" 

 == Human self-reflection needed == 

 :A member of this committee has closed the SPI that I opened, commenting that the evidence was ""vastly insufficient to support a sockpuppetry claim."" [35] Part of the reason that I presented my evidence there is that I thought it quite convincing. I respectfully ask the whole committee to consider the evidence, rather than have the decision made by one arbitrator, whose answer at SPI indicates that they have already made up their mind about me. 

 Lightbreather, I don't think you are stupid or incompetent, but this comment tells me you should stay away from Wikipedia for a while. Seven different editors commented on the quality of the evidence you offered at the SPI and all agreed that it was quite possibly the worst evidence they had ever seen in the history of SPI.  For you to think this lack of evidence is ""quite convincing"" tells me you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what evidence is in this context and how it works.  If you would like to correct your error, I would recommend finding a checkuser you trust and have them walk you through the entire process.  That would be a good way for you to learn why what you think is ""quite convincing"" is in fact, non-evidence.   "