" 
 :::Infoboxes are not obligatory, in biographical or other articles here. In this case, ""those editors working on the article"", per Scott, consist of Hoary. Please consider his opinion, Nihonjoe. I see to my surprise that you tell him on your talkpage that removing the infobox is ""considered vandalism"". That passive form ""is considered"" presumably means you consider it vandalism; I'm sure you're aware, being a 'crat, that WP:Vandalism doesn't. Note especially the sentence ""If an editor treats situations which are not clearly vandalism as such, then that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors."" It's hardly ever proper to call good-faith actions of good users, such as Hoary, ""Vandalism"", nor to try to bully them like this (I quote from your talkpage again): ""You know, I have no idea why you're so hung up on this""... ""Edit warring on this article isn't going to help your case as removing the infobox is considered vandalism. Please stop this stupidity now."" Is there any reason why it would not make just as much sense, no more and no less, to express surprise that you are so hung up on it, point out that edit warring isn't going to help you, and ask you to stop your stupidity? I'm removing the infobox. Please don't edit war.  |  ."