Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Dictator Userboxes

Dictator Userboxes

Since I have seen some appetite for deletion of similar userboxes recently, I am doing a group nomination of userboxes clearly and unambiguously supporting historical figures that were or are clearly and unambiguously considered dictators. It is in my opinion obvious that these boxes egregiously violate WP:UBCR, because there is no way any of these could not be considered "inflammatory or substantially divisive".

Since I have not done a group nomination before and am unsure if I am doing it right, here are the links to the six individual boxes:

Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 20:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you heard? Dictators are back in style. Orange is the new black. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as inflammatory and divisive in a way that harms collegiality. Them being dictators does not in itself make the userboxes inappropriate—it's the fact that these userboxes are harmful to the project, which would be the case for any userpage content praising or criticizing a controversial figure. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"praising or criticizing a controversial figure" could refer to literally any userbox regarding any politician, unless you support removing all political userboxes Iostn (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Same points I made about the Qaddafi and Ian Smith userboxes, I think its important to know people's biases, especially on an encylopedia anyone anywhere with any perspective, can edit. Its arguably even more useful to know a person's biases when those biases are radical and extreme, because those people are probably more likely to use wikipedia as a soapbox. These are useful to the project to have. -Samoht27 (talk) 04:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I am increasingly able to appreciate political or other opinionated user boxes as handy red flags, I still think their potential to drive newcomers away is greater than their usefulness when dealing with POV editors. Even with this kind of editors, I still want to be able to AGF, otherwise it quickly becomes difficult to not assume WP:TENDENTIOUS editing at every corner. I guess the question is, do we really want to keep stuff only because it is useful "bait" to the benefit of other editors? I am not sure it is worth it honestly. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 12:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't just think its useful as bait for those not here to build an encyclopedia (though it can definitely serve that purpose). I think there are probably good faith editors who have these perspectives who we should also be aware of. If someone supports an individual, no matter how good faith their editing is, their editing is still affected by how they feel. -Samoht27 (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This just in, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Salazar at least. It doesn't violate UBCR any more than userboxes promoting modern US presidents, which are just as divisive. There was actually more political violence in the US in the past decade than in Portugal under Salazar. I don't care if it exposes any "bias" of mine because I don't edit those kinds of articles really.

— THORNFIELD HALL^(Talk) 08:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely like to see US presidents user boxes gone as well, this nomination is about testing the waters by attempting to get rid of the worse offenders in terms of political leaders userboxes. Your bias disclosure (if I may call it that) somewhat proves my point, which is that if an MfD discussion can engender discussion about if it's worse to live in the US currently or in Portugal under Salazar, then the existence of the miscellany in question is clearly counterproductive to building an encyclopedia. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 12:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

STOP DELETEING USERBOXES! NO MATTER WHO'S LEADER! Mrclubgreentokyo (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom, for obvious reasons. I should stress that I created a couple of these userboxes, some years ago. At this point, I have no idea why (probably as some kind of test edits/creations). As their creator, I have no problem to see them gone. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am suprised that User:UBX/Rojas Pinilla and Template:User Fidel Castro are not here since they are also dictators. Catfurball (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC) Even these politician userboxes are weird User:BondCJM/Userboxes/Gillard Voice, Template:User Lasso oppose, User:UBX/Anti-Duque, User:UBX/Anti-Santos and User:UBX/Anti-Uribe. Catfurball (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, no need for them Cambalachero (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, largely out of principle. Why should you be barred from stating what you believe on your own userpage as long as its not truly egregious? I will NEVER agree with the ideologies/people above for obvious reasons, but if for some reason you really want to say those things, why not? I predict these infoboxes will rarely, if ever, be used, but for those who do want to use them I feel like their presence will serve as a red flag for other editors approaching their page to know what kind of ideologies they're getting into. Its not really Wikipedia's place to police editors on their beliefs, just their contributions, and if someone wants to have a controversial infobox like this on their page— it will still serve its intended purpose of letting you know more about the editor, even if what you learn is that they're extreme, which can prove useful in discussions. The decision of this nomination will also serve as a precedent for future deletion discussions, and I personally see more reasons to keep rather than too delete. Cheers! Johnson524 03:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's truly egregious. —Alalch E. 22:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on others but bordering on Soft Delete for any use box that identifies you as a Francoist. This includes the above one and this one, which is actively worse for identifying as a Falangist, which was the most openly fascist element of Franco’s regime. No one seriously identifies as a Falangist or Francoist without also identifying as a fascist, because the two ideas are undeniably closely associated, if not borderline identical. If we are going to keep these because they are not actively spewing racism, then why don’t we have a box that says "This user is an Italian fascist" or "This user thinks Mussolini was good for Italy". Those are not actively spewing racism, but they are openly fascist, and if we were to hypothetically delete them, it is strange to not delete the Franco ones. 🔮🛷 Vote Kane 🛷🔮 (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support removing the outright Falangist userbox per WP:NONAZIS Iostn (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, yeah, just delete all of them.—Alalch E. 21:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Editors should stop wasting time looking through userboxes and deciding which opinions are not allowed on Wikipedia. Anyway, someone could include these on their userpage even if a template/userpage didn't exist. I absolutely agree with Johnson524. 11USA11 (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, adding an "I'm a Francoist" userbox is not acceptable. This will be dealt with one way or another. —Alalch E. 22:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I was wrong to vote keep. 11USA11 (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All. We do not decide which opinions are good (Isn't that one of the things many dislike in those dictators...?). Knowing what opinions and skills editors have is usefull for the project. I say I am a mathematician, that means I'll know more than average on the subject AND that I MAY be biased in considering math more important than, say... chemistry. Or having strong opinions about some math subject. The same here. Do not confuse opinion (to each its own) with actions (which need to be regulated, so that we can live more or less harmoniously as a group) - Nabla (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"We do not decide which opinions are good (Isn't that one of the things many dislike in those dictators...?)"
That's odious. —Alalch E. 22:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all (although the Salazarist/Francoist boxes are very borderline) - aside from there not being a "no dictator" precedent, this involves a massive deal of subjectivity - are we also going to remove pro-Orban or Putin userboxes (in the latter case, many of them would be old enough to be made way back when he was considered to be less of a "dictator" than he is now)? How do we accomodate hybrid regimes? As an aside, the Sukarno userbox also strikes me as an extremely weird choice to include in the limited line-up here, given that his rule was marked by both more liberal and authoritarian periods, and he was overthrown by his successor who was far more blatantly murderous than he was - and actually is pretty illustrative of the problems with a precedent like this. Right now, the only real guideline is Wikipedia:NONAZIS, which would only apply to Franco/Salazar in a more borderline sense, but even that's on the liberal side on interpretations for something that is not strict policy (and I do support removal of userboxes supporting Nazism, Italian and Japanese fascism, along with open/blatant white supremacy) Iostn (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's then agree to delete the Franco+Salazar one, or at least the Franco one. Or close with no prejudice to any per-userbox MfD, either with respect to all or at the very least only Franco. I'm shocked that there is a Francoist userbox. That is squarely under NONAZIS. —Alalch E. 17:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]