Draft talk:Sneako

Opinions

Sneako has voiced support Far Right commentator Nick Fuentes. Speaking at an American First rally in July 2023, Sneako said, “Nick Fuentes is going to the next president of the United States."

Sneako, has also voiced antisemitic comments. On a live stream when speaking with a German woman, Sneako said, “How about we role play,” and “I’ll be the Nazi and I’ll shove you in the oven like a dirty Jew.” Sneako, Also voiced support for Adolf Hilter and during another live stream, said, “the Nazis had drip” and that the swastika is “aesthetically pleasing.” In October 2022, on an appearance of the No Jumper Podcast with Adam Grandmaison and guest Nick Fuentes, Sneako said, “In every single industry, if you look at the end of the rabbit hole, it’s always a Jew who controls it.”

In September 2023, at Sneako meet-and-greet at a Miami Marlins game, Sneako fans shouted misogynistic and violent anti-LGBTQIA+ comments, including, “All Gays Should Die,” “Fuck the Gays,” and “Fuck the women.” Sneako defended their comments the next morning, saying, “They are children and obviously joking. This is how I was at 12. But If it sounds egregious to you, blame the [Pride] flags in their classrooms. Blame the media for emasculating men. Its YOUR fault for forcing an obvious agenda. Not these kids. BOYS WILL BE BOYS.”

I am proposing a section for Opinions. Sneako is well documented in this area. Rock & roll is not dead (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Removal of substantial reputable sources. Disruptive?

Rambling Rambler. If you think you are just going to deem the following sources as “poor quality”, which are all Generally reliable well-established media organizations such as:

Updated list through discussion as of 11 April 2024 (Counter : 5 sources ; 1 source ; 1 source ; 2 sources unlisted. | 5 / 9 = 55.5%)
Spiegel[1], Lifehacker[2] (as per Rambling Rambler); though see Archive 112, may warrant future inclusion to WP:RSP based on its accolades), New York Times[3], Business Insider ( No consensus as per Rambling Rambler; fails WP:RSP), Hindustan Times (as per Rambling Rambler)[4], Forbes (contributors)]] ( Generally unreliable as per Rambling Rambler; fails WP:RSP), Yahoo! Sports[5] Sources: MMAJunkie), Newsweek[6] (Newsweek could not verify reports made to The Daily Beast regarding Kanye West hiring Sneako, not the general information they had on him in report.), Pink News[7] (used in some capacity by late edits by Rambling Rambler)

Honorable mention : Washington Post[8], (incorrect use of source; source mentioned right-winged not far-right as initially intended; warranted removal. However, it could still be used in some capacity if relevant.)

…you are poorly mistaken. This can be seen as a sign of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing by: "repeated removal [of] reliable sources posted by other editors. (tendentious)

Admittedly, Washington Post cited Sneako as "right-winged" and not far-left as conveyed in the article. (My mistake)

"Removing heavy over-citing". --It is not "over-citing". It is WP:VERIFICATION especially if the article needs to pass WP:BLP for creation which it warrants and considering the added scrutiny placed onto the article that begs for it. So please do not respond back with WP:UNDUE, especially when these reliable sources could be used elsewhere in the article as well, which you have not considered.

I can't believe I have to ask this but is your intent to rid the entire article of any strong reputable sources?

Is this personal to you? --Considering it seems unusual that all of a sudden we are sharing the same editing space and judging by the very few edits I have made since our dispute on Talk:Haiti, it doesn’t seem like a coincidence. After all, you were the one to redirect this newly created article (I created) to a draft-space (though in the end, it was probably the best decision as the article had sources cited that I used to know as reputable some time ago but no longer are with the exception of "Sportskeeda"). So please correct me in that respect if I am wrong.

Your minor changes you have deemed "trivial" elsewhere also should not overlook the fact that you have removed 8-9 reputable sources without a valid explanation.

Please discuss. Savvyjack23 (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Once again, I see you are deliberately not abiding by WP:ONUS by forcibly re-adding disputed material.

Many of the sources you keep claiming are reliable are not considered generally reliable such as Business Insider and Forbes Contributers, or haven't had any general consensus established on their reporting ( see WP:RSP). And overciting is a valid reason to remove excess sources, a basic example of your edits being that it should not require four sources to reference his name and another five to reference he's a streamer. I have also (as valid under policy) removed sources where there is the scantest mention of the subject is used to support statements that make far more encompassing judgements, as this would likely fail under WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR even if this wasn't a BLP article which has a far higher threshold to clear.

