Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks

Case Opened on 20:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 21:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 10:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 03:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Requests for arbitration.

Involved parties

 * (initiating party)

Requests for comment
Prior dispute resolution listed in the request for arbitration:


 * Requests for mediation/Dokdo Request for mediation
 * Request for comment
 * Requested move
 * Requested move
 * Requested move
 * recent discussion about the introduction
 * Another in the past about "physical presence" (=intro)
 * same discussion 1 year ago

Statement by Wikimachine
This Dokdo/Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks article has troubled so many over the last 2 years - it needs arbitration. It’s not just one single disagreement or requested move – it’s the subject in its entirety. Unless the arbitration committee draws a clear line over what is POV and what is NPOV, what is acceptable and what is not, what is prescription and what is description, and what is reasonable and what is unreasonable, these POVs will continue to ravage the article with revert wars while hiding behind Wikipedia’s procedural & policy-based shields. They make a change on the article that is being discussed about in the talk page, and then when we revert they say we’re reverting against consensus when in fact the change was based on no consensus to begin with & changes require consensus to begin with. And when we (in the latest case it is "I") revert, "they" suddenly multiply from what was 2 editors in dispute to 4 - it's so perfectly coordinated. But the whole situation is us vs. them - no actual thing as consensus (they agree amongst themselves & then say "consensus") l consensus here - it's just a cold war with revert wars & 3RR ban being the leverage. In the end, this is about how many guys you have on your side able to participate in a revert war & 3RR but you've got to run a movie to make it all seem legitimate. (in the last 2 years, they never agreed on anything or never worked out a compromise & the only thing that would force them to was the poll - unless they have a compromise that is just as bad as the original). In fact, the entirety of the Liancourt Rocks talk page & the archives is the evidence that so many other steps throughout the last 2 years have been tried by the both sides. No one is ever satisfied and some main players here don't do anything else other than to edit on the Liancourt Rocks talk page (i.e. Opp2 & Clownface). (See this article to test & see my neutrality) These ppl (JPOV & KPOV) are too lazy or obsessed with their POVish beliefs that they refuse to add but emphasize certain points (for example, the most recent: instead of controlled & claimed, they want "claimed-claimed, and controlled" in the 1st paragraph of intro when these things are plainly explained in the 2nd para of intro & thoroughly covered in the main body - in order to emphasize that the Japanese claim is on equal level as Korean claim over the island & to imply illegitimacy behind Korean control - why would any country claim a territory that it's already controlling?).

The most recent conflict is on the intro - (2 versions advocated here) (rv1rv2 - they take turns reverting, this happened since they made their accounts, see contribs). I never agreed with the proposed introduction from Komdori, LactoseTI, and Phonemonkey & I was never aware of the change on the article that was unilaterally made by Opp2 (notice POV with Japan coming first, S. Korea coming 2nd). All throughout the talk, I disagreed with many things that make up Opp2's version & the fixes thereafter: Moreover, I did not know that there was any change made in the main article: I'm not seeing any changes on history, so I'm not sure what you guys are talking about And then Komdori replies: "A half dozen or so editors worked" - oh yeah the 6 editors listed above - 4 vs 3 -that sure is "worked over" "a lot went into". None of us agreed with anybody else & those 4 LactoseTI, Komdori, Opp2, and Phonemonkey agreed amongst themselves. Komdori says "We don't need your permission." but they do because they have permission from no one else outside their party either.

This article is a very different environment - like Europe, the old alliances are already fixed - there are old timers here who meddle in every dispute (including me). It's not random editors coming in & making edits & contributing to discussions w/ good faith (b/c no other ppl are interested in this dispute except for the nationalists) Everything is fixed & a self-fulfilling prophesy & we're trapped in this framework, & that's why arb is necessary. Whatever we do we're POVs unreasonable nationalists & uncivil (they can make us so). If we go on revert war, we'll be outnumbered. If we continue on talk, we'll be outvoiced & outpolled. Even if they are wrong, it's justified b/c we have to accept all views per NPOV - yet at a closer examination this is not a problem of NPOV but matter of reasonability, reality, and description over prescription. If we accuse them of being unilateral & cheap (this infuriates me) they reply w/ "Wikimachine: why don't we try the other steps first".

