It is hard to give you a real answer here, as we're talking hypotheticals. To start, we aren't interested in enforcing a rigid orthodoxy that there is only one answer, and one possible interpretation of events. There are of course controversies within the discipline, and we aren't going to be removing a minority view on a given topic as long as it is one that is nevertheless seriously argued within the academy (and preferably, of course, presented in a contextualized manner regarding that controversy). So... yes, where there is a clear consensus in the academy, we would remove responses which go against it, because they simply do not represent current historiography. If you were to answer a question, say, about Katyn by explaining it was committed by the Nazis who framed the Soviets for it, we would ban you. But if you were to stake about a position on the intentionality of the Holodomor, there is absolutely debate about whether, and to what extent, the famine in Ukraine was manufactured versus the result of inept policies and planning (although we would ban you if you denied there was one at all...).

As for "non-communist sources", well, that is too vague to comment on. Are the sources academically rigorous? Do they reflect an actual strain of current historiography that actual academics argue? Then we don't necessarily care whether the author is non-Communist, or unironically goes by the nickname "Red".

So in short, we're less interested in "your point of view", per sé, than your ability to reflect legitimate scholarship.

Can I ask why you'd self-describe as a 'tankie'? I would have thought from your point of view it would be perjorative.