Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-07-13 Meaning of life

Request details
Argument over whether a list of random beliefs is appropriate for Wikipedia.

Who are the involved parties?
User:The Transhumanist and User:L

What's going on?
I removed a large section of what has no clear WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS, Proof that it isn't a random list, nor any criteria for inclusion, etc. etc. A few days and around 12-13 editors later, Transhumanist replaced the content, saying there was no consensus for removal. Basically, this has been repeating, with myself saying that, in addition to the above policies, the fact that he is the only one who supports adding the entire thing just as it was, my removal was the new consensus, which he is removing. Whether or not you consider it a new consensus or not (see image at right), I feel that his replacing of the content repeatedly is not only rude, but that he is all but ignoring the discussion on the talk page of the article.

See Talk:Meaning_of_life, where he has been asked repeatedly to add a source, where I have said that I am not in objection to any specific item on the list, but rather the list as it exists without WP:V or criteria etc., where two other editors have asked him to source it. Even when he states that the items in the list can be sourced, he refuses to do it, and simply continues to add the content, without discussing it with other editors, who have attempted to make a good faith effort to work with him.

What would you like to change about that?
As I've said before, I have no problems trying to work with him, as long as he is willing to stop adding unencyclopedic content to Wikipedia, and is civil. I don't want to cause any ruckus or trouble more than there needs to be- which is why I'm coming to Medcab instead of RFC- since I do believe he's not a bad editor, but merely has either a poor understanding of policy or does not care -- L augh! 15:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)