2nd dispute: Opp2 wanted to get rid of the word "administer" for S. Korea b/c Japan didn't "administer" in the sense of control but mere paperworks of registering the islets as a province. The way he aimed at this was by searching on google & listing several sites that used "occupy" to describe the situation and the same for "admnister". So, Opp2 says, you must replace all equivalents of "occupy" with "occupy" and "occupy" is the only word you can use b/c it's most neutral b/c Opp2 listed few more websites that use "occupy" rather than "administer". This is Original Research. I want to emphasize that none of our reliable, NPOV, and cooperative editors here - LactoseTI, Komdori, and Phonemonkey attempted to explain to Opp2 that it was original research & actually defended him.

Another is: Last requested move from Dokdo to Liancourt Rocks at first ended in no consensus. However, they lobbied the admin Husond at his talk page & weeded out several early accounts to just reach the % that another admin holding the previous RM defined as consensus & then overturned the decision. This incident bothers me on two levels - first, they failed to weed out a few of their own early accounts, and second, even when I showed the admin that if he were to consider the illegitimate accounts on Liancourt Rocks side there would be no consensus the admin didn't listen.

3rd dispute: 1) about the info box which contains "administration" section showing Japan & South Korea, their respective provincial titles, etc. 2) originally not there, but somebody put it there to show Japan on top of S. Korea b/c of alphabetical order - which I disagree b/c Liancourt Rocks, whether disputed by Japan or not, is a Korean territory). Shows how vicious & vicious they're. In other words, S. Korea controls the island & therefore is the only country with administrative rights over the island (i.e. ~ tax, census, if we were to say that ppl lived there). Japan can "administer" or "register" the island as "Okinoshima Town, Oki District, Shimane" but that's as far as Japan can ever go & the info box doesn't ask for "administer" in the sense of "register". LactoseTI & Phonemonkey say that "control" does not mean "administrative rights" b/c it could be illegitimate. I see how they link "rights" and "legitimacy" but even with illegit occupation a country can "administer" a territory &, even if LactoseTI's saying that Japanese viewpoint is that the occupation is illegitimate, all info box asks for is just that control.

A related problem is that it's JPOVish to present this Japan-Korea dispute with Japan on equal level with Korea. It's just like (made up) Russia disputing Alaska with the US. Sure, both countries are disputants, but who controls the land, who controlled the land before, which side has better historical evidence (in this case, the ev. that the US bought Alaska from Russia) (in Liancourt Rocks, according to Yale Global, Korea) (a better example is Tsushima Island except S. Korea disputes over it) The simple act of disputing doesn't put the disputer on equal level with the disputed. Even if I concede that Dokdo was Japanese to begin with, it is within Korean territory - just like Tsushima is within Japanese territory. It is unrealistic for Japan to try to take Dokdo - all Japan wants currently is a disputed status & therefore equal level of dispute is JPOVish. Wikipedia should describe, not prescribe, but here they prescribe a less accepted view as equivalent to the dominant view. It's cheap b/c they use the NPOV policy that all views must be represented as a leeway to emphasize heavily on JPOV. And this also spills over to the current title of the article -it's more JPOV than NPOV (even if slightly) b/c it challenges Korean claim's legitimacy even when Korea controls the island. It's like changing Tsushima Island to something in English just b/c S. Korea disputes it.

Another thing is WP:CIVILITY - sure both sides use exclamation marks & bolds & few "wth" sometimes, but the other party's superior & condescending attitude really bothers all of us here (we don't do this, however). When accused, they reply "stop being paranoiac", "you're mistaken", etc. For example, I reverted the edits on the info box b/c I thought that the order of administration was based on the alphabetical order of the geographical subjects, not the disputants. And in fact, I reverted myself even before anybody replied back in response on talk page (see this. And then something so ridiculous - the other party - (none could boast as many edits or as long a stay as I) happened - they all reminded of the wikipedia rules! "unfortunately this is not Wikipedia policy" "It's from WP:NCGN. WP:NC itself is a Wikipedia policy but WP:NCGN is a naming conventions guideline" I even replied "Well, I saw that & I changed it back." But Macgruder goes further, even 1 day after my own revert, "If you have a problem with that page go over there and deal with it. You don't edit to be parallel with another page which itself may be wrong. You edit to be parallel with Wikipedia policy/guidelines. Frankly I don't care which way round they are but J does come before K." Oh sure you don't. Then comes the bullseye: "Stop constantly making your argument personal and people might have a modicum of respect for you".

