources have published it and our policy WP:V makes it clear that being behind a pay wall is not a reason to discount a source, nor is a link being old: we have internet archives for a reason. It’s not that BLPNAME isn’t policy, it’s that you have two sources by academics and one by a government agency focusing on the new media publishing it. That’s about as ironclad as you get. That he’s doing his absolute best to censor it doesn’t impact us. It’s clearly public and widely available to anyone who has the means. We don’t expect a plethora of sourcing for someone who isn’t particularly notable to begin with. Just enough sourcing to show the name is publicly known (it is) and that the sources are sufficient quality (they are.) If two good sources see enough to establish notability, three good sources should be enough to establish that something is public. We have three good sources. We aren’t going to censor ourselves because the subject wants us to: we’re not bound by his wishes in this regard. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that him trying to conceal his name is irrelevant to us, but those high quality reliable sources concealing it is also irrelevant? Anyway, hopefully some more folks will chime in. Ovinus (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * They’re not concealing it. Two require access and is available through archive. This isn’t an issue on Wikipedia per WP:V. The fact that he’s waging a campaign to make this so difficult gives further weight to those sources in my mind. It’s source manipulation by the subject, which we should be resisting to. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:44, 28 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)
 * It’s not original research to accuse him of waging a campaign to have his name removed: it’s analysis of the sourcing on a talk page; which is acceptable. We do it all the time. We know he’s been requesting it removed from the German Wikipedia. We know he had a de.wiki admin come here and talk about it. The discussion here points to the fact that he’s trying to suppress information from the public. That’s source manipulation. If the source published a correction saying that it was wrong, that’d be one thing. That’s not what happened here. WP:V allows us to use archived links, and we regularly do precisely because of situations like this: webpages change.Our policy on outing is a way to protect our contributors from harassment. It is not designed to censor the publication of public names of people who don’t like that their name is public. I’ve advocated suppressing actually private names of people who have been doxxed by troll sites, but that’s not what this is. It’s someone not liking the scrutiny he’s received after reliable sources have published his real name: the BLP policy absolutely does not require censoring that. If he wants it out, he should have them publish a retraction saying they were mistaken. Until then, we go with the sourcing and report what is clearly his real name, which is an essential part of biographical information. Not including it would seriously harm our integrity as an encyclopedia as reporting facts like names is something that’s part of our basic mission. I respect your view on this, but I’m convinced his name should remain public and that we’d be doing a disservice to our readers if we gave into his pressure campaign. If it’s removed, it’d only be as a courtesy. That I could be convinced to live with, but I’m 100% opposed to pretending this is a BLP violation because the subject has made it one on his own when it didn’t used to be. That isn’t how the BLP policy is supposed to work. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure how to continue here. If I understand correctly, while there is understandable disagreement about the scope of WP:BLPPRIVACY, there is no fundamental objection from your side to removing the name from the article. That, and WP:ONUS...? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think having the name in the biography is better than not having it in, because it really is core to a biography. I think his real name is the most important two words on the page. I think the sourcing supports inclusion, and that were basically being pressured into removing it by the subject who looks like is trying to change sources. I really don’t like that, and it makes me much less understanding than I’d ordinarily be.I think a compromise might be to put it in the “Life” section rather than the lead. It’d be more respectful of his desires while still conveying encyclopedic information to the reader who was interested. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * As an update the situation changed: By now all documents used as sources for the potential real name were taken down from archives and now link to pages without content claiming that these URLs had been excluded from the Wayback Machine. This leads to the point that no longer any valid and solid sources are available for de-anonymization of the person described. Additional as already discussed the only real scientific source available (and used) was changed by the authors and publishers after request. From my understanding there are no longer any sources and valid arguments to leave the name in this article - or did I misunderstood the rules and policies again? At this moment the sourcing does not support the inclusion any longer - and the only reason to keep the name is "because we can". To keep the name at least now is a violation of personal rights of a person who wants to keep out his name from the public and the existing policies of WP:BLPPRIVACY made for these cases: the name is not widely spread (and never was) and now it additionally is not sourced on a solid base for citation. Any comments? -- Achim Raschka (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Our policy doesn’t require an active source just a source that can be verified if someone has the resources. As I mentioned above I consider the fact that he’s trying to manipulate sourcing for be more reason for us to include it rather than reason to exclude it, and I don’t think there’s a moral right to this type of privacy. At least in the world I’ve always lived in, people trying to change true things sources say about them tends to be considered a bad thing. Again, this is probably cultural.All that being said, I’m fine with removal for now as a courtesy, but I do not think it qualifies for suppression or is required by our policy—I’ll again point out that the BLP policy isn’t designed to protect people from things that they make BLP violations themselves, so I don’t see it as applicable here. I’ll keep checking for sources every few months, and if we get some additional sourcing, can restore it then. I really don’t like the way Rezo went about this and don’t really consider it appropriate, but I’m also willing to take a wait and see approach for now. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

