" :::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,
" :::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, but