Two instances as illustrations:
1) Stephan Kinsella, like Brandt, did not become a Wikipedian voluntarily, registered an account to defend himself against questionable content and is the subject of the "Mercy" ruling which is part of WP:BLP. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#_note-0 > A high profile Administrator then used material from David Duke to rebut Kinsella's efforts to defend himself. < http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute&dif...
2 ) Yesterday in response to a request SlimVirgin privately agreed to remove an inappropriate link to the CODAH website, only to promptly place another link back to the same questionable source in a less visible place. < http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laird_Wilcox&diff=113130787&am...
These are two examples of high level Administrators using what is by policy questionable sources with a grave potential for severe harm to the subjects in articles of living persons. And in both instances, neither subject can be "linked" to David Duke and/or this organization, or the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODAH).
This pattern of action -- which extends to numerous other living persons -- warrants review. And ArbCom has done nothing to mitigate circumstances such as these even after they have been brought to their attention.