Edit: Stickying some relevant "war reporting" from the comments to the post body, in a hopefully somewhat chronological order. Thanks for diving into the trenches everybody!
So the "and convicted felon" part of the screenshot that is highlighted was in the first sentence of the article about Donald Trump. After the jury verdict it was added and then removed again pretty much immediately several times over.
Then the article got editing restrictions and a warning about them (warning has been removed again):
During these restrictions there is a "RfC" (Request for Comments) thread held on the talk page of the article where anybody can voice their opinion on the matter:
Money quote:
There's a weird argument for **slight support**. Specifically because if we don't include it in the first paragraph somewhere, either the first sentence or in a new second sentence, there are going to be edit wars for the next 2-6 years. Guninvalid (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a second battlefield going on in the infobox on the side (this has also been removed again at this point in time):
The article can apparently only be edited by certain more trusted users at the moment, and warnings about editing "contentious" parts have been added to the article source:
To summarise, here is a map of the status quo on the ground roughly a day after the jury verdict:
Wiki is a circlejerk of people who have gotten their digital power and want to play pretend that they're doing something important, something that has gravitas. So they'll have a "discussion" for a week on whether the first president convicted of 34 felonies is a "significant" fact. This is what brain dead "neutrality" looks like.
It's not like they're arguing over something emergent like pulling a drowning man to shore or something though. And it's a better system than the closed encyclopedias where the facts are whatever the company determines. So while it sucks that we have to have a discussion to tell the trump supporters they can't censor Wikipedia (again) it's better than the alternatives.
He's right about arguing whether it is significant fact or not. It is absolutely a significant fact.
Of course it is. The point here is the process itself protects that neutrality. You can't skip it just because it's obvious to 2/3rds of us.