Re:ArbCom 

I realized too late that I can't reply to you directly there per word-count restrictions, but it needs to be said that that is not what I said. I specifically stated that ArbCom probably wouldn't reprimand you (not least because it has nothing to do with you), and so I will likely be too busy to respond to Cebr1979 until sometime after this case is resolved. What I meant was that, regardless of the outcome of the ArbCom case, I will still have any number of users campaigning for me to be SBANned, and will likely still be too busy to respond. Please learn to read other users' comments more carefully. And while you're at it, please stop following me, as your closely reading a comment on my talk page addressed to another user indicates you were. As for the first half of your post  the reason I am interested in your edits is because in the last five months you have made requests on ANI for me to be de fact SBANned no less than three times, and on at least two of these occasions you have justified this by claiming that the number of pages you managed to sneak past the GA review process exceeds the number of GAs I have produced. Your making bad article edits usedn't be that big a concern for me, except where you directly revert my good article edits. But once you started using the number of GA reviewers you have managed to trick into thinking you didn't misquote sources as justification for trying to get me blocked/banned, I suddenly had a massive incentive to bring to light the fact that the so-called GAs you advertise on your user page all contain serious sourcing errors.

But don't worry  I won't post any more GA reassessments for the foreseeable future (even though I have half a dozen already drafted off-wiki) as long as you cease your campaign to get me removed from the project.

Immediately.

 (聖やや)