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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump#RfC_on_use_of_"convicted_felon"_in_first_sentence
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:
If they don’t leave it in there I’ll have lost all respect for Wikipedia. It’s a fact, and not one of those “goodfacts” the magats like to create.
Yeah its definitely an editor war. The people actually getting paid by Wikipedia aren’t necessarily the ones editing and adding articles. Its probably groups of volunteers fighting.
People are discussing it in the talk pages and figuring out how they want the new information to be included in the article instead of leaving an article about a former POTUS to the whims of random vandals.
There is currently a discussion on if it should be mentioned in the first or 2nd sentence of the article. As such, the edit was removed until that discussion is finished.
At a glance, it seems like most editors prefer to have it in the 1st sentence. The ones that want it in the 2nd sentence do make good points though, and the discussion is very level headed. It is a fact, but if it is 1st sentence important is an opinion.
You can read their arguments here.
Honestly, I think they’re having the wrong discussion. His true legacy won’t be convicted felon even though that is notable. His legacy will be as the first POTUS (hopefully only) to lead/cause an insurrection during the certification of the presidential election, while he also attempted to overturn them through corruption and by denying the election results. No other POTUS has even come close to implying that, yet Trump actually did all three. Furthermore, he is saying he will deny the results if he loses again and is hinting at more violence.