Beyond that it can be noted some of the lines you included are so blatantly skewed it's not debatable, see the line "Sneako is best known for his live streams and views which typically embrace manosphere, a movement towards restoring true masculinity" (emphasis mine). This is entirely your personal description of "manosphere", at odds with sourced description of it on the article for the subject itself.

Also note the following part of the line where you very selectively quote Mother Jones to describe the manosphere as "which involves a self-mastery in mental, physical, emotional, and financial habits". This quote is not even in the source, instead you've taken the first of twenty-six mentions in the article that is obviously a critique of the movement (labelling it later on with "manosphere’s violent misogyny") where it states "the group promised self-mastery: mental, physical, emotional, and financial" and changing that to instead suggest Mother Jones authoritatively stated your version of manosphere.

I note that you want to suggest I've only made these edits because of "it being " personal" yet you've admitted that actually what I did was "probably the best decision" because of your use of non-reliable sources, so which is it?

As per WP:BLP, "contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". You re-inserting that is the breach of policy. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, it seems like you have quite the impulse to undo edits that you do not agree with to your preferred version and I can bet that I am not the first case who has encountered your reversal barrage. --You have reverted (-7504) and only recounted 2 sources that may be subjective.

We are also to Assume good faith, so I do not appreciate the condescending tone as if I was purposely trying to manufacturer a definition with "manosphere", while I noticed that you just blatantly copied and pasted the definition over from that article ("promoting masculinity, misogyny, and opposition to feminism").

Furthermore, all editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus and to seek dispute resolution options and input from others. Perhaps you should try this approach instead of constantly reverting pages ad nauseam, which can be seen as disruptive especially when reliable sources are involved.

--On the contrary, you are selective in the manner of which sources you intend to keep in the article, whilst removing an entire section and sources that can verify others. (ie, film). WP:BLP calls for the most verification especially when establishing WP:GNG. So the weight of sources is arguably due.

I will begin to address the heart of concerns you have made shortly. Savvyjack23 (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

You can't throw the "assume good faith" line at me when you've already accused me of bad faith removals both in the initial talk post here, in this reply, and made a bad-faith report to edit-warring not that long ago.

Furthermore, all editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus and to seek dispute resolution options and input from others.

Yes to add material and THE BURDEN IS ON YOU AS THE PERSON WANTING TO ADD MATERIAL TO ACHIEVE THAT CONSENSUS(WP:ONUS/WP:BURDEN). You repeatedly link the policies where this is stated so you can't claim you are ignorant of this as you repeatedly choose not to follow them.

I "blatantly copied over the definition" of manosphere along with its sources because it's a well-sourced one and not something I made up. Your additions however, whenever I scratch the surface of the majority of sources you use, quickly become evident to look to appear as being ones where you've first decided ahead of time what the article should say, google for sources following that, and then just cite whatever result first appears assuming it supports your view when they either don't even reference what you assume they do or in fact argue the opposite of what you claim (as with the Mother Jones article).

Whilst removing an entire section and sources that can verify others. (ie, film). WP:BLP calls for the most verification especially when establishing WP:GNG. So the weight of sources is arguably due.

I moved an incident from its own subsection (where it was heavily UNDUE) to move it instead with similar content and reduce the overquoting of the story that focused more on other people than what the subject of the article said. Perfectly valid.

I removed one of the two references used to cite that he appeared in a film because you don't need more than one reliable source to cite it.

All your overcitation ends up looking like is an attempt to bulk up the reference list without adding any new information as a way to reduce how obvious it is much of the article relies on primary sources. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this a joke? While it “is acceptable to give an inline citation for one or two authoritative sources” as per (SCG), the article is currently HEAVILY supported by a SINGLE source (Miami New Times). Let’s also not act like we are not dealing with a controversial figure where “three may be preferred for more controversial material” as per Wikipedia:Citation overkill. While rearranging you couldn’t think to use the others reputable sources somehow? No, wait that's my job though right? (You also called them “weak”). Burden accepted but are you genuinely improving the article with your edits? I’ve also noticed that QNews as well as the Advocate article entered in by Rock & roll is not dead didn’t survive your barrage of mass removal either. Savvyjack23 (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

First line of the scientific content guidelines you just linked literally spells out that they're guidelines for pages on "Mathematics, Physics, Molecular and cellular biology and Chemistry" so already you straight away show your refusal to read what you cite yet again. You then follow it immediately confusing Sneako being a "controversial figure" with the idea of needing multiple sources for "more controversial material", which would relate to statements being made that are readily disputed by other notable non-fringe viewpoints. For example you, nor anyone else, has demonstrated any reliable sources to show that labeling him as right-wing/far-right has been disputed. Instead it's a readily-accepted descriptor for this person and therefore it's not "controversial material".

