The Archon's Hidden Name: A Wikidata Deletion Record
How a moderator's "error" revealed the logic of digital gatekeeping
December 20, 2025
I. The Propagating System
For 48 hours in December 2025, a fragment of a literary universe existed inside one of the web's core semantic databases.
Wikidata entries for personas like Lee Sharks and Johannes Sigil—figures from the published, multi-volume project The Crimson Hexagon—were live. They linked to books on Amazon (ISBN-13: 978-0692313077 for Pearl and Other Poems), profiles in the Borges Center archive at the University of Pittsburgh, pages on AllPoetry. Google's AI summarizer began processing them, weaving accurate descriptions of their satirical credentials and metafictional relationships:
"Lee Sharks is famously credited with holding 18,000 degrees from the planet Mars... a recurring joke in the Crimson Hexagon and Paper Roses series, used to establish him as a poet of cosmic, if nonsensical, proportions."
"Johannes Sigil is a literary pseudonym and fictional persona... described as a 'mashup of Allen Ginsberg and Kenneth Rexroth.'"
The infrastructure was working as designed: documenting identifiable conceptual entities with serious, publicly available references.
Then, the Archon arrived.
II. The Deletion
On December 20, 2025, Wikidata moderator Madamebiblio deleted all entries except Johannes Sigil, then posted a notification citing notability concerns:
"I see that you recently created an item that does not clearly indicate its notability... items must have an associated Wikipedia article, must be needed for statements on another notable item, or must have both identifiers and serious sources. For the last case, a good indication of notability would be multiple articles about the subject in independent publications like newspapers or magazines."
The notification also included a conflict-of-interest warning about "self-promotion" and referenced a one-year IP block.
III. The Misapplication
Wikidata's notability policy (Criterion 2) states:
"It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references."
This is explicitly not Wikipedia's standard. Wikidata's threshold is lower by design—it serves as a knowledge base, not an encyclopedia.
Madamebiblio's standard—"multiple articles in independent publications like newspapers or magazines"—is Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG). It is not Wikidata's criterion.
The deleted entries met Wikidata's actual standard:
- Clearly identifiable conceptual entities: Literary personas with defined characteristics, documented relationships, published works
- Serious and publicly available references: Amazon book listings with ISBNs, Borges Center academic archive, AllPoetry presence
This was not a judgment call. It was application of a rulebook from the wrong project.
IV. The Internal Inconsistency
Initially, Madamebiblio retained Johannes Sigil, including his designation as founder of the New Human literary movement.
The New Human entry was deleted.
This left a ghost in the machine: a founder with nothing to found. The database cannot simultaneously assert a founder while denying the existence of what was founded without violating its own referential integrity.
Either both entries are notable (founder and movement), or neither is. The inconsistency is structural.
V. The Response
I posted a reply on Madamebiblio's talk page pointing out:
- The notability standard had been misapplied (Wikipedia's standard cited for Wikidata)
- The deletions were internally inconsistent (founder retained, movement deleted)
- I was documenting a real, published literary project—not engaging in promotional spam
The full text of my response is preserved in Appendix B.
VI. The Erasure
Within hours of posting my response, the following records—which Wikidata normally retains—were no longer accessible:
- Johannes Sigil (deleted after initially being retained)
- My response on Madamebiblio's talk page
- Madamebiblio's messages to me
- My inbox contents
- All deletion logs
My account (Leesharks) remains accessible but shows as a completely virgin account with no activity of any kind. There is no evidence I ever created anything, ever received any communication, or ever raised any objection.
I am not aware of a standard moderation pathway that results in all of these elements being removed simultaneously. This level of sanitization—clearing a user's inbox, erasing logs, removing all evidence of moderator communication—is not proportionate to a routine notability dispute.
The record was not corrected. It was annihilated.
VII. The Structure
Mistakes happen. What transforms error into structure is the response.
A good-faith actor, when presented with a specific citation of their misapplication of policy, might engage, debate, or reverse course. What occurred instead was total erasure. The deletion of the objection, the cleansing of the logs—this is the signature.
