Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jimmy da tuna/Userboxes/means

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Keep (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Jimmy da tuna/Userboxes/means

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

This is an explicit call to violence. WP:UBCR does not allow propaganda, advocacy, or opinion pieces on politics. WP:POLEMIC does not allow inflammatory content in userspace. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep BAMN means violence is an acceptable option, not the first and only choice. The link clearly explains the nuances, and many people if not most do agree that violence is sometimes necessary. Dronebogus (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The question isn't whether political violence is acceptable or necessary, it's whether an encyclopedia project is an appropriate place to express such a belief. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: Nominator has drastically misunderstood Malcom. Curbon7 (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: No valid reason to delete. A link to By any means necessary might help some, but wouldn’t it defeat the purpose of the meme? SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a link, but it’s not visible unless you use it. Dronebogus (talk) 05:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not quite sure I understand the dichotomy here. Malcolm X-esque BAMN is okay; userboxes that "might be seen as promoting terrorism" are not? Where's the line drawn between "good violence" and "bad violence" in the eyes of Wikipedia?--🌈WaltCip - (talk)  12:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * BAMN is a philosophy, not an organization, and it doesn’t “promote violence” as much as consider it one tactic amongst others. Dronebogus (talk) 05:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Violence as a means to an end is still violence. The fact that it's one of many options as opposed to the only option doesn't change that. Any political organization that includes violence in its playbook risks being branded as terrorist by the governing body. Thus I don't think Wikipedia should be taking a moral stance by favoring or disfavoring some userboxes over others, on the basis of trying to distinguish necessary violence vs terrorism. I again think an RfC is necessary. 🌈WaltCip - (talk)  16:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In any case, keep per all of the above.--🌈WaltCip - (talk)  12:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - By any means necessary is not that different from the concept of just war, in viewing violence as occasionally tragically necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.