Finally, the other side's action is very well coordinated - almost like a conspiracy & wait, we have evidence. Google, Ginnre's talk page, although link is now modified by the forum, Ginnre's talk page, showing the exact forum discussion, deleted due to copyright In short, there are forum discussions in Japanese outside of Wikipedia about Liancourt Rocks - and 2chnet example was a thorough analysis of all KPOV editors on Liancourt Rocks. I can't accuse directly any of them here, but I know that Komdori & LactoseTI are nearby friends and since their first edits they participated & coordinated together in a requested move (see my previous sock accusation data and the previous sock accusation case where I specified 2 links on their first edits  . And also their efforts at the previous requested move was very well coordinated & their arguments (made individually & separately) all fit well & were well structured, based on Wikipedia's policies (I was really surprised, so I responded to make things clear for everyone at here). (Wikimachine 14:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Therefore I'd like for the arbitration to accomplish following things:


 * First decide if the last requested move was legitimate, and if the current title is POV or NPOV (b/c ppl are planning another RM in the future) (look at my analysis of the requested move at this archived link.)
 * Second decide if S. Korea & Japan are disputing over the island at equal level or not or if it's a case similar to Tsushima Island.
 * Third specify which version (b/w the 2 reverts) is better & elaborate on additional compromises & specify certain things that are needed to make the article NPOV.


 * I will also write an alternate version of the article. I think that the many compromises will wear down neutrality of the alternate version, & that it'd be best if the arbitration committee would decide if my alternate version at User:Wikimachine/Liancourt Rocks would be acceptable. (Wikimachine 01:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

After these things are cleared, it'll be possible for me to work on the article as I am on Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) (which I aim to make a featured article). You can clearly see that I'm quite NPOV & take interest in article development more than anything like emphasis, I love different viewpoints purely b/c they are interesting, and I try to cite everything --> no WP:OR. (Wikimachine 14:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Statement by LactoseTI

 * Just a comment--this request is really preliminary in nature. Few if any of the dispute resolution steps have been tried recently (in the last few months) and have nothing to do with the issues at hand (the only dispute resolutions tried recently were a few ultimatums by Wikimachine not to undo his revert like this).  Wikimachine also explicitly said he was skipping other forms of dispute resolution because of his bad faith for other editors here ("Mediation committee, mediation cabal - they're all meaningless on this one b/c of you Japanese nationalists.").  Surely this is a controversial article, so it makes sense that controversy after controversy will crop up as the content develops; still, it's better to work in the framework that is set up (and works!) inside Wikipedia rather than jumping here as a first step.


 * This case also only lists a handful of the many established editors involved recently, excluding users like Gettystein, Endroit, and Kusunose. The editor filing this request stated on the page he basically wishes to skip the other steps since he doesn't care for the obvious consensus.  Wikimachine:  Why don't we try the other steps first (along with a big dose of good faith), and see how it turns out?  The process tends to go a lot smoother that way.  — LactoseTI T 04:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.
I'm totally uninvolved here and have only given the dispute a cursory glance, but based on my experience with similar situations, I'd recommend Arbcom take this case and hand out topic bans liberally on all sides. Asking the parties to engage in further dispute resolution first would be futile here. They've been debating this for years and years, what else would they try now? The article has seen dozens of edits since yesterday alone, most of which were reverts. The most disappointing thing, however, is to look at the talkpage and at the request here, and look at the quality of the debate. These guys have been fighting over those islets for two or three years, and they are still framing their debates in terms of which side is right and which side is wrong! Apparently, people are simply not getting it that this is not what NPOV is all about. If they haven't learned that yet, why would we expect they learn it now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Spartaz
Just for further information, I just blocked indefinitely as this was their seventh block for violating the 3RR rule. My reasoning being that they are clearly unwilling to comply with the basic editing rules that we are all expected to follow. I haven't studied the issue in any detail but there is clearly an ongoing problem. Strange that user RFCs haven't previously been attempted. Obviously, I'd be more then happy to unblock them to allow participation in any arbitration case, or even, if there is a sufficient commitment to behave in future. Spartaz Humbug! 19:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Opp2
I think Wikimachine is violating WP:OWN.



