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)
Dispute over Eritrea geographical naming. Could both Horn of Africa and East Africa be mentioned in lead and in the geographical section? I have argumented for restoring the use of the naming East Africa or Eastern Africa which used by international organization such as United Nations[1][2], African Union[3] and African development bank[4][5] to mention a few, East Africa was also recently used both article until the other part in the dispute Soupforone changed it to only Horn of Africa. I have since then suggested in using both since Eritrea is part of both East Africa and Horn of Africa, even though the latter being a less recognized region and a less used naming to describe the country's location by international organizations. At the moment it only mentions Horn of Africa. My suggestion is to use both East Africa and Horn of Africa, as mentioned many time throughout the dispute. I have since the begining of the dispute, been engaged in discussion the issue on the talk page of the article [6], I have started a issue on the dispute resolution noticeboard[7], asked outside users [8], and admins[9] for comments, and also adviced been adviced to search for third opinion which has been done etc. This has not led to any progress in resolving the dispute with the other involved part in the dispute. I think this dispute needs mediation since it has has been ongoin since the end of June/16.Richard0048 (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Reject - This is actually the third dispute resolution process over this regional location. A rough consensus was already established for the "Horn of Africa" geographical location and against the "East Africa" geographical location on the Eritrea talk page [10], as it was on DRN too [11]. At the recommendation of the closing moderator, an RFC question was then presented on the talk page [12]. Since this RFC question is still ongoing and will in all likelihood close in favor of the "Horn of Africa" geographical location, this mediation attempt is premature and appears to breach both WP:RFM/COMMON and WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Soupforone (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moot, since already rejected, but I want to comment that not only is trying to do an end run around an RfC not what RfM is for (meanwhile, RfC already is dispute resolution), the filer of this RfM was directly informed of this, twice[13], [14] before filing it [15], making this an admonition-worthy WP:POINT / WP:FORUMSHOPPING / WP:BATTLEGROUND exercise. Nor is RfM intended for a large number of parties, anyway, since the case doesn't proceed if more than a few parties object, and with this many parties, several would be virtually certain to object. Very silly waste of time. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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. Fails to satisfy prerequisite to mediation #8, "No related dispute resolution proceedings are active in other Wikipedia forums." An unclosed and unexpired RFC is pending on this issue and RFC's are a form of dispute resolution proceeding. While this may be refiled after the RFC is finished, the request will not be accepted if a consensus has formed in the RFC since any request made here to try to contest that consensus would fail to satisfy prerequisite to mediation #1, "Acceptance of the request will benefit both the article and Wikipedia." (To say that in a different way, if a consensus has formed then there is no remaining dispute to be mediated.) While I will make that evaluation if need be, I would recommend that a better procedure would be to request a consensus evaluation at Administrator's Noticeboard once the RFC has expired. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
