It's Wikipedia. Change it. There is no "they", you can be an editor.

This is a naive take that belies the reality of pages with a lot of traffic, and is the reason why there can be controversial discussions in the talk pages. I know nothing about the history of this page, which is why I said "if it's intentional" regarding any deliberate scrubbing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversie...

EDIT: On further inspecting the page history, this definitely looks intentional, or at least is a controversial page.

The page is protected, the general public can't edit it.

There was already discussion on the talk page, "Should Nex's given name be included?" with consensus of "no." That discussion was archived, but you can see it here [0].

From what I can see, the word "Dagny" has been retroactively redacted from all history of the page and its talk page.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_of_Nex...

Not when someone with connections and better knowledge of the WP bylaws weaponizes the Arb Com against you.

Here are some of the things you can get banned for:

- Having a too large fraction of your edits be reverts.

- Updating raw references to <ref cite> references (without changing the contents of the reference).

- Saying something on a forum that could be construed as telling people to edit a particular article in a particular way.

The Arb Com doesn't have to open up a public discussion about the matter. They can simply pronounce judgment in private and ban you. There's no prior notice, no representation, and no independent appeal. For a "supreme court", that's quite a low bar.

Wikipedia is very much an oligarchy. Shared IPs are often blocked from editing and pages locked.