I presented sources of the third-party that used "occupation" as present situation of the islands. And, I proposed the use of "occupetion" that was a general term than "control" and "administration". 

I confirmed it to the native speaker because my English is poor. He answered that there was no grammatical problem. And, I didnot preset the number of google serch as a evidence and source. Wikimashine even did not make an excuse, and presented opposite thirdly reason. ETC.
 * The first rebuttal reason of Wikimachine was a grammar.
 * The second rebuttal reason of Wikimachine is hit number of google search.
 * The third rebuttal reason of Wikimachine is only repeated with JPOV without presenting evidence that is JPOV.
 * The forth rebuttal reason of Wikimachine is Original Reserch, though I have presented sources and he didn't presente.
 * The fifth rebuttal reason of Wikimachine is difference in Tsushima.

Wikimachine changes his opposite reasons one after another. He never presented neither evidence nor the source that we had to use the term of "control" or "administration". He is only obstructing consensus. This is a similar case. Wikimachine changes his opposite reasons one after another.



When there is an inconvenient user for Wikimachine, he recognizes them as Sockpapet. And, he does not try to check user, and to exclude specific ID by his original standard. Wikimachine is violating WP:OWN. --Opp2 02:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Opp2 & Jjok
 * Boldlyman & Unkwon(Opp2?)
 * Komdori & LactoseTI

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/1/0/0)

 * Reject. The Committee does not handle content disputes. Kirill 03:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Reject; content dispute. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept to look at user behavior. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept (Of course there is a content dispute, but there is also an obvious problem with achieving NPOV through mutual effort). Fred Bauder 18:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept, Look at all parties to see if a topic ban or other restrictions will be helpful as this dispute is longstanding. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept per Fred. James F. (talk) 12:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept, but only to look at user behaviour. SimonP 13:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

=Final decision = All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Wikipedia is not a battleground
1) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political or ideological struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive.


 * Passed 5-0 at 21:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.


 * Passed 5-0 at 21:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus
3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes, and is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale.


 * Passed 5-0 at 21:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
1) The dispute centers around the name and content of the Liancourt Rocks article, with subsidiary activity occurring on other articles related to Korean topics.


 * Passed 5-0 at 21:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikimachine
2) has engaged in a variety of disruptive behavior, including sustained edit-warring, personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith , refusal to work constructively with other editors , and repeated attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground along national lines.


 * Passed 5-0 at 21:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikimachine banned
1) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.


 * Passed 5-0 at 21:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Parties reminded
2) The parties are reminded that attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions, up to and including a ban from the project.


 * Passed 5-0 at 21:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks article probation
3) The Liancourt Rocks article is placed on article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned from the article and its talk page by any uninvolved administrator.  Any editor that continues to edit in violation of such a ban may be blocked, for up to a year in the event of repeated violations.  All blocks are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks.


 * Passed 8-0 at 00:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ''Superseded by motion, 28 September 2015
 * Superseded by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Contentious topic designation
All pages relating to the Liancourt Rocks are designated as a contentious topic.


