User talk:Architectatwork

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Architectatwork (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2026

Welcome

February 2026

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For an unblock to be considered, you must:

Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

Toadspike [Talk] 18:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Administrators: if this block includes a Volunteer Response Team ticket number, this block was placed as part of the conflict of interest VRT queue and the user must not be unblocked without the express consent of a user with access to the queue.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Architectatwork (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

Request reason:

Hello everyone. I am not a paid editor. I have not in any manner collected pay to edit. I have gone through Wp:coi and I don’t partake in any of that. How is being passionate about a subject equated as being paid? You need to be interested in a subject to have the steel to complete a page till it becomes a finished article. user:Toadspike, what conclusive proof (not circumstantial proof) shows I was paid because this isn’t right. Architectatwork (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Rarely is their hard evidence of paid editing, sometimes we can only go on what we can piece together. After consultation with the blocking admin, I think that there are other red flags that suggest paid editing(which I'm not prepared to reveal). Yes, people typically edit about what they are interested in, but if they are so passionate that they appear to have a close relationship with a topic when they don't, they need to reevaluate their approach. It might help if you agreed to a topic ban from living people and companies. I think the block is reasonable, and that no grounds to remove it have been provided, and as such I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You claim to have personally created and personally own the copyright to the logo of Palette Media. This means either that

you are employed by Palette Media and did indeed create their logo
you just grabbed the logo from their website and are falsely claiming to have created it, putting Wikipedia in potential legal peril

Which is it? Furthermore, Palette Media is a marketing agency, and you have created drafts about people who typically make use of marketing services. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

:Hello Mr user:331dot, thank you for your time. The ‘Palette’ logo falls under PD-textlogo, and according to Wikimedia guidelines, a text logo is like that is too simplistic to be copyrighted, and that is why I downloaded and used it. So please correct me if I read or understoopd the guideline wrong sir. Architectatwork (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

So, you are saying that you are incorrectly claiming to be the creator of the logo? 331dot (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes. If according to Wikimedia PD-textlogo guideline, which states that a text logo is too simple to be copyrighted, then I have incorrectly uploaded a logo. However I think it should be checked. And I am not paid editor with a COI. Architectatwork (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Then you must go to Commons and get the creator and copyright changed as soon as possible.

Are you employed by Palette Media? 331dot (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

No sir, I’m not a palette employee. I will head to the commons and change it now. Architectatwork (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

So I didn’t violate a rule (because the logo falls under PD-textlogo, which states that simple text logos aren’t copyrighted) and I’m still getting blocked. Please use power for fairness. Wikipedia:Mistakes are allowed states that a mistake can be allowed if it isn’t on a BLP, and this isn’t a blp. So why exactly am I getting blocked when I have committed no crime? Architectatwork (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

This is no longer just about the logo(which you are still claiming to be the creator of even if it cannot be copyrighted). Please see my decline message above. You may make a new request for someone else to review. I've suggested that you agree to a topic ban from living people and companies, but that's up to you, and another admin is certainly free to offer a better deal. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and I really appreciate. It just doesn’t seem fair I’m getting singled out, even though there isn’t anything explicitly wrong with me or my edits. So I can’t take a deal that limits me. Architectatwork (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Then you should make a new request for someone else to review, to see if you can get a better deal. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok I will. Again, thank you for your very approachable nature. Architectatwork (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Again, I wanted to indicate that the articles I have created range from airplane rallies, to blp to companies. I help in the Wikipedia requested article creations too. Architectatwork (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Unblock

Architectatwork (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

Request reason:

