What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.
Primary issues (added by the filing party)
A couple of users, but primarily Bbb23 (talk·contribs), refuse to allow a birth date to be added to the article because they have found some fringe sources that contradict the majority of reliable sources on the matter.
If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.
This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.
Reject. I'm going to reject this case under the discretion granted to the Chairperson under prerequisite to mediation #9 to "refuse or refer back to other dispute resolution venues (e.g. dispute resolution noticeboard, third opinion, request for comment, or additional talk page discussion) a dispute which would benefit from additional work at lower levels of the dispute resolution process." In this particular case, this dispute first needs to seek advice from the Reliable Sources Noticeboard on the reliability of sources and then, if that does not resolve matters, to file a request for comments and, then, if that still doesn't work, to consider filing at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard before coming back here. If I had not rejected this case on that basis, I would have nonetheless have probably rejected it on prerequisite #4 for lack of extensive recent talk page discussion on this matter; I mention that because unless there's more recent discussion on it via RSN and RFC then there's a pretty good chance that the case will also be rejected at DRN. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