 * Amended by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Rescinded by motion at 03:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Motion: Liancourt Rocks (September 2015)

 * 1) Remedy 3 of the Liancourt Rocks case is rescinded.
 * 2) In its place, Standard Discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for all pages relating to the Liancourt Rocks;
 * 3) Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while the article probation for the foregoing case was in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal.
 * Passed 8 to 0 by motion at 10:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Amended by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)

 * Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Motion: Removal of Unused Contentious Topics, Liancourt Rocks (October 2023)

 * Passed 7 to 1 with 1 abstention by motion at 03:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.
 * 04:29, 21 September 2007 User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked User:Good friend100 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (uncooperative editing on Liancourt Rocks (not literally a breach of the 1RR parole, but still.))
 * 15:40, 21 September 2007 User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked User:Melonbarmonster (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (revert-warring on Liancourt Rocks)
 * 15:29, 26 September 2007 User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked User:220.102.205.238 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (edit-warring on Liancourt Rocks)
 * 08:51, 27 September 2007 User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked User:AirFrance358 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (POV-pushing edit-warring on Liancourt Rocks)
 * 01:10, 30 September 2007 User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked User:122.135.115.231 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (edit-warring onLiancourt Rocks)
 * Wikimachine blocked for a year by me. Picaroon (t) 21:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 18:35, 7 November 2007 User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked User:Northwest1202 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (revert-warring on Liancourt Rocks. Article is under special zero tolerance rules against edit warring.)
 * 06:12, 25 November 2007 User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked User:209.89.38.7 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (inane edit-warring about names at Liancourt Rocks, see warning on that article.)
 * 17:10, 8 December 2007 User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked User:Caspian blue (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (edit-warring on Liancourt Rocks)
 * 17:10, 8 December 2007 User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked User:Opp2 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (edit-warring on Liancourt Rocks)
 * 02:49, 9 December 2007 User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked User:Forestfarmer (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring on Liancourt Rocks)
 * 02:51, 9 December 2007 User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked User:Clownface (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring on Liancourt Rocks)
 * 17:01, 30 December 2007 User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked User:Odst (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (continuing edit-warring on Liancourt Rocks)
 * 17:01, 30 December 2007 User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked User:Opp2 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (continuous edit warring on Liancourt Rocks)
 * 02:15, 1 March 2008 User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked User:QRST319 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (disruptive edits on Liancourt Rocks and related articles)
 * Wikimachine's block reset to one year from today, for repeated ban evasion through anon IPs, as per this AE report. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 10:07, 3 April 2008 User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked User:EPs (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (lame revert-warring on Liancourt Rocks)
 * 23:16, 16 July 2008 User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked User:Neogura (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (repeated lame edit-warring on Liancourt Rocks)
 * 23:25, 16 July 2008 User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked User:Bluski270 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Liancourt Rocks vandalism) (unblock | change block)
 * 23:58, 16 July 2008 User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked User:Nagesh97 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Liancourt Rocks vandalism)
 * 04:57, 17 July 2008 User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked User:Mjsheen (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (disruptive abuse of talk page at Talk:Liancourt Rocks)
 * 05:48, 17 July 2008 User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked User:Madhyama (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (POV vandalism on Liancourt Rocks. Apparently part of coordinated sock-/meatpuppet campaign)
 * 06:34, 17 July 2008 User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked User:Pakcw (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Liancourt Rocks vandalism)
 * 05:14, 29 August 2008 User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked User:Masonfamily (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (edit-warring and disruptive editing at Liancourt Rocks)
 * 05:18, 29 August 2008 User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked User:Macgruder (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (edit-warring on Liancourt Rocks) (unblock | change block)
 * 01:18, 30 August 2008 User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked User:Thinoo (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (continued disruptive edits on Liancourt Rocks-related pages)
 * 08:21, 14 April 2009 User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked User:Mydoctor93 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (revert-warring on Liancourt Rocks. Article is under special zero tolerance rules against edit warring.)
 * 08:21, 14 April 2009 User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked User:Oda Mari (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (revert-warring on Liancourt Rocks. Article is under special zero tolerance rules against edit warring.)
 * 06:25, July 18, 2009 User:Nihonjoe blocked User:Cherry Blossom OK (account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (1RR violation per Talk:Liancourt Rocks dispute probation terms)
 * 17:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC) - User:Nihonjoe blocked User:Historiographer (account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Enforcing 1RR per WP:ARBLIANCOURT)