Misrepresenting administrator scope 

Please take care not to misrepresent how administrators are expected to act, or any other policy in the future - administrators do not make content decisions. What you quoted was particular only to discretionary sanctions which are only applicable in certain arbitration cases. You view has therefore been moved again to the talk page.   

Please take care not to engage in misrepresentation - you are not outside of this dispute, and your quote was particular to discretionary sanctions. Administrators do not make content decisions. See below. Please also do not change my view - I suggest you revert your latest edit - failure to do so will result in administrator intervention for deliberate misrepresentation, misuse of the dispute resolution process and vandalism.   
 

You are welcome to your view, but you are not welcome to misrepresent administrator policy or to change my view.   

You have engaged in misrepresentation, perhaps out of misunderstanding. Administrators are only allowed to make discretionary sanctions in arbitration cases where they are explicitly allowed to - Kirill's comment was in relation to discretionary sanctions only (check the context of his comment; the heading under which he made it). FloNight's comment is in relation to administrator enforcement in general, which is why the SAB remedy has been proposed in the homeopathy case.   

It is only disruptive where there is edit-warring - that is, edit-warring against consensus (separate policy on conduct). NO administrator has made blocks for violations of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR because they can be desysopped for making a rulings on content - for which they do not have the authority. Would you like arbitrator clarification?   

Did you read what I said above? NO administrator has made blocks for violations of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR because they can be desysopped for making a rulings on content - for which they do not have the authority. See also: . 
Discussing content issues at a conduct Rfc is inappropriate - we have a clear distinction between Article Rfc and Rfc on user conduct for that reason. What is acceptable is pointing editors to an Article RFC so editors can comment on content (and hence address content issues), and that is where discussion of those issues belong in the dispute resolution process.   

So please modify your view so that there is no misrepresentation of policy/norms as it has been sanctioned by the Committee in the past (and admins have been sanctioned when using their position to make a ruling on content). Article RFC is where comment is made on the content policies you have quoted - you are welcome to direct a link to the discussion there in your view so that it is dealt with.   

It seems you don't get the point - it's ok if you think it should be enforceable, but it is completely irresponsible to misrepresent policy by saying that it must be enforcible when it is forbidden, and engaging in misrepresentation in using an arbitrator's view on a separate matter to be absolute on all matters. It contributes to the confusion editors have about Wikipedia norms and policies, and it is unacceptable. Therefore, I am referring it directly to the Committee.   

The assumption of bad faith is on your part, for you clearly have not read - NO administrator has made blocks for violations of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR because they can be desysopped for making a rulings on content - for which they do not have the authority. You seem to have a disregard for due procedure and norms. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvoca