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