My account was blocked stating that “I uploaded the Palette company logo, which is a COI behavior”. I showed the admin that uploading a text logo like Palette’s falls under PD-textlogo, and according to Wikimedia guidelines, “a text logo is too simplistic to be copyrighted”, therefore I was free to upload. And this is true, you can check it out yourself. However I wasn't still unblocked and I was told that I have to stop editing BLP and company articles, which is limiting. About my edit history, my edits range from historical airplane competitions, to BLP and any other thing that catches my interest and I MOSTLY GET MY articles to create from the requested articles page. So I honestly don’t understand why I am blocked, when technically I have done nothing wrong. This is so random. Also: So my appeal are 3 things, * I wasn’t violating a copyright guideline due to the text nature of the logo, which as I stated earlier, I was free to upload by virtue of PD-textlogo * And I am not a paid editor, as pages I create are of a wide range, a spectrum that ranges from technical articles to BLP articles, and are mostly gotten from the requested articles page here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Arts_and_entertainment * Lastly, he described my edit as “creepy.” Unfortunately after reviewing the relevant Wikipedia guidelines, I have found no policy indicating that mirroring an existing edit of a more experienced editor is inappropriate. For clarity, I have provided the exact prior edit that I replicated: :https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vanderwaalforces&diff=prev&oldid=1338118241 Anyone approaching this objectively can verify these points. I have not violated any guideline. While administrators act in good faith, they are human and can make mistakes. Correcting an error should not be viewed as a personal affront. Thank you for taking the time to consider the facts. Architectatwork (talk) 3:38 am, 22 February 2026, Sunday (10 days ago) (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Way too many problematic patterns of behavior on display below. I would strongly suggest taking a standard offer approach and focusing on contributing to another Wikimedia project for the time being, as a further unsatisfactory unblock request is likely to end with you losing access to this page. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I think you are confused; I did not do the initial blocking, and you are not blocked just for the logo. The logo was just one potential symptom of the stated reason for the block, "Undisclosed paid editing in violation of the Wikipedia Terms of Use". 331dot (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I have gone through the WP:COI and WP:UPE guidelines and I will declare decisively that do not partake in paid editing in any form or guise, neither do I have a conflict of interest in my edits. I edit a wide range of topics and I create articles mostly from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Arts_and_entertainment Architectatwork (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

user:Toadspike, how am I a paid editor when my created articles mostly come from the requested articles page? Architectatwork (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

None of this is sufficient to explain the significant evidence to the contrary. Toadspike [Talk] 07:22, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

How am I paid when I asked Abhiimanyu to review an article the same way he had asked Vanderwaalforces? I copied his words verbatim.

So your case is that,

I uploaded a logo, which I had the right to under Wikimedia
And I copied a more experienced editor’s edit verbatim

And yet, I am paid?

Unblock me, you have no case against me. I understand that you are a hard working admin, however you are not a robot and as a human you can be wrong sometimes. And in this case, user:toadspike you are wrong.

Here is the link to the edit I replicated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vanderwaalforces&diff=prev&oldid=1338118241

Architectatwork (talk) 08:08, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, copying someone else's words verbatim is creepy and verges on harassment. That is part of the reason I blocked you. Toadspike [Talk] 08:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

How have I moved from being a paid editor, to being a creepy editor, because I practice observational learning.

Well, I am not a creep. And according to prominent psychology professor K. Anders Ericsson, adults acquire high level skills by watching expert demonstrations and imitating technique. So what I did trying to model someone more experienced is natural.

You are wrong on this. Unblock me. No evidence of COI or UPE here. Architectatwork (talk) 08:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

user:toadspike, respectfully there is no technical or ethical reason here for you to block me from editing. I have not violated a Wikipedia policy. I have pointed out clear evidence of my edit patterns. I have stated clear motivations behind my edits. I have engaged in a concise, clear and respectful way. This block is random and ill advised. Unblock me. Architectatwork (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

user:toadspike, still no genuine justification for the block? How isn’t this a sign of abuse of power? Architectatwork (talk) 09:13, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I suggest that you stop pinging Toadspike. Another admin will be along to review your request. You seem fixated on the logo- which is something I brought up, not Toadspike- and again, was only one symptom here. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

But- since you bring it up- you are still claiming to have personally created the logo. I suggest you go to Commons and deal with that if you did not personally create it. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello 331dot,

First, his user page explicitly states “ping me if you want my attention in a discussion.” I acted in accordance with that instruction, which is verifiable.

Second, I am not fixated on the logo. You raised the logo issue initially and have continued to return to it. It has already been established that it qualifies as a text-only logo, which is generally too simple to be copyrightable. I have moved on from that matter and suggest we all do the same.

Lastly, he described my edit as “creepy.” After reviewing the relevant Wikipedia guidelines, I have found no policy indicating that mirroring an existing edit is inappropriate. For clarity, I have provided the exact prior edit that I replicated:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vanderwaalforces&diff=prev&oldid=1338118241

Anyone approaching this objectively can verify these points. I have not violated any guideline. While administrators act in good faith, they are human and can make mistakes. Correcting an error should not be viewed as a personal affront.

Thank you for taking the time to consider the facts.

Architectatwork (talk) 09:50, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Pinging them once is sufficient, you did twice in a row. Second, as the blocking admin they are likely following this discussion in their watchlist. Yes, the copyright issue has been resolved, but the page for the logo still states that the logo is your personal work. If that's not the case, as you say, you must deal with that immediately. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

The Commons issue with the logo is resolved and no outstanding authorship concerns remain.

Please let us return focus to the core issue in the unblock request: the allegation of undisclosed paid editing or COI. No concrete evidence has been provided to support this claim. I have, however, provided a link clarifying the rationale behind my post.

I have reviewed the relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Nowhere do they state that replicating an edit is "creepy" or grounds for a COI allegation.

Thank you.

Architectatwork (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

It is not resolved. It still says "Source:own work, Author:Architectatwork" See for yourself. The copyright is resolved, yes, but not the authorship. If you are not the creator/designer of the logo, then you need to get the authorship changed to indicate that you are not the creator of the logo, just the uploader. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay. Architectatwork (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me. Per standard procedure, I will not review unblock requests on my blocks. You are welcome to appeal the block for another admin to review. In my view, the block was justified, and nothing you have said here has done anything to lessen that conviction. Continuing to seek my attention will not get you anywhere. Toadspike [Talk] 07:41, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

user:toadspike, I have tried to address you with respect and patience but I have come to believe that you think being an admin makes you unaccountable. If you don’t resolve this block (that isn’t backed by any sort of Wikipedia guideline whatsoever), I will be forced to take this issue up. Rest assured I won’t lie down and let you bully me out of this platform. Architectatwork (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Unblock me. There is not a single justification for this block, as far as Wikipedia guidelines go. Architectatwork (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Noting block evasion here as ~2026-12792-88. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:29, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
I stated clearly that I logged out to post because it was the only way to lay a complain as one of the admins want to bully me out of this platform. I am not going anywhere. You will unblock me and justice will be served. Architectatwork (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
While blocked, you are not permitted to edit under any account or without a username-account until this block is removed. You only have access to this page to contest the block, which you are. You've stated you feel there is no justification- okay. The next admin will see that. There is no need to continue to threaten Toadspike with retaliation or "justice". See WP:BATTLEGROUND. Evading your block only makes this worse for you. My advice would be that you refrain from commenting on the block or blocking admin until requested or the block is reviewed. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
You had the opportunity to review it and you didn’t even give me the fighting chance to defend myself or at least the opportunity to know why I was blocked. This is on you too. Architectatwork (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Your chance to defend yourself is now, and your appear to have posted your defense above; another admin will review it. You were told why you were blocked. As for specifics, no, I won't provide you with the information needed to better evade detection. If another admin feels that Toadspike and I are in error, the block will be removed. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
You know in your heart that I don’t deserve to be blocked. You had the chance to do the right thing and you didn’t have the balls to right this injustice. Good bye. Architectatwork (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Rosguill (talk · contribs), Toadspike wrongly blocked me and instead of you as an admin to right his wrong, you are doubling down on injustice. Power really does corrupt people. Architectatwork (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
That you have not been told what you want to hear does not mean "corruption" is involved. And you still haven't addressed the fact you are still claiming to be the creator of the logo.

I again suggest that you agree to a topic ban from living people and companies. If you're unwilling to do that, there's nothing more to do here. 331dot (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles