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)
The primary issue here is a long-term and rising disagreement over the criteria of which sections (referring to countries and times that were the potential subject of a US covert attempt or action at regime change).
This issue has predated my involvement as evidenced in the heavily politicized talk pages above as multiple sections have been blanket reverted as discussions continue.
The scope has receded from the deletion of nearly 10 national sections as cleanup and sourcing has improved to 3 specifically.
I made the case for why this content was relevant and sourced in the Edit Summaries for my edits and later in the talk page for these 3 sections below.
The Soviet Union section was deleted and while still short, is obviously needed as covert actions to affect or entirely change the Moscow government was a goal the United States pursued for the duration of the Cold War.
The Iraq 2002-2003 section refers to actions that the US government awarded Intelligence stars for and while the leadup to a public military operation, predates Wikipedia's own agreed upon date for the Iraq War. Dismissing any covert action that preceded a visible policy action would disqualify clearly covert attempts for much longer in other countries, especially Vietnam which had a far less visible ramp-up to the Tonkin Gulf escalation.
The Somalia 2006 section also refers to actions in which the CIA worked covertly to oust the de facto government in Somalia through multiple methods resulting in a clear regime change especially in comparison to their previous level of authority and control
There are also accusations of personal bias as shown in the talk links above
I've been accused of going against consensus. However, not only have other users disagreed with the earlier blanket reversions and the current one, I submit that there has been a clear political bias in deleting any sections possible from this article, even to the point of removing relevant sourced content.
While I've only recently updated the Talk page, I've noted the reason for all of my edits and my only personal accusation has been towards the timing of aforementioned users in cooperating to revert and target this article after other editors have given up, to the detriment of its content and benefit.
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.
