Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/R00m c

Id like to make it known that this issue was handled very poorly. I was falsely accused of being a sock. I was given no time to offer my rational to my actions, nor was I asked to stop. All my actions where per policy. Once I was blocked from editing I was then ignored by the community of admin for several days.

Recent points
(other arguments on my archive of my talk page)

About the sock: If I come upon a list of articles that some one has abused and I see that every one of these articles could use some improvement, It does not make me a sock if I work on this list. Same thing: If I see John Doe walking down the street naked. My name is not John Doe if I walk down the same street too. Same thing: A cow eats grass. A horse eats grass. However, a cow and a horse are not the same thing. (The point is the logic used is in error.)

My (new) arguments agents to the block(now that I am not blocked any more):

1. Abuse of multiple accounts:
 * I have only one account. r00m C.

2. Disruption:
 * If you review the Definition of disruptive editing and editors and then compare that to what I acculy did.
 * A. Is tendentious - N/a, I only edited one group of articles once.
 * B. Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability - N/a, This is what I was saying that the articles do not do.
 * C. Engages in "hostile cite-tagging" - N/a, I used one cite tag one one article and it was not hostile.
 * D. Rejects community input - N/a, The community did not offer there input.
 * E. Campaign to drive away productive contributors - I was the "productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles" not the other way around.
 * I have more arguments on my archive of my talk page. However, my point above is that I was unjustly blocked and falsely accused.

The sided-effect from all this is that I contribute less. I spend my time thinking about how much I was screwed over rather than getting any thing done.R00m c (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)