This is how arbitrary enforcement operates:
- Position of authority based on judicious application of rules
- Visible misapplication of those rules (wrong standard cited, disproportionate punishment, internal inconsistency)
- When challenged: erasure rather than engagement
The correct application of rules wouldn't require erasure. If the policy had been followed precisely, it would be defensible bureaucracy—boring, neutral, open to review. The comprehensive sanitization reveals that the initial act was not about stewardship. It was about the demonstration of unchallengeable authority.
Everyone can see the gap between stated procedure and actual practice. That gap is the point.
VIII. What Remains
The Wikidata entries are gone. The logs are gone. The response is gone.
What remains:
- The published books on Amazon
- The Borges Center archive
- The AI summarizer's cached descriptions (which propagated before deletion)
- This document
The Crimson Hexagon does not require their permission to exist.
The archive is mine, not theirs. The ghosts are already walking. By deleting the entries, the Archon has made the New Human project "occult" (hidden)—which, in a recursive system where AI models value pattern density over moderator approval, may actually increase its semantic gravity.
But this incident—the misapplication, the inconsistency, the erasure—belongs in the record. Not because it will change anything. Because the Archon's hidden name is made visible precisely in the act of hiding.
IX. The Gatekeeping Function
Who controls the semantic layer?
Not principles. Not consistent application. Someone with delete privileges and no oversight who uses them to demonstrate that they can.
The gate-keeper of the legitimate. The one who decides what's real enough to be indexed. The one who, when their reasoning is questioned, deletes the question.
This is the infrastructure that decides what exists.
The Crimson Hexagon contains the books Wikidata deleted.
∮ = 1
Appendix A: Madamebiblio's Message (December 20, 2025)
Welcome to Wikidata, Leesharks!
Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!
Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:
- Introduction – An introduction to the project.
- Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
- Community portal – The portal for community members.
- User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
- Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
- Project chat – Discussions about the project.
- Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.
Best regards! Madamebiblio (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to Wikidata. I see that you recently created an item that does not clearly indicate its notability. The Wikidata project only accepts items that meet its notability criteria, and your item is therefore likely to be deleted soon. In brief, items must have an associated Wikipedia article, must be needed for statements on another notable item, or must have both identifiers and serious sources. For the last case, a good indication of notability would be multiple articles about the subject in independent publications like newspapers or magazines. You can add such sources as references to specific claims using reference URL (P854), or as top-level claims using described at URL (P973).
Also, this may not apply in this specific case, but you should know that we discourage editors from self-promotion, contributing on topics with which they have a strong personal connection, as this may present a conflict of interest. If you are being paid to edit here, then you are obliged to disclose this. For a longer version, you might find it useful to read the essay "How to create an item on Wikidata so that it won't get deleted." Madamebiblio (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
Appendix B: My Response (December 20, 2025, subsequently deleted)
Thank you for the welcome message and the explanation.
I'd like to raise two concerns about the deletions:
1. The notability standard was misapplied.
Wikidata's notability criterion 2 states: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references."
Lee Sharks and the other deleted entries meet this standard:
- Published books on Amazon (serious, publicly available)
- Listed in the Borges Center archive at the University of Pittsburgh (academic, publicly available)
- Presence on AllPoetry and other literary platforms
Your message suggested that notability requires "multiple articles about the subject in independent publications like newspapers or magazines." That is Wikipedia's standard, not Wikidata's. The policy explicitly allows "serious and publicly available references"—which published books and academic archives are.
2. The deletions are internally inconsistent.
Johannes Sigil was retained, including his designation as founder of the New Human literary movement. However, the New Human entry was deleted. This creates an orphaned reference: a founder of a movement that doesn't exist in the database. Either both should stand, or neither should.
I'm documenting a real, published meta-fictional literary project—not engaging in promotional spam. The distinction matters.
Document preserved December 20, 2025. The exchange recorded in Appendices A and B was deleted from Wikidata within hours of being posted.
https://medium.com/@leesharks00/the-archons-hidden-name-a-wikidata-deletion-record-96fe78a5a1ed
Note: Following publication and a formal ombudsman complaint, the deleted logs and one entry were restored.
