Request reason: "I'm leaving within the next 2 hours, so it's of little consequence if I'm unblocked. However, I'd be remiss if I didn't do this, even as a formality. Lar is obviously quite a corrupt admin, and now that I've reviewed his work, it appears he's even more so. Lar got involved recently with an issue that his own wife raised at ANI. I don't see how this guy can be trusted to make sound decisions about anyone. Lar claims on his user page that he is a 51 year old man who likes to play with LEGOS. I'm sure that's why the banal comment about toy soldiers hit him so hard. As i said, I'll have no time to edit, so it's of little consequence if I'm unblocked, other than principal. There's an obvious COI with this guy."

:::::MK5384, I would advise you to take this matter seriously, and to avoid using "it's someone else's fault" as a defense. Didn't work for my kids, won't work for you. Ditto "Board X did not impose a penalty" or whatever. (much less "I didn't know that user was female".. that won't fly either) This is about your behavior, not anyone else's. Focus on that, take feedback on board and improve. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 04:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't you have some toy soldiers to play with, or something?Mk5384

This edit [toy soldiers] is unacceptable. You were counseled to rethink your approach. Take some time and reflect if you're cut out for editing here or not. ++Lar: t/c 01:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Lar is obviously quite a corrupt admin, and now that I've reviewed his work, it appears he's even more so. Lar got involved recently with an issue that his own wife raised at ANI. I don't see how this guy can be trusted to make sound decisions about anyone. Lar claims on his user page that he is a 51 year old man who likes to play with LEGOS. I'm sure that's why the banal comment about toy soldiers hit him so hard.

And the talk page is entertaining

Especially Malik Shabazz's insults -- good thing he is an admin, otherwise he'd be blocked for shooting his big mouth off.

Is he one of your mates, horsey? His user page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=374122719 says a member of the thoroughbred project. And that "This user likes horses, especially on a sandwich."

I can't say that I know this guy...after a while, it is difficult to tell the trolls apart, especially when they start putting numbers in their names.

True or false: Lar was the inspiration for Orson Welles' "Mr. Arkadin"?

If you don't think the block needs to run its course, why not unblock me?

My comment was for the reviewing admin (though it had already been reviewed by the time I posted it). –xenotalk 15:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Kww has said numerous times, "I would have indefed you", and he was obviously just waiting for the chance to do this.Mk5384 (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And notice, when I made apologies in the past, Kww was not on that list. That he would block me for "edit warring", whilst turning a blind eye to the others reinforces what I've always believed about him.Mk5384 (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

These comments don't seem relevant or constructive, I'd suggest removing them. If it helps, I almost blocked you for edit warring as well. –xenotalk 15:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

They're revelant, as Kww is a corrupt fucking cocksucker who would have the audacity to block me for something at least two others did.Mk5384 (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have increased your block to two weeks in response to your above attack on Kww. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 15:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well fuck you too, while you're at it.Mk5384 (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

True

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyVvSWvL764

Say, who is this RIPGC guy who scribbled on Mk5384's talk page? For someone who has only been an editor for less than two months, RIPGC seems unusually well-versed in Wikipolitics and Wikiculture -- including a joke orange message line on his talk page! I would imagine that he'd raise some red flags...or maybe he's one of those socks that Arbcom likes to protect (after all, an arbitrator with a history of abusing checkuser privileges left a friendly message on the talk page!).

That's a classic cliché in Wikipedian infighting, isn't it?

Can a cliché be a classic?