Wikipedia:All socks

The socks, the socks are calling!
Let's say that you were recently warned for some violation of Wikipedia policy. You disagree, and ignore the warning. That happens all the time, and indeed, sometimes the warning was incorrect. Not long later, an editor with another user shows up to warn you again for a similar issue. This is eerily similar; after all, you've done nothing wrong. Next thing you know, some other editor's name shows up with a similar warning or attempt at discussion. How is it possible that so many people are all watching exactly the same edit!?

An article that you have been working on then gets nominated for deletion because of policy violations. Sure enough, those same names (and more) show up to say "delete". Obviously, this many people cannot possibly all think it should be deleted! Sure enough, the more you argue your point, the more "editors" show up out of nowhere to speak against you! This has got to be the biggest sockpuppet-farm in the history of Wikipedia!

After all, it's not your supposed violation of policy that is a problem,

An analogy
Let's say that although you filled in their "pre-approved" form that came in the mail, American Express won't give you a credit card. You then apply for a Mastercard, and they refuse to issue you one as well. Off you go to sign up for a Visa card, and they politely decline. Not to be stopped, you drop by your local Sears store, fill out the paperwork, but they won't give you one either. "Fine then", you say as you head over to Target, quickly completing the paperwork; however, they won't extend you credit either. Turns out that after spending 15 minutes neatly filling out a short bit of paperwork that J. C. Penney won't give you a credit card either.

Dammit, Obviously, the fact that you have a crappy credit history and do not pay your bills has no bearing on the situation. Visa, AmEx, Mastercard, etc., they be the same company, right?