How could you possibly think jumping to that conclusion is justified? I can't tell if you're really that bad at epistemic rationality (maybe just in this domain? or maybe you're in a weird mood?)

They are definitely mild nuisances. I mean, have you seen them? They jump in and say stupid things. Ban them all.

Your denial counts for something. Not enough that I would assign less than 0.5 probability to them being you but enough that 'benefit of the doubt' applies. At the very least you have distanced yourself from the behavior of the others. Of course if credible evidence (including the testimony of sufficient others) indicated that you were lying about them not being you I'd endorse an unconditional permanent ban.

or if you're really that intent on getting me banned even if it requires underhanded tactics.

The frequent inclusion of conditionals and caveats would indicate otherwise and I wouldn't consider my approach here particularly underhanded even if I did have that as a goal. No, this isn't personal---it really is about a preference for enforcement of a sock-puppet abuse policy. "Clippy" is actually on my "Do Not Feed" list due to sockpuppet abuse considerations---in particular, dishonesty regarding the use and being consistently not funny in the role. I now get hatemail from him. Literally, it says "i hate you" in the body and the subject.