I am posting an updated version of my unanswered question from two weeks ago, as it seems to have been swept aside in the aftermath of the latest big wikidramu, which took over those pages shortly after I posted it, and was later weirdly archived here.

Regarding WP:DIGWUREN (Wikipedia:General_sanctions), would it be:

1. ) applicable to an editor who at a general policy page (applicable to EE articles but also others) makes bad faith / incivil remarks regarding EE editors (for example, discussing the bias of "Slavic editors", identifying votes of editors as "X comes from a Slavic country" and makes similar arguments, the gist of which is arguing that EE editors are not neutral/biased
2. ) applicable to an editor who at a general policy page (applicable to EE articles but also others) makes bad faith / incivil remarks regarding another editor, primarily by linking to or mentioning an EE-related ARBCOM case with expired sanctions to back the claim that "this editor is biased, as the XYZ case proves", "this editor has been found to be disruptive, to edit war, has supported editors who were found disruptive", and so on. In other words, is there any recourse when an editor is trying to damage another editor's reputation by citing/linking old ARBCOM findings with the rather obvious attempt to poison the well and win an argument by reminding others "what bad, bad deed that evil person did X years ago"?

If WP:DIGWUREN is not applicable, I'd appreciate comments what, if any, policies are, and where such behavior can be reported (or are editors just supposed to take such poisoned comments for years and decades)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date bump 1. Still waiting for somebody to reply. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that it's a faux pas, but I added "I agree", or words to that effect, to three comments. If it's taboo, please slap me with a fish on my talk page. Thanks. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is John Vandenberg accepting Cults, or conditionally accepting a different arbitration? His is counted as an 'accept' in the heading, but is that clearly what he is saying? Jd2718 (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a general question - if there is a better place to post this I'd be happy to move it.

While the ArbCom naturally takes a flexible approach to such issues, it's my impression that evidence more than one year old is considered stale. The committee is concerned with resolving ongoing, current problems rather than older transgressions. Further, evidence that has already been presented in previous ArbCom cases has probably been considered and addressed, and so is not necessary to review again. Of course, extraordinary issues can require IAR approaches, but is this roughly correct as a guide for editors assembling evidence?   Will Beback  talk  21:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roughly. I wouldn't say it's not useful in all cases (for example, it would be useful in showing a repeated pattern of behavior), but the evidence has to be somehow related to current events SirFozzie (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]