As most people here will likely already know, the issue of whether infoboxes are allowed or not was officially settled by Arbcom in 2013 as 'what the fuck you asking us for?' - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes (T-H-L) - they found they are neither mandatory nor banned - and whether to use one is meant to be settled by article talk page discussion focused on the specific merits of use in that instance. Showing all the insight into the nature of their own project that we have come to expect, and a rather spectacular ignorance of the fact that infoboxes are, like the Manual of Style, something whose merits really only stands or falls on a 'use consistently or never' basis, for some reason the arbitrators expected this would be sage advice that the Wikipediots would heed, and such discussions wouldn't simply end up rehashing the generic arguments which had already led to the case. The summary below shows what's really happened since the case.
It's from Kraxler (T-C-L), and appeared in April 2015 in a dispute at Talk:Laurence Olivier (T-H-L)
Although an accurate summary in my observations, it's not quite right - individual disputes can be won by declaring a 'consensus' after you've attracted enough like-minded people to the article and bullied, brow-beaten, and generally intimidated any opposition - you know, just like any other normal 'consensus' based discussion in an out of the way little watched area. For this reason, even the preference of the original creator can be overturned, either by brute force, or through the rather disingenuous tactic of claiming that the article was in a neglected state before a whole raft of improvements were made, which just happened to add/remove a box as part of that process. It is for this reason that these disputes are still going on - I believe I even saw Dr. Blofeld say in one that he's going to keep initiating such a 'discussion' on all actor biographies as he goes around making other improvements, with the goal of eradicating them all. Others have made similar vows to never stop until the war is won, one article at a time.The stated reason is that in featured articles the WP:LEDE is sufficiently expanded to contain all info that usually appears in an infobox. This makes the infobox redundant and obstructive. The above discussion, as all discussions on infoboxes, has evolved to become another fundamental debate about infoboxes in general. About half the people here, on Wikipedia, believe in infoboxes; the other half does not believe in infoboxes. The first half says that all articles need an infobox, without exception, if not, Wikipedia and the world will end, and we all will be doomed. The latter half says that infoboxes are unnecessary, unencyclopedic, ugly and evil, and must be removed from all articles to make Wikipedia a better place. No technical discussion of the merits of an infobox at a particular article can usually be had. This discussion is required under the guidelines, see WP:Infobox (T-H-L), but usually leads nowhere, there is always no consensus, so the status quo should be preserved, under the no-WP:Consensus rule. The status quo here is "no infobox", this status quo was established by a group of editors, not any single pro- or contra-infobox warrior, and was part of an FA review. Therefore, it must be respected as the status quo. The general situation is that neither pro-infoboxers nor contra-infoboxers will ever win over the other side, never. It's like Catholics and Protestants, or Jews and Muslims, they will forever say their side is right no matter what. We will have to live with that, and hope for two things: that at one or the other article a technical argument for or against an infobox is had, and that there be the smallest number of articles possible where an argument about infoboxes is started. Maybe you have wondered why some articles have infoboxes and others don't. Well, the original creator decides first whether to add one or not. Later on, some infobox-warrior comes along and chnages that, either adding or removing it. That should not be done without a discussion first. That discussion will usually end in "no consensus", and the status quo should be preserved, as mentioned above. During the discussion the losing party always accuses the creator, and/or those who side with him of WP:OWNership, as done here above. That is wrong. The ownership guideline refers to content. Infoboxes are not content proper, it is a duplication of content already included in the article. The actual info of the article will be the same, with or without infobox. Thus the infobox is a question of "format". Format is chosen by the original creator. Those who write up Wikipedia are volunteers, they don't get any money for it, and since the articles are not signed (like in academic papers), they also don't get any recognition. For that reason, out of deference to the voluntary work contributed by any original creator, we should respect their editorial format decision whether to add or not to add an infobox.
This is a particular favourite area of study of mine, because you can almost be guaranteed the squabble will contain both lengthy examples of free-fire disrespect between 'established' editors, replete with epic levels of hypocrisy, dishonesty, and general nonsense, with not an admin in sight, not even good guy Dennis 'all about the content' Brown, but you will also often see lost and bemused newcomers or editors who never even knew there was a controversy over such things, being torn to shreds by assholes like Cassiano. I may flesh out a fuller post later.....in many ways it's the perfect microcosm of just how dysfunctional Wikipedia can be.....but for the time being, I suggest just pointing and laughing at the fact this state of affairs is just allowed to run and run, in the process displaying the hostile nature of Wikipedia to all and sundry across multiple article talk pages, without any permanent resolution in sight.....