User talk:Pyramids09

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 5.

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Pyramids09! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Pyramids09. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! RPE ✍️ 📚 05:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you stop your disgusting attempt to downplay the genocide in Gaza, to conflate Zionism with Judaism and to whitewash Israel's criminality. Maybe that would stop half your edits from being reverted. If you continue down this path, I will pursue action against you. Oneequalsequalsone (talk | contribs) 06:51, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:PA before trying to be edgy. Pyramids09 (talk) 09:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being edgy. If you can't face the reality of the appalling crimes you are trying to whitewash and continue to discredit facts, I will act on it. Oneequalsequalsone (talk | contribs) 11:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I suggest you read WP:PA before continuing to harass me out of nowhere. Leave with grace, or I will alert ANI. Go. Pyramids09 (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic-banned from WP:PIA

You have been sanctioned for persistent driveby POV edits, lack of accountability to other editors and failure to stick to verifiable statements from sources

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:ARBPIA5#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the appeal process. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. ~~~~

In particular, I came to this conclusion based on recent edits at Hamas, and at Masada myth. In the former, you added "far-right" despite none of the present sources including that characterization, and without adding any new sources. In the latter, you re-added a POV tag that had already been extensively disputed on the talk page. In neither case did you include an adequate edit summary or attempt to engage on the talk page, whether before or after your edit. Mirroring the edit at Hamas, at Flag of Israel you added Category:Flags of indigenous peoples (without any edit summary) despite the article making no mention of indigenous/indigeneity anywhere in its prose. In a similar vein, at this edit to Palestinians you removed sourced content that had previously been challenged by you and upheld by other editors following discussion (Talk page archive); you should have been well aware that this edit would be contentious and require discussion, and you did not respond when called out about it. This pattern of making potentially contentious edits with a consistent POV includes other edits that are perhaps more defensible, such as Special:Diff/1301996535 or Special:Diff/1296438908, but which similarly lack adequate summaries or talk page engagement in the event of conflict with other editors. On one of the few occasions where you do include an edit summary in your recent edits, you did so to propose an OR argument.

Having read through your most recent page of contributions there were myriad other examples of subpar PIA edits along these lines. The problem isn't your personal POV, it's that you're clearly editing with reference primarily to your personal POV rather than following RS, and you're doing it in a way that appears to be intentionally dodging accountability to your fellow editors. Given that you have previously been sanctioned for subpar engagement in the PIA topic area, I see no option other than topic-banning you from it entirely. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1308231810, which was brought to my attention as an administrator, is a violation of the terms of your PIA topic ban and has been reverted. While the overlap with PIA is relatively minor, I did want to express further concern that the edit is clearly a direct revert of Special:Diff/1282629591, where an editor explicitly objected to the use of the sources in question and requested further discussion to occur on the talk page. It should have been clear that the appropriate course of action for you to seek the reinstatement of such content would have been to make your case on the talk page (and you are still encouraged to do so for content not concerning Malcolm X's views on Israel). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:15, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill, it doesn't seem like Pyramids09 has heeded your warning:

• Special:Diff/1309614233
• Special:Diff/1309614340

Oneequalsequalsone (talk | contribs) 08:43, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for repeated, unambiguous violations of your topic ban, which itself ressulted from tendentious editing in the PIA area, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:30, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

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).

Pyramids09 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Hello. When I edited the Israel Premier Tech page to change the mentions of the Gaza Genocide in the Criticism section to Gaza War, I did not believe that I was breaking my Topic Ban and did not intend to do so. Instead, I changed it because the Gaza Genocide article is about the debated characterization of Israel's actions in Gaza, and does not present it as a fact. However, on this article, it was presented as a 100% confirmed fact, despite the article saying otherwise. I intended and continue to intend to abide by my topic ban, and I do not nor have I ever sought to break it. If I did breach my Topic Ban requirements, I am terribly sorry, and I will be more careful in the future. Thank you.Pyramids09 (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No. There needs to be at least a plausible chance of success in order to take up the time of the community, and there's no such chance here. Yamla (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.