Using several sources to cover the same quotes from a single video when any of those individual source provides the full breadth of the story is the very definition of citation overkill. The use of said multiple sources doesn't add any new information but just creates a false impression of greater notoriety in the coverage of said event.

The fact that the article subject's "notability" can be so summarily almost completely covered by by a single reliable source covering one incident demonstrates more than anything else just how little notability this person has. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Good grief, enough with the semantics! In the grand scheme of things, your argument is just jargon, trivial and irrelevant! Most of the article’s sections are cited by a single source!

The following are sources that are considered highly regarded and are arguably weighed at a greater scale than Miami New Times and/or can establish sourcing information where others may be lacking:

My main concern (a reiteration):

“The current article is supported HEAVILY by a SINGLE source (Miami New Times) where other reputable ones for verification have since been removed “[..and where possibly controversial..] three [sources] may be preferred for more controversial material [but no more]” as per Wikipedia:Citation overkill.

1. Nicolas (and "Nico) can also be established by this source, his first name which is seldom used in sources; many simply state "Nico", which seems to be shortened; this source establishes both avoiding WP:OR from combining information and potentially drawing conclusions from two separate sources.

Lifehacker (See WP:RSP)

2. YouTube Ban (currently only sourced by Miami New Times)

New York Times (See WP:RSP)

3. Only included “homophobic and transphobic” shouting, while excluding the part where they also shouted profanities about women (ie, “f**k the women”) and then only when Kenn De Balinthazy (Sneako) responded to the fan and said “What?? No, no, no, wait, wait, we love women, we love women!” that the child fan clarified and redirected their shouting to “transwomen”. Kenn De Balinthazy is being labeled a misogynist and against feminism which are seen as a negative position to have in society today. So would his open “love for women” disrupt that narrative by its inclusion therefore being so quick to be deleted? The focus seems to be entirely on the negative. (See: WP: NEUTRAL)

Lifehacker (See WP:RSP)

4. “…has posted various content from gaming uploads, IRL streams and reaction videos”. (Currently only sourced by Miami New Times. What was wrong with verifying it with Hindustan Times)? (It is a +95 year old newspaper in partnership with the WSJ and “there is a standard to publish on [their] code of journalistic ethics”. See: RSN-Archive 307)

5. MMA sparring match with the number one ranked fighter entirely removed Deleted: »Recently, Sneako has been seen on stream getting into a sparring match with Sean Strickland a professional MMA fighter and number one ranked middleweight. Strickland had received some backlash from other members in the sport for not holding back during the last minute of the fight against an influencer who was entirely new to the sport, who drew blood after receiving a flurry of punches to the face before the fight was stopped. Sneako received some praise for being able to take a beating and not getting knocked down.”« (Sources used MMA Knockout via Sports Illustrated, none of which are currently flagged for not being reliable. See: RSN)

6. Constant removal of the phrase ”social media personality”. Also cited by MMA Knockout via Sports Illustrated

7. “…far-right political views” (Again, currently only sourced by Miami New Times) —Why couldn’t Hindustan Times be used as verification in what could also be a controversial line? See above as to why.)

8. Removal of PinkNews used to verify controversial slurs used by those young fans in the incident at the Miami Marlins game. (See WP:RSP) —Yet again, is currently only sourced by Miami New Times. this from QNews could have also been used. (See WP:RSP)

As a result, all I am seeing is an egregious removal of WP:RSP sources (because it is not like a whole lot was removed, albeit the MMA portion); this being an ill-advised attempt to subtract reliable sources to weaken the article’s case for satisfying both WP:BLP and WP:GNG and inflicting detriment to its creation. The question is, what will you remove next? We have also had a prior encounter at Talk:Haiti which you expressed your displeasure countless times and so I have to raise suspicions WP:Bias, which may effect your impartiality. You mention too many citations but yet parade the majority of the article around a single source (Miami New Times) which probably is not the strongly source to use, but of course you had already known that. I do not take you for a moron regardless of our disagreements. Savvyjack23 (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

You're really getting hung up about the "(see WP:RSP)" I mentioned aren't you. All you're doing is once again refusing to listen to the point of WP:IDHT. Everything you've detailed is does not need multiple RS because they're not controversial and just using multiple sources without those sourcing adding new information is citation overkill. Also Lifehacker isn't even listed on RSP so you claiming otherwise is you yet again showing you don't actually read what you claim supports your argument.

Your attempted justifications for "Hindustan Times/Sports Illustrated are reliable" are little more than "I found one discussion that supports my view" when you can just as easily find ones on the noticeboard that don't (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 421#Sports Illustrated, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 284#Hindustan Times mirroring WP) hence why neither site has a consensus for being reliable and therefore should be avoided for BLP.

The question is, what will you remove next? We have also had a prior encounter at Talk:Haiti which you expressed your displeasure countless times and so I have to raise suspicions WP:Bias, which may effect your impartiality.

No, you keep making baseless accusations of "personal attacks" and bias because you don't have a leg to stand on in terms of policy and I'm pretty sure you know it.

The focus seems to be entirely on the negative. (See: WP: NEUTRAL)

Ok, this desperate and badly-thought out bid to suggest NPOV problems because while discussing his homophobia and transphobia, the focus of the sourced article, I didn't mention he briefly said he "likes women" actually did make me laugh out loud.

As a result, all I am seeing is an egregious removal of WP:RSP sources (because it is not like a whole lot was removed, albeit the MMA portion); this being an ill-advised attempt to subtract reliable sources to weaken the article’s case for satisfying both WP:BLP and WP:GNG and inflicting detriment to its creation.

No, I undid a bad attempt to bulk up an article to make it seem more notable than it was that any experienced editor that reviewed it would also have immediately seen given the four references for just his name and rejected it on that basis. You're just upset at that because you seem to believe you own every article related to Haiti on this site. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Rambling Rambler followed Savvyjack23 from Hati to Sneako, there’s no need to do that. Removing 2 sources when 1 source sufficient could go either way, and isn’t worth fighting over. However, it does appear many lines and sourcing that are Generally reliable sources were removed.

I agree with Rambling Rambler the line “Sneako is best known for his live streams and views which typically embrace manosphere, a movement towards restoring true masculinity" (emphasis mine),” certainly could introduce personal opinions. The sentence probably should have just said, ““Sneako is best known for his live streams and views which typically embrace manosphere, while others (critics) have said he platforms hate speech”….or something like that.

I disagree Rambling Rambler that Sneako has little notability. There’s enough ample sourcing here from to refute that clam from Generally reliable sources. As outlined in the videos linked in Miami New Times article, when someone has mobs of middle school aged kids running up to you at a Marlins game shouting Hate speech, I think shows he has notability more than most notable people on Wikipedia. Rock & roll is not dead (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Rock & roll is not dead whether he's notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia is different from whether people outside Wikipedia know them for a specific thing in a specific part of culture. If you can demonstrate general notability with a variety of RS that each have different information and coverage, thereby demonstrating a long-period of such, then that'd be meeting guidelines. Simply finding lots of RS reporting on the same incident isn't establishing of notability as Wikipedia is not a newspaper. So for this article the example is how the PinkNews report of the exact same incident as the Miami New Times one shouldn't be included as it's just repeating the same information, but using them for a report on a different item would better add to establishing general notability as it's new information from a new reliable source covering them. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean Rambling Rambler?

”You're just upset at that because you seem to believe you own every article related to Haiti on this site”.

WP:PERSONALATTACK? I’ve never once stated this. Sorry, that I actually contribute to the space instead of spreading chaos with disruptive removal edits, warring with editors and instigation. What do you have only 2,068 edits and you’ve been on here for what, 9 years with only 596 edits actually reaching an article page? Why are you here again? I’m actually genuinely concerned and that is a question coming purely from an logical observational standpoint. You have 66.22 edits annually over a 9-year span. Would it be so hard for you to stay in the context of bettering articles on the platform or is that really not what you do? Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

And once again you're doing the whole "don't make personal attacks" while doing nothing but making personal attacks. And funny how while denying you're demonstrating "own" behaviour you literally undertook the example of "pulling rank" by making it about the number of edits I've made.

