::::#In fact, any administrator may ban any user for any reason, as long as he or she thinks the evidence supports the decision.  Admins who repeatedly screw up in the area get desysopped.  Any admin who thinks I have made a serious mistake may unblock you.  However, only Arbcom or another checkuser can view the complete data set, so I recommend leaving the decision up to them. 
 ::::#I don't think that a person who creates vandal user accounts like  and  is himself gay, I think he is 12 years old or has never outgrown being 12. 
 ::::#I have posted several examples at the AN/I thread.  To summarize one such example: On 27 March at around 10:30-11:00AM (UTC) you were editing the article Julia Gillard.  Then you created new accounts  which made one edit to the article, and   which vandalized the article.  After Goodbo was blocked, both you and I'm On Speed filed unblock requests to lift the autoblock. One request was declined by Arbitrator and checkuser Jpgordon .  You managed to get your own IP unblocked, but your comment here was a lie, as you had the same IP 20 minutes before the block and up to 4 hours after the block. Then on 12 March, I'm On Speed shows up as an obvious vandal making edits from your school IP address. 
 ::::#Look all you want at Citizendium; I understand they require you to confirm your real name before editing.  That will at least prevent you from creating hoax articles in the name of your school friends, and they in your name (all of which I decline to name here for privacy reasons).  
 ::::#You say I blocked "a GA contributor where you're not even sure whether I did something wrong or not?"  On the contrary, I am sure.  The difference is between direct and circumstantial evidence.  I have direct evidence that the vandal accounts ,  and  are your sockpuppets.  I have strong circumstantial evidence that the other vandal accounts listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Littleteddy belong to you as well. 
 ::::Please email Arbcom to pursue this further.