blocking user shoemaker's holiday persistently insists that administrators can make rulings on content due to blocking policy stating persistently violating other policies or guidelines where there is a consensus among uninvolved users that the violation is disruptive and due to kirill stating he continually pushes for his perceived content violations to be discussed at rfcu and refuses to take article rfc i've pointed out that kirill's comment was in context of discretionary sanctions while blocking policy should not be read to the letter but in its spirit he refuses to accept the fact that administrators only issue blocks for disruptive conduct like edit warring against consensus and not for perceived violations of wp v wp npov and wp nor and that and insists he is correct because others who were involved in the dispute of the rfc endorsed his summary i've informed him that misrepresentation is unacceptable and giving editors the wrong impression about things like this leads to editors confusion about basic policy can you please clarify intervene