If I am not mistaken, didn’t Balph Eubank attempt to oust you as a sock-puppet in a series of vandalizations stemming back to 2012? Is that about you? [1]

In between randomly going on about my edit count and bringing up an old username as though they mean anything, maybe you could learn to actually read what you linked and notice they're literally talking about a different user called DeFacto?

Unless you can actually start referring to article content rather than spurious details about me as an editor (that don't even make sense) I think it's fairly clear there's not point in engaging with you from this point on. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I stand corrected on that point, apologies. Back to the article please. Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

No, we're not going to simply ignore it. I suggest you remove the entire comment given it's not only a personal attack but a completely inaccurate allegation at that. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Removed. To be fair, I did pose it as a question. Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually you didn't delete it, you've left most of it there, and now you're still trying to go "well I only posed the idea you're a vandal/sockpuppet abuser as a question". So again, remove the comment. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Rambling Rambler Times have changed--Rock & roll is not dead (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Strikethrough on Lifehacker as Generally reliable under WP:RSP as per Rambling Rambler. Could have sworn it were on the list as green. Reserve the right to use it as verification if warranted as it can still be used for WP:BLP. Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, applied a strike on Forbes and Business Insider “contributors” as generally reliable under WP:RSP as per Rambling Rambler’s findings in that they should be avoided. Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I was pinged in this thread. Seems to be about referencing? - The literary leader of the age ✉ 22:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

My mistake, sorry Balph Eubank. Savvyjack23 (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Submission declined on 21 April 2024

Respectfully Sirdog, when you mentioned in your denial reason, "multiple independent and reliable sources to give significant coverage to Sneako specifically" —that last bit here is your interpretation of "Significant coverage", which is not at all a necessary condition.

As per WP:SIGCOV, the subject does not need to be the main topic of the sourced material and we certainly have enough to establish WP:GNG.

At this point, I believe that Rambling Rambler who had initially moved this article to draft-space (as it was not then fit for creation and he was correct in his assertions for doing so), who being a strong opposing voice throughout the process, would even disagree with your conclusion at this point. If you believe that New Times Miami is the only article that establishes notability, you haven't been here very long. Any trivial or weak articles have since been removed and we can thank RamblingRambler for that as our oppositional insertions on edits have ended up being harmonious for the article’s progression. Please see the above discussion on: what sources were included and excluded; what was reliable and what wasn't; where this article was compared to where it is now.

Since being moved to this draft-space we've had Professor Penguino state in an edit summary that, "This is a very good draft, by the way!" and Rock & roll is not dead state disagreement that Sneako has little notability and that 'There’s enough ample sourcing here [for] Generally reliable' (which I would agree with as well).

Instead of an outright denial, it would have been nice to have heard of these concerns first and to gauge where the discussion was leaning towards, especially when any one of these editors could have rendered their own verdict before you had. In my tenture as an editor, I have seen article creations approved for far much less, and have even been single-sourced. While I am not saying those were the right decisions, I’m not sure how at this point there can be an argument to be made that the subject is not notable while university students are including him in their dissertions. Subject also has a music and film credit which makes denial even more implausible. Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out, Savvyjack23. I'm always happy to discuss my actions in a critical light. I am aware that significant coverage does not require that the article subject be the main topic, only that it not be a trivial mention. It was my opinion at the time of review that, despite my knowing this, that significant coverage was still not satisifed. I will also admit that I skimmed, but did not critically read, the section #Removal of substantial reputable sources. Disruptive? when I should have done so. When reviewing AfC drafts, reviewers tend to focus solely on the sources which are present in the draft at time of review, and not look for sources that may exist or that are listed elsewhere. That is more a new page patroller activity.

All of the above said, I have re-reviewed the sourcing in the article and the sources you've provided below, and it is clear to me that I was hilariously incorrect with my decline. Sourcing such as [9][10][11][12][13], especially when combined, clearly pass the GNG. I apologize for the negative feelings and inconvenience my decline caused. I will do my best to be more thorough with reviews I make for the future.

I will shortly reverse my decline. I am willing to accept this draft, however you have noted that other editors which have engaged in discussion could have "rendered their own verdict before [I] had", so unless you indicate otherwise I will allow such editors - or another independent reviewer - to action this draft. —Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Sirdog, I appreciate your receptiveness and reevaluation of the subject at hand. No hard feelings at all; it happens to the best of us. Thank you. Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

---

---

Other works cited, for review: