Dan Palraz has previously received warnings from myself and other editors regarding his disruptive behavior - for example: #1, #2, #3, and by an admin, Doug Weller, right here. However, each time he chooses to remove warnings as if nothing had occurred rather than responding and regretting his actions, often blanking his page (two examples: here and here). The fact that he had been blocked twice in the past (block 1, block 2) did not change his behavior.

Statement by Tombah

Dan Palraz has been exhibiting what I see to be extremely disruptive conduct and agenda-pushing on ARBPIA matters for a considerable amount of time. He is often edit warring to push his own viewpoints: - Six Day War: see #1, #2, #3, #4, #5 - White phosphorus munitions: see #1, #2 #3 - Judaean Desert: see #1, #2, #3, #4 - Ramot: see #1,#2, #3. In addition to the obvious edit-warring, he occasionally refuses to leave edit summaries despite repeated requests (see here and here), and when he does, he often just mentions the minor changes rather than the major ones (see this edit for example, while claiming to only update the population, he removed a large chunk of information from the article).

Additionally, he moves pages without any discussion, despite the fact that it is undoubtedly required in those cases. - Rock-cut tombs in ancient Israel was moved to Rock-cut tombs in ancient Palestine (Jan 29) - Ring Neighborhoods, Jerusalem was moved to Ring Settlements, East Jerusalem

Me and other editors have warned him about his disruptive behavior previously (for example: #1, #2, #3, and by an admin, Doug Weller, right here), but each time he chooses to remove warnings as if nothing had occurred rather than responding and regretting his actions, often blanking his page (two examples: here and here). The fact that he had been blocked twice in the past (block 1, block 2) did not change his behavior.

While it is true that ARBPIA is a heated subject and that everyone who writes about it has opinions and feelings on it, which occasionally may result in emotional behavior (as most those involved, myself included, sometimes do), to me it is clear from Dan's editing that he is not here to advance Wikipedia but rather to advance his own views at all costs because he completely rejects the platform's rules.

- @Guerillero: Oh no. My mistake. This is my first arbitration request ever. It is not a single violation though, but more of a recurring behavior. Should we close this one and start an AE instead? Tombah (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC) Moved from Arb section, no content change. Primefac (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dan Palraz

Statement by Selfstudier

It appears that this filing should be at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement and not here. 10:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

I can't post at AE, but I assume a note here is okay. Tombah's complaint is that Palraz is engaged in 'agenda-pushing'. Tombah engages in 'agenda-pushing' all over the IP area, and does so, disruptively, on the Israel talk page where great effort by both parties to achieve a consensual balance has been disrupted in my view by pointlessly disruptive assertions that show little grasp of the literature as opposed to the official government line. I personally have no problem with agenda-pushing editors, as long as they (a) know the topic and (b) understand NPOV. Palraz certainly goes to great lengths to study the topic, which cannot be said of the complainant.Nishidani (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Callanecc

To save you the paperwork of refiling the evidence at AE, Tombah, I'm happy to take it from what you've presented here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, newcomers may find this work to be quite challenging :). Tombah (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tombah: Actually, it would be helpful if you could add the filing to AE please this is a little more complex than I first saw? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

ARBPIA disruptive behavior by Dan Palraz: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

ARBPIA disruptive behavior by Dan Palraz: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

@Tombah: Have you tried AE to resolve this issue? --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 10:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}}
 <noinclude>__TOC__</noinclude>
-== Notability for porn actors ==
-'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Maxaxax|Maxaxax]] ([[User talk:Maxaxax|talk]]) '''at''' 10:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
-=== Involved parties ===
-<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
-*{{userlinks|Maxaxax}}, ''filing party''
-*{{userlinks|Gene93k}}
-;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
-<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
-*[diff of notification [[User:Gene93k]]]
-;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
-* [[Special:PermanentLink/889368900#Request for commentdiscussion and request for comment]]
-=== Statement by Maxaxax ===
-The dispute relates to the notability of porn actors. The case passed [[Special:PermanentLink/889368900#Request for commentdiscussion and request for comment]] in February - March 2019 and is a long-standing issue.
-Despite several counter-arguments, the decision taken in 2019 was radical and resulted in total deletion of porn actors who debuted ever since. Today, less than 30 active actors survive on Wikipedia, almost all approaching retirement.
-All awards in the adult field were defined as promotional, all sources as irreliable and other sources normally do not highlight the field in details.
-Despite the special nature of the field, common notability standards were accepted for all actors and the point of large fan base was outright canceled to make the threshold high enough to delete any active porn actor.
-Henceforth, the new notability has been applied invariably to active porn actors while compromised when too high for other actors (examples can be given).
-Notability should not be abused to delete any branch of knowledge, nor be a tool of discrimination against any group disregarding whether we like what they do.--[[User:Maxaxax|Maxaxa ]] ([[User talk:Maxaxax|talk]]) 10:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
-=== Statement by [[User:Gene93k]] ===
-=== Statement by AndyTheGrump ===
-This appears to be a request for ArbCom to make a ruling on a content issue, and should thus be summarily declined.
-=== Statement by {Non-party} ===
-Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
-<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
-=== Notability for porn actors: Clerk notes ===
-:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
-*
-=== Notability for porn actors: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0> ===
-{{anchor|1=Notability for porn actors: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small>
-* Almost certainly out of our scope. {{u|Maxaxax}}, if you disagree with the discussion from three years ago, the proper thing to do is to start a new [[Wikipedia:Request for comment|Request for comment]]. ArbCom is not going to unilaterally overturn a content decision like this. [[User:GeneralNotability|GeneralNotability]] ([[User talk:GeneralNotability|talk]]) 13:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 == ARBPIA disruptive behavior by Dan Palraz ==