2023 sources

 * Shifted from a 2020 thread above

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)
 * I suppose it's time to discuss those sources then. Courtesy ping to as first-remover, and  mainly because I always value his input (though he was also second-revert, though I suspect more because of the edit warring than anything). Primefac (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Same discussion on de.wikipedia.org already; I don't think the IP user needs or wants to hear it again. Calling me "fanboy" seems the easier option. ;-) Regards, --JD {æ} 18:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for listening, @Primefac.
 * @JD just blindly reverted a certain time frame, as shown by the fact that they also reverted a mere formatting issue under "Early life and education". They seem strongly biased. Already on the German discussion they failed to give any valid argument, and ignored all the valid arguments. Due to this behavior, "fanboy" seems rather plausible (since Rezo requested anonymity), though could also be Rezo himself or paid by him.
 * Here we see, he again just avoided discussing the sources. Anyway, about the sources:
 * - https://web.archive.org/web/20190529190644/https://www.noz.de/deutschland-welt/medien/artikel/1754045/was-macht-rezo-im-internet-wenn-er-nicht-auf-die-cdu-schimpft
 * Article of an official German newspaper, stating the full name.
 * - https://www.achgut.com/artikel/casulas_grosser_jahresrueckblick_2019_irre
 * Article of a German journalist and editor named Claudio Casula. "Controversial" only because he is not left-leaning.
 * - https://www.bild.de/bild-plus/politik/inland/politik-inland/youtuber-rezo-wer-steckt-eigentlich-hinter-der-blauen-tolle-62180896,view=conversionToLogin.bild.html
 * Premium-only article of probably the most popular German newspaper Bild, which mentions "Regression von Kürzeste-Wege-Verteilungen in dynamischen Netzwerken" as the title of Rezo's master thesis (and his first name).
 * - https://web.archive.org/web/20190526123907/https://sfb876.tu-dortmund.de/auto?self=%24Publication_fbi54jx2ww
 * Source is the Technical University of Dortmund, which gives a full name to the mentioned master's thesis. 141.95.107.244 (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The NOZ is the only reliable source that stated his name once - and because of this the NOZ article got deleted not much later. The same source was discussed in 2019 already, see above.
 * achgut.com (Die Achse des Guten) is "a political right blog" and not a reliable source.
 * bild.de is yellow press and not a reliable source. It does not state the name.
 * The mentioned master's thesis has no apparent connection to "Rezo".
 * Maybe, Achim Raschka wants to give some info on the anti-Rezo / deanonymization campaign, again? See his other comments earlier (in 2020 as far as I can see). --JD {æ} 19:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * - The NOZ article was deleted because Rezo made a fuzz about it, but it's contents remain archived, so the deletion is irrelevant w.r.t. the contained information.
 * - A "political right blog" per se not being a reliable source is a genetic fallacy.
 * - Another genetic fallacy concerning bild.de. They know a hell of a lot details for it to be made up, and oddly it all fits together with the other sources. They mentioned the name, as has been documented (which I linked).
 * - Clearly there is a connection, not only to the articles, but it also matches Rezo's own statements (e.g. on Twitter) concerning his master's thesis' topic, and of course also matches the time frame. 2A02:908:1082:F80:4C18:89D7:C7C5:3957 (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The NOZ article got deleted because of the given information. If it shouldn't or mustn't be published from the start is nothing Wikipedia has to bother about.
 * You're connecting info / data of different sources (sometimes even primary sources) to come to some conclusion. See WP:NOR.
 * You also can't ignore BLPPRIVACY: "Wikipedia includes full names ... 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. ..." --JD {æ} 10:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

, 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 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)


 * Sorry for the late reply,, and thanks for the ping. Tough. I had looked at the message and thought I'd remember to reply, but I don't really have a conclusive answer.
 * Recently, a different name than the one that was originally oversighted had been added to the article, based on sources that I dare to guess intentionally used an incorrect name to protect Rezo. I removed it from the article when I saw this; the situation was absurd.
 * I have never seen the alleged importance of publishing the name even if it is reliably known. The person is notable as "Rezo", their actions and life related to their notability is surely something an encyclopedia entry should cover, but their real name adds nothing meaningful to the article as it's completely unrelated to the notability cause. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Born
( redacted ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC) ) --2001:7C0:600:24:250:56FF:FEBD:21 (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * No, we don't publish original research. We do not misuse primary sources. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Bei Neuland fragt AKK jetzt Sohn
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)

Source-manipulations and birthname-mention
@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 and. 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. 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)
 * If I didn't respond here, it's primarily because I wasn't significantly involved in the earlier discussions after my initial self-revert following explanation. Additionally, this is a huge wall of text, and I don't really feel like reading it. If no one objects, though, I suppose your changes stand. Primefac (talk) 12:02, 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)


 * After reviewing the discussion page, the decision to not mention the name was chosen based on an elaborated understanding. Wanting to change this agreement, revealing no new information that would change the evaluation above, considering that 1) The sources mentioned don’t sufficiently prove the name Y. F. 2) There are other sources which prove a different name (S. M.) 3) There are also sources which prove another name (M. G.) is insufficient. Especially, when it’s made obvious that vocnar seems to be too emotionally invested at times and, thus, not that objective. There are too many speculations and assumptions made about rezo manipulating a variety of sources. E.g. speculations about content in rezo’s old entertainment videos was placed there years before any significant media attention just to mislead the media later on. Even speculations about alleged lies rezo would possibly tell if confronted with the initial assumptions. Furthermore, accusations like “Rezo deleted evidence quickly” or “He sometimes comes up with the information he wants to spread first and selects and manipulates sources to prove this point.” do not suffice and are rather inappropriate (in my opinion) for a solid discussion here on wikipedia. Therefore, I don’t see any way this contribution could be profound enough to change the consensus agreed upon above. Thus, I will set it back. HartmutWeb (talk) 12:01, 5 September 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)


 * To accuse various people of “removing scientific sources” is rather unprofessional for a proper fact-based discussion appropriate for a Wikipedia Talk Page. As stated previously, there are various sources mentioning different names. For example S. M. (e.g. https://www.radiowestfalica.de/service/netguide/die-luegen-in-der-politik.html) or M. G. (e.g. https://www.filmstiftung.de/standort-nrw/medienbranchen/internet-web/). On the other hand I’ve looked into the online versions of your provided sources and was not able to find the name Y. F. in any of those. Not even in the direct links that you provided (e.g. https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-658-26242-6_9-1, https://dzblesen.de/aktuelles/stern-podcast/2019/048 ). Besides, I believe that you misunderstood how Wikipedia works. For example, there’s no such rule as “one needs to have at least four scientific sources for a fact/statement”. Also, a certain degree of self-investigation is inadequate for Wikipedia. I recommend you check out the multiple sites provided by wikipedia Help:Contents including what to look out for when editing pages.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HartmutWeb (talk • contribs) 10:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * YouTuber Rezo (2018).jpg

I have only listed his most notable videos.
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)
 * You have not indicated that they are the most notable, because your references are from his channel directly. If those videos have received coverage in other media, then they could potentially be added, but just saying "he did X, Y, and Z videos" is unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
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)
 * YouTuber Rezo (2018).jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * YouTuber Rezo (2018).jpg